Only 5% of Americans say corporate statements are fully credible

New research from Resonant Advisory Group finds U.S. corporate credibility is thin and slipping, with AI emerging as the least credible topic in business communication. The survey points to a wider trust problem that could shape how companies explain layoffs, crises and other hard decisions.

Why it matters: - Corporate statements are starting from a weak baseline, which makes crisis response, layoffs and leadership messaging harder to believe. - The credibility gap is especially risky for companies using AI narratives to justify business decisions. - The report argues that more transparency, not more polish, is the better path when public skepticism is already high.

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.” - DHM Research, in partnership with Verasight, surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide for the report. - 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 had even 10% of respondents call their statements “completely credible.” - AI emerged as the least credible topic in corporate communication.

The details: - 48% of respondents said AI used 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 layoff explanation, with 45% calling that credible. - The survey found credibility is distinct from trust, with credibility changing through daily interactions and trust building more slowly over time. - In seven head-to-head leadership comparisons, respondents chose the steadier option in six pairings. - 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. - A visible, socially present CEO beat a low-visibility CEO 57% to 43%. - The report organizes credibility into four channels: company conduct, industry standing, societal engagement and community investment. - 79% of respondents said a company earns more credibility by disclosing bad news before others expose it. - 57% said a poorly explained crisis at one company worsens their view of the entire industry.

Between the lines: - The weakest credibility signals show up around topics companies are leaning on most, especially AI and shareholder-focused explanations. - The findings suggest audiences reward steadiness and plainspoken accountability more than flash or technical ambition. - Credibility erosion appears stronger among higher-income consumers and heavy business-news readers, groups that companies often rely on for influence and loyalty. - 54% of people earning under $50,000 a year said crisis statements have gotten less credible, compared with 70% of people earning $150,000 or more. - 46% of infrequent news consumers said crisis statements have become less credible, compared with 65% of people who follow business news daily or most days.

What’s next: - Resonant Advisory Group is positioning the report as a guide for improving day-to-day credibility, not just crisis communications. - Erik Moser, president of Resonant Advisory Group, said companies need to focus on fundamentals, simpler language and protecting credibility in ordinary interactions. - The report concludes that companies have little to lose by being more honest and a lot to gain by doing so. - More information: Resonant Advisory Group on LinkedIn