Anchoring communication strategies in credibility rather than visibility

Today, we are surrounded by information, making communication both simpler and more complicated. Institutions, organisations, and community groups share messages all the time through reports, campaigns, social media, and public statements.

However, being more visible has not necessarily led to greater trust. This gap has led many to rethink the purpose of communication and whose needs it serves. Building communication strategies around credibility instead of just visibility is a good place to start, but only if we see credibility as something shaped by context, relationships, and power.

In the past, many organisations thought that reaching more people meant their communication was effective. Being visible was seen as a sign of influence, legitimacy, and relevance. This often worked when there were fewer media channels, and things were more stable.

Now, people face a flood of competing information and trust of institutions is no longer automatic. They see many different stories, misinformation, and old grievances that affect how they understand messages. In this environment, just being visible does not build trust and can even make people more skeptical.

Focusing on credibility means thinking less about how often organisations speak and more about how their messages are received. Credibility is not a fixed quality or a technical measure. It is shaped by society and changes across different communities, cultures, and histories. What seems open and responsible to one group might feel distant or self-serving to another. This variety shows that credibility cannot be created just by using polished messages or professional communication methods.

This way of thinking also expands who we see as communicators. Communication is not just the job of official teams or leaders. Frontline staff, community partners, volunteers, and informal go-betweens often have a bigger impact on an organisation’s reputation than official channels do. Trust is usually built through ongoing interactions, shared experiences, and being present, not just through planned messages. So, any approach that focuses on credibility needs to value community-based and relationship-driven communication as much as formal messages.

Shifting communication to focus on credibility also means facing power imbalances. Institutions usually control platforms, stories, and data, while the affected communities may have little power to challenge or correct how they are represented. In these situations, credibility cannot be declared by one side alone; it has to be worked out together. This means allowing different viewpoints, admitting mistakes or harm, and recognising whose voices have been left out of official stories.

We also need to rethink how we measure communication. Usual metrics like reach, impressions, or engagement do not show whether communication builds trust or accountability. More useful signs might be whether communities feel truly represented, whether partners use and refer to shared stories, or whether communication helps people take part in decisions. These ways of measuring are often more about quality and context, but they better show what credibility feels like.

It is important to remember that focusing on credibility does not mean staying silent or avoiding risks. In uncertain or divided situations, not communicating at all can look like an attempt to avoid responsibility. Communication that aims for credibility often means explaining limits, trade-offs, and uncertainty instead of just showing confidence. For some people, being honest about what you cannot do is more trustworthy than claiming to have all the answers.

In light of this, anchoring communication strategies in credibility rather than visibility is less about adopting a new model and more about adopting a different posture, one that treats communication as a shared space of meaning-making rather than a tool of persuasion alone. Such an approach does not guarantee trust, but it creates the conditions in which trust can be negotiated more honestly and sustainably.