The 70% Problem: Why Your Brand Is an Outsider

Trust isn’t collapsing. It’s retreating. And the brands that understand the difference will own the next decade.

There’s a number buried in the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer that should stop every marketer mid-sentence.

70%.

Seven in ten people say they are either unwilling or hesitant to trust anyone whose values, facts, problem-solving approaches, or cultural background differ from theirs.

Not 70% of extremists. Not 70% of a fringe demographic. 70% of people, across 28 countries, across every income bracket, across every age group.

Edelman calls this “insularity.” It’s the latest in a sequence they’ve been tracking for two decades: from polarisation, to grievance, to insularity. Each stage is a tighter circle. Each stage is a smaller room.

And if you’re a brand, you’re probably not in the room.

Trust Isn’t Dying. It’s Moving House.

The instinct is to read the Edelman data as a trust crisis. It isn’t. People haven’t lost the capacity to trust. They’ve relocated it.

Trust in national government leaders: down 16 points. Trust in major news organisations: down 11 points. Trust in foreign business leaders: down 6 points.

Trust in “my employer”: up. Trust in coworkers: up 11 points. Trust in neighbours, family, and friends: up 11 points.

People aren’t trusting less. They’re trusting closer.

This isn’t a crisis of faith. It’s a controlled withdrawal. When the world feels unstable, when economic anxiety is high (two-thirds of employees worry that trade policies will hurt their employer), when misinformation is everywhere (65% fear foreign actors are injecting falsehoods into national media), the rational response is to pull your trust back to the people you can see, the people you know, the people who share your lived experience.

The income dimension makes this sharper. Low-income respondents see institutions as 18 points less competent than high-income respondents do, and 15 points less ethical. That’s not a perception gap. That’s two different worlds living in the same country. The people who can least afford to trust the system are the people the system asks to trust it the most.

And the future isn’t helping. Only 32% of respondents globally believe the next generation will be better off. In France, that number is 6%. In Germany, 8%. In the United States, 21%, down 9 points in a single year. When people stop believing the future will be better, they stop investing in the institutions that are supposed to build it.

The institution hasn’t failed. The perimeter has changed.

The Algorithm in the Room

Here’s where it gets interesting. At the same moment that people are retreating from anyone whose values differ from theirs, they’re outsourcing an increasing number of decisions to an algorithm.

64% of consumers believe that someone proficient with AI can equal or surpass a doctor in at least one health-related task. Among the 35% who use AI for health management, the top reasons are: it’s nonjudgmental, it’s easy to understand, and it’s sensitive to personal constraints.

Read that again. The qualities that make AI trustworthy are the same qualities that make a person untrustworthy in an insular world: no values you can disagree with, no cultural background to reject, no problem-solving approach that might differ from yours.

AI doesn’t trigger insularity because it has no social identity.

That’s not a bug. That’s the product feature. In a world where 70% of people won’t trust anyone different from them, the one thing they’ll trust is the thing that isn’t anyone at all.

The health data is the sharpest illustration of this. People aren’t turning to AI for health decisions because it’s more accurate than a doctor. They’re turning to it because a doctor has a tone, a cultural background, a set of assumptions about your life that might not match yours. The doctor might judge your diet, question your lifestyle, dismiss your concerns as trivial. AI won’t. It will give you the same information, with the same patience, regardless of who you are or how many times you’ve asked.

In an insular world, that neutrality isn’t a limitation. It’s the entire value proposition.

The Competence Trap

There’s a paradox underneath this. People simultaneously overestimate what AI can do and fear what it will take from them.

54% of low-income respondents believe generative AI will leave them behind rather than benefit them. 44% of middle-income respondents agree. Yet those same people are using AI for health decisions, for information gathering, for practical problem-solving.

This is the competence trap. AI is useful enough to use but threatening enough to fear. The gap between those two reactions is where the real marketing opportunity lives.

The income dimension here is critical. The people who fear AI the most are the same people who can least afford to ignore it. Low-income respondents are more likely to believe AI will replace their jobs, more likely to feel excluded from the AI economy, and more likely to feel that the benefits of AI flow to people who are already wealthy. But they’re also more likely to use AI for practical tasks, because when you can’t afford a lawyer, a tutor, or a specialist, an algorithm that’s “good enough” becomes indispensable.

