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 declining, with just 5% of adults calling company statements completely credible. The survey points to AI, crisis messaging and CEO style as major credibility pressure points for businesses trying to win back public confidence.

Why it matters: - Corporate credibility can affect how people react to layoffs, product claims, crisis messaging and leadership decisions. - The survey suggests many companies are starting from a weak trust position, especially when explaining hard choices. - The findings also show credibility problems are spreading across industries, not staying isolated to one company or one issue.

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 even 1 in 10 respondents rating their statements as “completely credible.”

The details: - AI emerged as the least credible topic in corporate communication. - 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%. - Inflation and rising costs were the most accepted layoff explanation, with 45% calling that credible. - In seven head-to-head leadership comparisons, respondents chose the steadier option in six matchups. - 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 socially present CEO beat a low-visibility CEO 57% to 43%. - The report says credibility is built and spent through company conduct, industry standing, societal engagement and community investment. - 79% of respondents said a company earns more credibility by disclosing bad news about itself before others expose it. - 57% said one company’s poorly explained crisis worsens their view of its entire industry, not just that company. - The share saying crisis statements have become less credible rises from 54% among people earning under $50,000 a year to 70% among those earning $150,000 or more. - The share also rises from 46% among infrequent news consumers to 65% among people who follow business news daily or most days. - Resonant Advisory Group president Erik Moser said companies have stretched credibility to its limits and need to focus on daily interactions, simpler language and accountability. - Resonant Advisory Group's LinkedIn page is the company’s social media profile listed in the release.

Between the lines: - The report draws a sharp distinction between trust and credibility, arguing trust changes slowly while credibility can rise or fall with each interaction. - The AI findings suggest companies may be asking the public to accept a narrative that is still losing ground fast. - The results also suggest polished messaging alone is not enough when consumers already expect skepticism. - The report frames transparency as a practical business tool, not just a public-relations virtue.

What's next: - Companies facing layoffs or public criticism may lean more heavily on plain-spoken explanations and earlier disclosure. - The report implies businesses will need to earn credibility repeatedly through operations, not just campaigns. - Expect more scrutiny of AI-related corporate messaging as companies use it to explain restructuring, cost cuts and other hard decisions.

The bottom line: - Americans are not just skeptical of corporate messaging; many have already tuned it out. Companies that want credibility back may need to prove it in everyday interactions, not in a single statement.