Just 5% of Americans fully trust corporate statements

New research from Resonant Advisory Group finds U.S. corporate credibility is thin and slipping, with only 5% of adults calling corporate statements completely credible. The report says AI, crisis messaging and leadership styles are all under pressure, and that companies may have more to gain from transparency than polish.

Why it matters: - Corporate credibility affects how people judge layoffs, product claims, crisis responses and executive decisions. - The report says credibility is now so low that companies face a high bar in almost any public message. - The findings suggest businesses may need to focus less on persuasion and more on consistent, everyday behavior.

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 for the report. - Only 5% of Americans said corporate statements are completely credible. - Sixty-three percent said crisis communications have become less credible over the past year. - None of the nine industries tested reached 10% saying their statements were completely credible. - AI emerged as the least credible topic in corporate communication.

The details: - Forty-eight percent 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 layoff explanation, with 45% calling it credible. - In seven leadership showdowns, respondents picked the steadier option six times. - 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 only exception. - The report says credibility is built and spent through company conduct, industry standing, societal engagement and community investment. - Seventy-nine percent said a company earns more credibility by disclosing bad news before others expose it. - Fifty-seven percent said one company's poorly explained crisis hurts their view of the entire industry.

Between the lines: - The report draws a sharp distinction between trust and credibility. - Trust is described as slow-moving and rooted in a company's history. - Credibility is framed as more immediate and tied to daily interactions, customer service, sales pitches, product claims and leadership statements. - The data suggests AI may be especially damaging as a corporate explanation because many companies are using it to justify layoffs and other difficult decisions. - The report also argues credibility erosion is strongest among more affluent and more news-engaged audiences. - The share saying crisis statements have gotten less credible rises from 54% among people earning under $50,000 to 70% among those earning $150,000 or more. - That view rises from 46% among infrequent news consumers to 65% among people who follow business news daily or most days. - Erik Moser, president of Resonant Advisory Group, said companies have stretched credibility to its limits and need to focus on fundamentals, simpler language and accountability. - The report says boycotts are rarely as effective as advertised and that many consumers keep buying from companies they do not fully trust.

What's next: - The report argues companies should lean harder into transparency, especially when delivering bad news. - Resonant Advisory Group says the best way to rebuild credibility is through daily interactions rather than polished messaging. - The report concludes that companies have little to lose and much to gain by being more honest.

The bottom line: - Corporate statements start from a weak place with most Americans, and AI is making that skepticism sharper.