Challenge your assumptions to bridge the trust gap

In financial services, if an acquisition offer is pulling, it’s deemed a success. No one in is upset that the numbers look good.

And that’s short sighted. Because there is nuance is what those numbers mean.

In categories like credit cards, auto insurance, checking, and loans, we often hear “offer always wins.” Yes, a strong incentive or rate will reliably attract attention and drive response. We’re not challenging that. We’re asking a different question: what happens to trust, fit, and behavior after the initial “yes”?

At Shiny, we work from a simple belief: trust is what people are really buying when they choose a financial product. And to be trusted, you have to first be helpful. They’re buying the trust that you understand their situation, you’re steering them toward the right product, and that the relationship will still feel right when life changes. When you put the right product into the right person’s hands, you help them and you earn the kind of long-term, sticky behavior that’s important.

To understand the world those decisions are happening in, we look to Finsights, Shiny’s proprietary study of U.S. adults. Finsights set out to understand how people think and feel about financial services—and what they expect from providers. It reveals the pressures and mindsets that shape how people approach money and financial institutions.

The backdrop to your acquisition campaign is cluttered with concern:

–      45% of respondents are concerned about inflation

–      37% struggle to save money

–       88% cite at least one challenge with money.

When they rate their own financial skills

–      39% say they’re “average”

–      18% say they “know the basics”

–      10% say they “know very little”

Your offers are landing in that environment.

Instead of treating “offer always wins” as the whole story, there are a few quiet assumptions worth challenging.

Assumption 1: if the offer wins, the job was done well

On acquisition teams, this is perfectly understandable. The brief is clear: drive volume at a target CPA. A great offer does exactly that. In auto insurance, a rate cut is incredibly effective. In cards, the right combination of bonus, earn rate, and offer will outperform almost anything else.

The point isn’t to argue with that reality. It’s to recognize what performance can’t tell you on its own.

Finsights shows an audience where almost nine in ten people are dealing with at least one significant money challenge, nearly half are worried about inflation, and over a third struggle to save. [1] Within that, you have both financially savvy, well-researched prospects and people who are overwhelmed and just trying to relieve pressure.

A strong offer will attract both groups.

So the question is: does high response prove that we gave people the help they need—or simply that a clear financial offer makes it easier for more people to take the first step? ”

Challenging this assumption doesn’t mean weakening the offer. It means:

• Being explicit about who the product is really for
• Framing the numbers in the context of real-world pressures (like rising costs or difficulty saving)
• Designing onboarding and early communications to reinforce, “This is how this product helps you,” not just, “Here are the terms”
• Giving prospective customers a clear, low-friction path to a different product if they realize this one isn’t the right fit

You keep the performance. You add a clearer path to long-term fit and trust.

Assumption 2: more self-service features always equal better experience

Most of our Clients actively push self-service in their platforms. That’s rational: it’s more efficient, it’s what many customers say they want, and digital tools are now central to how people manage their money.

Finsights backs up that centrality. When asked what they use to manage their finances, 64% of respondents choose digital wallets like PayPal, Venmo, and Apple Pay—the single most commonly cited method. Digital is – of course – not an edge case.

On the flipside, Finsights also shows that when people interact online or through apps with their primary financial services provider, many experience friction. They told us it’s hard to get answers, there’s too many chatbots, the digital experiences are confusing, they worry about whether their money is safe, and they have difficulty telling which products they need. Only 46% say “none of these” when shown a list of common issues. On the flip side of that, what that really means is that more than half of users have challenges with your digital experiences.

At the same time, only 8% of respondents call themselves financial experts, and 28% place themselves at the low end of the skill spectrum (“know the basics” or “know very little”). Many of those same people are the ones you’re asking to self-serve.

The business goal—more self-service—is sound. The opportunity is to design self-service so it feels like real help, not just more choice. That looks like:

• Fewer near-identical options on a screen, with clearer “best for” cues
• Flows that explain why one path might make more sense than another, in plain language
• Easy ways to ask a quick question when confidence dips, without abandoning the digital experience

You still get scale. But you build confidence and trust in the process.

Assumption 3: the “average” customer is fine

It’s easy to imagine an “average” customer who’s generally fine: making decisions rationally, using products as intended, and only occasionally hitting a rough patch. That mental model can subtly shape everything from journey maps to creative briefs.

Finsights suggests the reality is more loaded.

As noted, 88% of respondents report at least one challenge with money. Many worry about inflation and struggle to save. And when asked about their role in household finances, 52% say they are responsible for all financial decisions in their household.

Put that together and you see a common pattern: one person carrying the financial decision load, under real pressure, without feeling especially expert.

That doesn’t mean everyone is in crisis. It means that stress, confusion, and second-guessing aren’t “edge” cases – they’re everyday conditions for a lot of people.

When you challenge the assumption that “most people are basically fine,” you start to make different choices in how you communicate and design:

• You write for someone who may be tired and distracted, not informed and focused
• You give concrete examples and scenarios instead of abstract benefits
• You define what a “good outcome” looks like for them, not just for your portfolio

The goal is to drive performance by being more helpful to the reality people are living.

Challenge assumptions in a way that supports performance

Challenging assumptions shouldn’t slow you down or undermine what’s working. Done right, it sharpens the brief and gives your teams clearer guardrails.

Two simple practices help:

• Start with sharper questions, not just targets. Ask: What specific financial pressure or decision is this helping with? How confident does this audience feel when they’re making that decision? Those questions don’t necessarily need to change your target outcome. They change how you interpret success and what you build around the desired action.
• Anchor every improvement in help, not just lift. When you tweak a message, change a flow, or add a feature, be explicit: how does this help someone understand, decide, or follow through more easily? If you can’t answer that, it’s a red flag.

The pattern we see is consistent: when brands make it easier for people to feel informed and supported, performance follows—and relationships are more likely to last.

In cluttered categories like financial services, your competitors can match offers quickly. What’s harder to copy is a brand that consistently shows up with real help that supports real needs.

That’s what “grounded in reality” really means: not pulling back from strong offers or self-service, but designing them with a clear view of the pressures, confidence levels, and decision loads your audience is actually carrying.