Only 5% of Americans call corporate statements fully credible

A new Resonant Advisory Group report says corporate credibility in the U.S. is thin and slipping, with just 5% of Americans calling company statements completely credible. The survey also finds AI has become the least credible topic in corporate communication as companies lean on it to explain layoffs and other hard decisions.

Why it matters: - Corporate credibility is a business risk, not just a communications problem. - The report says weak credibility can make layoffs, crisis response and leadership messaging less effective when companies most need people to believe them. - The findings suggest transparency and plain language may matter more than polish in moments of pressure.

What happened: - Resonant Advisory Group released a report titled “The Credibility Deficit: Why Business Starts Behind, and How It Earns Its Way Back One Interaction at a Time.” - The report is based on a national survey of 1,000 U.S. adults conducted by DHM Research in partnership with Verasight. - Only 5% of Americans said corporate statements are “completely credible.” - 63% said crisis communications have become less credible over the past year. - Across nine industries tested, none reached 10% “completely credible” ratings. - AI emerged as the least credible topic in corporate communication.

The details: - 48% of respondents said AI in business operations is not credible. - AI adoption tied with “responsibility to shareholders to be profitable” as the least credible explanation for a hard business decision, at 27% each. - Inflation and rising costs were the most accepted explanation for layoffs, with 45% calling that credible. - In seven leadership trait matchups, respondents chose the steadier option in six. - Practical leadership beat visionary leadership 74% to 26%. - An employee- and stability-focused approach beat a tech-forward one 85% to 15%, the widest margin in the survey. - The only exception was visibility: a visible, socially present CEO beat a low-visibility one 57% to 43%. - The report groups credibility into four channels: company conduct, industry standing, societal engagement and community investment. - 79% said a company earns more credibility by disclosing bad news before others expose it. - 57% said one company's poorly explained crisis hurts how they view the entire industry. - The share saying crisis statements are less credible rises with income, from 54% among people earning under $50,000 to 70% among those earning $150,000 or more. - The share also rises with news consumption, from 46% among infrequent news consumers to 65% among people who follow business news daily or most days.

Between the lines: - The report draws a distinction between trust and credibility. - Trust is described as a long-term asset built over years. - Credibility is presented as something companies gain or lose in day-to-day interactions. - The data suggests the most attentive and affluent audiences are also the most skeptical. - Erik Moser, president of Resonant Advisory Group, said companies have stretched credibility to its limits and need to focus on fundamentals, simplified language and accountability. - The report argues boycotts are usually less effective than expected and many consumers keep buying from companies they do not fully trust. - The report concludes that most of the public already does not believe corporate messaging, leaving more upside in honesty than in polish.

What's next: - Companies likely face more pressure to explain hard decisions with clearer evidence and less corporate spin. - The report suggests credibility can be rebuilt through daily interactions, not just crisis statements. - Resonant Advisory Group is pushing a message that transparency may be the lowest-risk strategy when public skepticism is already high.

The bottom line: - Corporate credibility is scarce, and AI-related messaging may be making it worse.