Here is the question and results:

http://news.sky.com/story/1084991/britons-trust-google-as-mu...

As you can see any conclusions you can draw about Google are pointless since it was specifically benchmarked against politicians, banks etc which are universally disliked.

For convenience.

Question: "To what extent do the following have your best interests at heart?"

NHS: 37%

Police: 26%

Charities: 21%

Supermarkets: 19%

Google: 17%

Religious institutions: 17%

Building societies: 15%

Local authorities: 10%

Private healthcare firms: 9%

Facebook: 9%

Lawyers: 8%

Banks: 7%

Media: 6%

Utility companies: 6%

Insurance companies: 5%

Politicians: 3%

I can't believe banks scored as high as 7%

I think those are the people that work for a bank. In urban parts of GB probably more than 7%.

And I'm actually surprised that Building Societies scored so low, but maybe I've got some weird bias.

I bank with Nationwide who are supposed to be a building society. In my experience they're in every way just like a bank.

I suspect the banks would pay a lot of money to find out who those 7% are...

I bank at a credit union [1]. I specifically remember one year where they sent a letter saying roughly "We made too much money. Your account has been credited with your share of the excess." Of course, that's what a credit union implies but they're a bank to me so I'd be in the 7%.

[1] https://www.deltacommunitycu.com/

I think the UK equivalent would perhaps be a "building society" - which are on that list at 15%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_society

Reads like that old joke "heaven is where the police is British and hell is where..." Ah, never mind.

The only wat this is true is if 17% of people hold stock in Google. Corporations are I believe legally obliged to only have their stock holders interests at heart.

If this survey measures anythings it's just how much goodwill exists toward various organizations.

Publicly traded American companies are obligated under fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of their shareholders. They are not, however, required to have _only_ their stock holders interests at heart.

Hmm I should read up more about the legal obligations. Thanks.

However by that definition it seems to be that if they are operating in the best interests of the shareholders they can't act in anyones elses interests if that causes any expenditure.

Obviously I'm not saying they can't act in the interests of others, but only incidentally and when it coincides with the interests of the shareholders.

Quite. If a company wants to maximise shareholder value then it needs to appreciate that its shareholders may value more than money.

Their stock holders may have customers interests at heart. That is how a good business works.

Honestly, I don't have the problem with the commodification of my data - if they can make money from it and provide me with things that are useful, so be it. However, I don't think many people really understand what's happening.

Presumably with the caveats: They don't leak your data, and they don't use it in any of the multitude of legal manners that you probably haven't considered but would disapprove of if you had considered them. Oh, and that the data doesn't incriminate you in something you didn't do. Basically, you're relying on a combination of the good nature of a morally neutral corporation, and luck. You may be lucky, you may not.

If I can add: It shouldn't incriminate you in something you did do, as well.

because what is and isn't legal can often come down to who's taking their medication in our respective governments.

I like the Guardian's take on this:

"After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, custard sales went through the roof as people sought refuge in nostalgia"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2...

Missing "the glaringly obvious" -- custard is actual comfort food not just a yearning for past childhood.

Comfort food is comforting because it is nostalgic.

Or because it is rich in carbohydrates and fats, and super aromatic.

That's either a disturbing blindness or an exceedingly good PR department.

Either way, it's disturbing blindness.

Ok, so what about the percentages of people who positively vote for political parties? Do you mock them too?

I'd say 17% is pretty decent.

In the context of how others scored I would say 17% is fairly decent as well. However, most Hacker Newsers make up a small percentage of a standard "UK consumer." I thought this number was incredibly low given that most people's interaction with Google would be as the organisation with the stated intent "to organise the world's data" - not as a corporation that makes money from advertising.

With that said, Google & Starbucks have been front and center in the mainstream news a lot lately in the UK with regards to "tax avoidance" claims.

Who is "mocking" anyone here? I think it's a shame, but I agree inevitable that anyone could be so misinformed as to believe that Google is altruistic.

17% is quite decent. I wonder how many think the same about Apple? It will be interesting to see the results of next year's survey.

I see a definite down-trend in trusting Google, but mostly among techies.

"17% of U.K. consumers trust Google, the same as trust religious institutions"

This bit doesn't surprise me much. Many people I've talked to are rational, even disliking religion.

Personally, I view religion in the UK as a relatively harmless social activity favoured by the elderly - a bit like bowls.

Why do they put large categories such as 'Supermarkets' and 'Banks' next to specific companies like 'Google' or 'Facebook'. Surely 'Search engines' or 'Social media sites' would be more appropriate?

Because for most people, 'search engine' means Google; 'social media' means Facebook and Twitter.

Because stupid linkbait survey.

On a side note 83% of UK consumers are not childishly naive ...

I am both astounded and encouraged by the fact that the NHS has such a high trust rating.

I wonder how that could factor into the ongoing American health care debate.

Really? I'm shocked and horrified that it's so low, same with the police.

Their entire purpose is the health of the nation. They have no other stakeholders. They should score close to 100%.

What do those 63% believe is at the heart of the NHS, and why? How can we fix it?

All that said, I can't imagine any private company scoring anywhere near as high as 37%, regardless of what their mission might be.

For me, the problem is creeping privatisation. Were the NHS better funded and supported by government I would feel a lot more like it had my interests at heart.

The problem for me isn't the NHS on its own, which I think is great ... but rather political interference diluting the mission and redirecting it for economic and populist ends.

Has anybody found the source Case Study? It's not on the mentioned companies websites.

Not specifically for this source but Ipsos MORI have been asking similar questions for quite a while, the latest results are here: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchi...

If the subject of perceptions of trust is of interest ... I've (mostly finished) a blog post about these trust perceptions which re-presents some of the Ipsos Mori stats in support of an attempt to plumb the implications for politics and the projection of power in the UK : https://www.bel-epa.com/posts/a-legislature-of-lemons.xml

It is obviously a broad based study. So here are a few of the other questions:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/future-britai...

I don't believe the full case study has been published yet.

And most importantly the raw data and methodology...

That is a rather vague question. Google has 50K hearts.