What new research tells communicators about transparency, judgment and brand credibility

Generative AI has changed the way content is produced. Brands can now create copy, visuals, concepts and campaign material at a speed that would have required far greater resources only a few years ago. For communications teams, the practical benefits are obvious.

The bigger question is what happens to credibility when high-quality content becomes easier for everyone to produce.

A new report by Meltwater and YouGov offers some useful answers. Trust in the Age of Generative AI surveyed 9,869 adults across seven countries and combined the findings with analysis of over 150 million social and media mentions and engagement signals around generative AI. 

The picture that emerges is not anti-AI. It is far more nuanced.

People recognise the benefits of generative AI, but they are also becoming more alert to how it is used, what role humans still play and whether brands are being open about it.

For communicators, that makes trust a much more important part of the AI conversation.

Audiences are watching more closely

Public attitudes towards generative AI remain mixed. Only 39% of respondents said they were excited about its future, while 51% disagreed. Younger audiences were generally more positive, with 48% of 25 to 34-year-olds expressing excitement compared with 31% of those aged 55 and above. 

Concern is much more widespread. Some 73% worry that AI-generated content could be used to create fake news or scams. Another 69% are concerned about incorrect or misleading information, while 67% worry that it may become difficult to tell whether something was created by a person or by AI. 

This has a direct implication for brands.

Audiences are not passively consuming what they see. They are increasingly assessing whether a piece of content feels genuine, whether the source is credible and whether the organisation behind it deserves to be believed.

Interestingly, 58% of respondents say they are confident they can identify AI-generated content. 

Whether that confidence is accurate matters less than the behaviour it reveals. People are looking.

Context changes everything

One of the strongest findings in the report is that people do not judge every use of AI in the same way. Acceptance is highest in entertainment content at 53%, followed by product advertising at 47% and educational content at 44%.

The figures fall sharply where accuracy, public interest or personal credibility matter more. Only 21% consider the use of AI acceptable in news reporting, while 18% say the same for political advertising. Acceptance in influencer marketing stands at 28%. 

That distinction is important.

The useful question for a communications team is not simply whether AI can produce something. It is whether using it is appropriate in that particular context.

Using AI to generate headline options carries a different reputational weight than using it to draft a CEO statement, explain a sensitive corporate issue, or communicate during a crisis.

The technology may be identical. The expectations around credibility are not.

AI can carry a trust penalty

The report also points to a clear reputational risk. Across the markets surveyed, 32% of consumers said they would trust a brand less if they knew its content had been generated using AI. Only 15% said they would trust the brand more. 

The reaction becomes stronger when human involvement disappears. Almost half of respondents, 49%, said their trust would decrease if AI replaced human creators entirely. 

That does not mean brands should step away from AI.

It does mean that speed and volume are poor measures of success on their own.

A communications team may produce twice as much content in half the time. That gain becomes questionable if the output feels generic, lacks context or weakens confidence in the brand.

The value of AI therefore depends heavily on where it is used and what happens before something reaches the public.

Research, first drafts, ideation, analysis and repetitive production tasks are obvious areas where the technology can help. Tone, context, factual accuracy, sensitivity and reputation still require experienced judgment.

Transparency matters more than many brands may realise

The report's clearest message concerns disclosure. Some 86% of respondents say it is important that content states when generative AI has been used. Meanwhile, 59% say their trust in a brand would fall if AI use was not disclosed, and 63% say trust declines when that use feels misleading or deceptive. 

This does not mean every interaction with an AI tool requires a label.

It does suggest that brands need clearer internal thinking about where the line sits.

If AI plays a substantial role in creating an image, video, voice or piece of content, audiences increasingly expect honesty about that involvement. The higher the reputational sensitivity of the subject, the stronger that expectation is likely to become.

For communications teams, this calls for practical rules rather than vague principles.

Who checks the final output? Which claims need independent verification? When should AI use be disclosed? Are there categories of content where its use should be limited altogether?

These are as much communications questions as technology questions.

Credible people still matter

The report also shows how influence around AI is being shaped.

Meltwater found that 92% of the highest-engagement posts in its analysis originated on social platforms, compared with only 8% from traditional online news. 

That does not reduce the value of journalism. It shows that reputation now forms across a much broader mix of voices.

Executives, employees, creators, specialists, journalists and subject-matter experts all contribute to how people understand an organisation and what it stands for.

For brands, this increases the value of recognisable, credible people.

An expert who can explain a complex issue clearly. A senior executive who can stand behind a decision. An employee who can speak from experience. A journalist who independently verifies a claim.

In a digital environment where content can be created instantly, identifiable human sources give audiences something important: a clear sense of who is responsible for what is being said.

This is where PR becomes even more valuable

Much of the discussion around generative AI in communications has focused on production.

How much faster can we write? How many assets can we create? How much can we automate?

The more important questions sit elsewhere.

Can the claim be verified? Is the source credible? Is the message appropriate for the context? Does the audience understand who stands behind it? Would the organisation be comfortable defending it publicly?

These are familiar PR questions.

They also explain why capabilities such as media relations, reputation management, spokesperson development, verification and message discipline become increasingly valuable as synthetic content becomes easier to produce.

Technology can make communications faster.

It cannot decide whether a message deserves to be trusted.

Trust needs to become a communications outcome

Communications teams already measure reach, engagement, sentiment, coverage and share of voice.

Trust deserves a place alongside them.

That means asking whether audiences understand what an organisation is saying, whether its claims are credible, and whether its communication feels consistent and transparent.

It also means judging AI by something more meaningful than output.

Producing more content is not automatically progress.

Producing better content, with stronger judgment behind it, is.

As generative AI becomes embedded in everyday communications, the advantage will come from knowing where the technology genuinely helps, where human involvement matters most and how to communicate in a way that people can still believe.

At Purpose Communications, we help organisations build communications strategies that combine technology with the judgment, accountability and credibility strong reputations require.