R5 — Recognize "better marketing copy" is the wrong strategy for a credence-good market; solution is liability + verifiability + in-group reputation, not copy

Rule: "Marketing aversion is structural, therefore better marketing assets are the answer" is the wrong read of Brief #1 ([[research-brief-psychology-gc-marketing-aversion-may-2026]]). The structural cause of GC marketing aversion is the credence-good problem ([[dulleck-kerschbamer-sutter-2011-liability-verifiability-credence-goods]]: "allowing sellers to build up reputation has little influence"). Better copy does not solve a credence-good problem. Liability, verifiability, and in-group reputation do.

Why: In Dulleck-Kerschbamer-Sutter's lab finding, liability does the work of producing market efficiency; reputation alone does not. Trying to outwrite the problem is a category error — no copy quality can substitute for liability commitment + verifiable threshold + in-group standing.

How to apply:

• Candid content output should optimize for being shared by the in-group, not for being persuasive to a cold reader.
• Test for content quality: would a peer-coach implementer share this with their cohort? Would a BILD committee member cite this in conversation? If not, the content is in the wrong frame regardless of its copy quality.
• Stop investing in "more persuasive landing pages" as a primary lever. Start investing in liability-bearing engagement structures (clear scope, milestone billing tied to inspectable deliverables, references prospects can call) and in-group asset production (peer-cited case studies, named-byline writing in trade press, speaking slots in HBA venues).

Cross-link: Existing [[rule-concede-credence-good-problem-make-marketing-inspectable]] from Brief #1 is the foundation; this rule sharpens it by specifying what solves the credence-good problem (liability, not copy).