Last day, I went to buy a small appliance as a gift, there were two brands- one was an instore brand and another a very well known brand. The in-store brand product looked very good with more features than the national branded product. At the similar price point , the instore brand looked a very good buy.
When my wife asked my " expert" opinion, I urged her to go for the national brand despite the fact that I knew that the private label brand would have been a better choice.
On introspection, I found that what I was doing by choosing the national brand was risk-reduction. That is what branding is all about isn't it ? The national brand offered a much less featured product so on a value calculation, the private label offered more value. But as a consumer, the national brand offered less perceived risk.
So why did I as a consumer felt that the national brand offered less risk compared to the private label ?
Firstly, the brand was reputed ( familiar) and its legacy gave me comfort that it would not fail me in terms of performance. Secondly, as a consumer, I had a positive experience with the brand which made me trust the brand more than the private label. Thirdly since the product was an electrical appliance, the perceived risk is more compared to another product category.
So for marketers, creating trust for a new brand is not easy especially in product categories have high perceived risk ( common sense !) . And brand's role is that of risk-reduction. And as a consumer, I can say that for me a brand would be trusted if it is familiar and has perceived product expertise.
What do you think are the drivers for brand trust as a consumer ?