This creates a trust paradox that most brands haven’t figured out. The audience that needs AI the most trusts it the least. And the audience that trusts AI the most needs it the least. If you’re designing an AI-mediated brand experience, you have to earn trust from people who are predisposed to distrust you, while not patronising the people who already trust you.

If you’re a brand using AI to interact with customers, the question isn’t “how do we make AI more impressive?” The question is “how do we make AI feel like it’s on their side?” The Edelman data answers that directly: nonjudgmental, easy to understand, sensitive to constraints. Not smarter. Not faster. Safer.

Four Doors, One Room

Here’s what the Edelman data doesn’t tell you: the 70% isn’t evenly distributed.

People don’t all respond to insularity in the same way. They respond according to the psychological architecture that governs how they see the world. And if you understand that architecture, you understand which door they retreated through, and which one you can use to follow them in.

I’ve spent the last decade building a framework called STAR, which maps human behaviour onto four core psychological types. It’s built on seven established theories of motivation, personality, and decision-making. And what it reveals about the Edelman insularity data is that the tightening circle has a structure. It’s not random. It’s predictable.

Some people retreat into belonging. When the world feels hostile, they pull their community closer. They trust the people they’ve shared a meal with, not the people who’ve shared a LinkedIn post. Their circle is defined by relationship. These are the people who say “I don’t care what the data says, I care what my mates say.” They’re not anti-evidence. They’re pro-connection. Evidence delivered by a stranger is just noise. Evidence delivered by a friend is gospel.

Some people retreat into certainty. They scan for data that confirms what they already believe and reject anything that doesn’t fit. Their circle is defined by agreement. These are the people who read three articles on the same topic and only share the one that matches their existing view. They’re not ignorant. They’re efficient. In a world of information overload, filtering for agreement is a survival strategy.

Some people retreat into autonomy. They don’t want to be told what to think by anyone, whether it’s a government, a brand, or an algorithm. Their circle is defined by independence. These are the people who instinctively distrust any message that starts with “studies show” or “experts agree.” They’re not conspiracy theorists. They’re autonomy-maximisers. The moment they feel someone is trying to influence them, they push back, not because the message is wrong, but because the act of persuasion itself feels like a threat.

Some people retreat into security. They’ve seen institutions fail, promises break, and systems collapse. They trust what has proven safe. Their circle is defined by track record. These are the people who still bank with the same institution their parents used, who choose the brand they’ve always chosen, who would rather pay more for something reliable than risk something new. They’re not resistant to change. They’re resistant to uncertainty. There’s a difference.

Same instinct. Four different expressions. And here’s the part that matters for your brand: the door you knock on determines whether you get in.

The community-first message works for the belonging type. The data-backed, evidence-heavy message works for the certainty type. The “we don’t tell you what to think” message works for the autonomy type. The “we’ve been here for 20 years and we’re not going anywhere” message works for the security type.

Generic messaging works for none of them.

This is why the Edelman data is both a warning and a blueprint. The 70% isn’t a wall. It’s a series of doors. The brands that learn to identify which psychological type they’re speaking to, and which door to use, will be the ones that get inside the room.

What the Brands Inside the Room Know

The Edelman data contains a finding that’s easy to miss if you’re scanning for AI stats or political trust numbers. When respondents were asked which institutions they trust, “my employer” came out on top.

Not because employers have suddenly become more virtuous. Because the criteria have changed. In an insular world, the institution you trust is the one that feels like an extension of your in-group. Your employer pays you. Your coworkers share your daily reality. Your neighbourhood is the geography of your belonging.

The data goes deeper. 42% of employees say they would rather switch departments than report to a manager whose values differ from their own. Think about that. People would rather lose their professional network, their established relationships, and their career momentum than work closely with someone who sees the world differently. That’s not a preference. That’s a psychological imperative.

And the expectation on leadership is shifting too. 75% say CEOs should consult people with different values and backgrounds when making business decisions. 74% say CEOs should constructively engage with groups who criticise or distrust the company. The public doesn’t want leaders who take sides. They want leaders who broker cooperation.

This is the strategic playbook:

1. Community is the trust architecture. Not amenities. Not pricing. Not brand positioning. The sense that “people like me are here.” The student accommodation brand that activates shared identity among residents doesn’t need to earn trust from the outside. It’s already inside the room.

2. AI needs a social strategy, not just a technical one. If AI earns trust by being nonjudgmental and sensitive to constraints, then the brands that deploy AI well will be the ones that design it to feel like a member of the in-group, not an authority figure talking down. The best AI interaction is the one that feels like a helpful neighbour, not a corporate chatbot.

3. The 70% is a moat. If most people won’t trust outsiders, the brands already embedded in their community have a structural advantage. The new entrant has to break through a psychological wall that the incumbent never had to build. This is why community-led brands in student accommodation, build-to-rent, and co-living spaces are outperforming their traditional competitors. They’re not better at marketing. They’re better at belonging.

4. Neutrality beats advocacy. When responding to a divisive social issue, 35% say they want brands to encourage cooperation without taking a side. Only 28% want brands to support the position that’s true to their values. Only 13% want brands to support their position. The audience doesn’t want a brand that agrees with them. They want a brand that brings people together. That’s a fundamental shift from the “take a stand” era of brand marketing.

The Tightening Circle

Edelman has been tracking the evolution of public trust for 26 years. The trajectory is unmistakable.

In 2005, trust shifted from authorities to peers. In 2016, a mass-class divide opened. In 2023, people were navigating polarisation. In 2025, grievance emerged. In 2026, insularity.

Each stage is the same instinct, expressed more precisely: when the world is uncertain, shrink the circle of trust. Include fewer people. Demand more similarity. Reject more difference.

This isn’t irrational. It’s a perfectly logical response to a world that feels increasingly hostile. But it has consequences.

The information dimension is particularly stark. Only 39% of respondents consume news from ideologically different sources at least once a week. The other 61% are getting their information from sources that already agree with them. In an insular world, the information diet narrows at the same rate as the social circle. People don’t just stop trusting outsiders. They stop hearing them.

Nearly 7 in 10 fear that institutional leaders are deliberately misleading the public. Not that leaders are wrong. Not that leaders are incompetent. That they are deliberately misleading. That’s not a trust deficit. That’s a conspiracy-grade suspicion applied to mainstream institutions. And when that suspicion exists, every message from every institution is filtered through a lens of “what are they really trying to do to me?”

If you’re a brand, the consequence is that generic, broadcast, “something for everyone” messaging doesn’t just underperform. It actively fails. In an insular world, the message that tries to reach everyone reaches no one, because the audience has already decided that if you’re not specifically for them, you’re not for them at all.

The brands that win in this environment are the ones that can say, credibly: “We are for you. Not for everyone. For you.”

That’s not a segmentation strategy. It’s an identity strategy. And in a world of tightening circles, it’s the only one that works.

The Uncomfortable Question

There’s a version of this analysis that leads to a comfortable conclusion: just build community, deploy AI thoughtfully, learn which door to knock on, and the trust will follow. That’s true, but it’s incomplete.

The uncomfortable question is this: if 70% of people won’t trust anyone different from them, what happens to the brands that are different? The ones that challenge, that provoke, that ask their audience to grow?

Edelman’s data suggests an answer: those brands will struggle. Not because they’re wrong, but because the audience isn’t in a mood to be challenged. They’re in a mood to be confirmed.

But there’s a deeper discomfort here. If every brand retreats into the room its audience already occupies, who introduces new ideas? Who bridges the gap? Who says “I know this isn’t what you already believe, but it’s worth considering”?

Edelman’s data shows that 82% of respondents want their employer to promote a shared identity and culture, reminding people of what unites them rather than divides them. 81% want their employer to build teams that require people with different values to work together. The public isn’t asking for echo chambers. They’re asking for managed diversity, difference with guardrails, disagreement within a framework of shared purpose.

That’s the opportunity. Not to agree with your audience. Not to challenge them. But to create the structure within which disagreement becomes productive rather than threatening.

The smartest brands will find a way to thread the needle: to be inside the room without being inside the echo chamber. To share values without reinforcing bias. To be trusted without being predictable.

That’s not easy. But in a world where trust is the scarcest resource, it’s the only thing worth building.

My Predictions for the Next Three Years

If the Edelman data is right, and I believe it is, then the AI landscape is about to reorganise itself along the same lines as trust: inward, toward the tools and platforms already inside your circle.

Google wins. Not because Gemini is the best model, but because it doesn’t need to earn your trust from scratch. It’s already inside Search, Gmail, Docs, Android, Chrome. It’s infrastructure, not a personality. The Edelman framework says people trust what’s already embedded in their daily reality. Google is embedded in everyone’s daily reality. Gemini just shows up inside the thing you already use.

Apple wins by the same logic. Apple Intelligence doesn’t feel like a separate AI. It feels like your phone got smarter. That’s the ultimate “no social identity” play. You don’t have to trust a new entity. You just trust your phone.

Meta wins by invisibility. AI embedded in WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Messenger isn’t a standalone product. It’s a feature. The insularity filter doesn’t activate because there’s no new social identity to evaluate.

Anthropic struggles. Not because Claude is bad, but because Anthropic has built its entire brand around a values-based identity: the responsible AI company, the safety-first company, the company that cares about alignment. That’s a cultural background. And the Edelman data says 70% of people won’t trust anyone whose values or cultural background differ from theirs. Anthropic has given itself a cultural background. It will attract the in-group that shares those values and repel everyone else.

OpenAI carries the weight. ChatGPT is so culturally dominant that it is the social identity of AI for most people. That’s enormous brand power, but it’s also a liability. ChatGPT absorbs all the anxiety about AI: the job fears, the competence trap, the suspicion that institutional leaders are deliberately misleading the public. It’s the face of the thing that 54% of low-income respondents fear will leave them behind.

The prediction is simple: AI becomes infrastructure, not identity. The winners are the ones that become invisible. The losers are the ones that became someone.

The same logic applies to marketing. If the Edelman data is the map, here’s where the industry is headed.

The death of generic messaging. This is the most certain prediction. If 70% won’t trust anyone different from them, the brand that tries to speak to everyone speaks to no one. The next three years will see the collapse of “something for everyone” positioning. Brands will be forced to choose: which psychological type are you for? Not as a segmentation exercise, but as an identity commitment. The brands that refuse to choose will watch their trust scores decline across every segment simultaneously.

Community becomes the primary acquisition channel. Not SEO, not paid social, not influencer marketing. Community. The Edelman data says trust is migrating to “people like me.” The brands that build communities of people like their customers don’t need to advertise. The community does the work. In student accommodation and build-to-rent, this is already happening. In every other sector, it’s about to.

The employer brand eclipses the consumer brand. Trust in “my employer” is higher than trust in any other institution. The next three years will see smart companies realise that their most powerful brand asset isn’t their external marketing. It’s their internal culture. The employees who trust the company become the ambassadors who earn trust from the outside. The companies that invest in employer brand over consumer brand will outperform.

AI-mediated discovery replaces search-mediated discovery. This is the “Invisible First Click” thesis, and the Edelman data validates it. If 64% trust AI to match a doctor, they’ll trust it to recommend a product, a service, a place to live. The next three years will see the consideration set formed before the website visit. The brands that aren’t optimised for AI recommendation won’t lose traffic. They’ll never be considered.

The end of “take a stand.” 35% want brands to encourage cooperation without taking sides. Only 13% want brands to support their position. The era of brands picking sides on divisive issues is ending. The brands that survive will be the ones that create frameworks for productive disagreement, not the ones that tell their audience what to think.

The credibility moat. In a world where nearly 7 in 10 fear institutional leaders are deliberately misleading them, credibility becomes the scarcest resource. The brands that consistently deliver what they promise, that don’t overclaim, that don’t manipulate, will build trust compounds that competitors can’t replicate. The next three years will see credibility become more valuable than visibility.

Local beats global. Trust in foreign business leaders is down 6 points. Trust in neighbours is up 11. The direction is clear: local wins. The next three years will see a resurgence of local brands, local communities, local identity. The global brand that doesn’t feel local will be treated as an outsider.

David Chadderton is the creator of the STAR Framework and the author of The STAR Framework: Rewriting the Rules of Consumer Engagement (NYC Big Book Award 2025), The STAR Operating System, and Dear Algorithm, It’s Not Me, It’s You. By day, a Chief Marketing Officer. By night, a behavioural science obsessive who writes The Unoptimised Human because he can’t stop thinking about why people do what they do.