Author: user62a3f3e1aacb5

Digital trust signals are the publicly visible cues that help journalists verify the credibility of B2B thought leaders by assessing their profiles, content, past coverage, and the professionalism of the companies they represent.

Once a company has defined its thought leadership program and decided which topics to prioritize and which experts will speak to them, the real work begins. At that point, the program moves from planning to execution. Having insightful things to say, even when those insights are backed up with solid data, is rarely enough to break through the noise.

This is especially true for B2B thought leaders who are not yet on journalists’ speed dial. When a journalist receives a pitch for an interview or a contributed article, one of the first questions they ask themselves is simple: Who is this? A PR professional, whether in-house or agency-side, will have provided background information, role, and relevance in the pitch itself. Journalists nevertheless conduct their own credibility check before deciding whether to proceed.

That is where digital trust signals come in. Digital trust signals are the easily discoverable and externally visible indicators that help journalists, editors, and producers assess whether a thought leader is credible, consistent, and worth their time. Below are some of the most important ones and how to get them right.

LinkedIn: the primary credibility checkpoint

Journalists often check social media as part of their reporting process. In the Muck Rack State of Journalism Report (2021), 86 percent of journalists indicated that when reporting on a company, they consult the company’s social media sometimes, usually, or always.

For B2B thought leaders, the most prominent of those channels is LinkedIn. LinkedIn functions as a public résumé, positioning statement, and credibility filter at the same time. It is also one of the easiest places for journalists to verify whether an expert’s claims align with what they can independently observe.

Thought leaders should ensure that the About section of their LinkedIn profile clearly reflects how they are positioned and signals the domains in which they claim authority. If an expert is presented as a leader in a given field, that positioning should be unmistakable in the About section.

Beyond the About section, public elements such as Interests, including followed companies, groups, and newsletters, contribute to the overall impression. While not every element is always visible to non-connections, journalists often see enough to form a view. These visible signals should reinforce, not contradict, the expert narrative being presented.

Posting behavior also matters. Journalists do not expect daily updates, but they do expect thematic consistency. Content should broadly reinforce the professional positioning. Content that is inflammatory, confusingly off-brand, or unrelated to the expert’s domain can raise questions.

Other social media platforms: coherence over activity

On platforms such as X, content does not need to be business-focused. Personal interests and cultural commentary are acceptable, provided they do not conflict with the professional brand being presented.

An expert who shares content that undermines credibility introduces doubt, even when that content is unrelated to the pitch topic. Journalists may not articulate this explicitly, but it influences decision-making.

Dormant or abandoned accounts deserve attention. Accounts that have not been updated for years signal neglect and can be more damaging than having no account at all. If a platform is no longer used, it is often better to deactivate the account than to leave it unattended.

Previous interviews: social proof still matters

The most reliable way to secure an interview is to have been interviewed before. This is difficult when launching a new thought leader, but any credible prior exposure helps. Interviews with trade publications, podcasts, or regional outlets function as social proof. Mentioning these selectively in a pitch reassures journalists that others have already vetted the expert.

For recorded interviews, producers assess not only subject-matter expertise but also clarity, composure, and performance on audio or video. For that reason, pitches should include links to previous recorded interviews whenever possible, especially early in a thought leader’s trajectory.

Owned thought leadership content: expertise you can verify

Owned thought leadership content is one of the strongest and most underused digital trust signals. Blog posts are particularly effective.

When a pitch advances a specific point of view and the expert has already articulated that perspective in a well-reasoned blog post, that piece should be shared with journalists. It allows them to evaluate the quality of thinking and clarity of expression without committing to an interview first.

Blog posts do not need to be long or academic. What matters is that they express a clear point of view, engage with real-world developments, and avoid promotional language. Over time, even a modest body of well-written articles creates an intellectual footprint that journalists can quickly assess and trust.

Company assets: supporting the expert’s credibility

Journalists rarely evaluate experts in isolation. The organization behind the spokesperson forms part of the credibility assessment, particularly when the company itself is relatively unknown.

Start-ups, scale-ups, and smaller mid-market companies should therefore ensure their basic assets are in order. This starts with a professional website and an easily accessible newsroom where journalists can confirm that the company is real, active, and evolving.

That newsroom should also contain aforementioned expert coverage, including interviews, articles, podcasts, or video appearances that have already been acquired. Centralizing this material reinforces legitimacy and shows that others have already engaged with the company and its experts.

Company social media presence matters as well, especially the LinkedIn company page. It should appear current and intentional, with regular updates reflecting business developments and insights. While follower counts are not decisive, reaching a baseline audience of around 500 followers helps signal that the company has a real footprint.

Digital trust is cumulative

None of these trust signals work in isolation. Journalists look for consistency across everything they see.

For B2B thought leadership in particular, credibility is not assumed. It is verified. In an environment where journalists are inundated with pitches, digital trust signals help distinguish between experts who merely claim authority and those who demonstrably earn it.

For PR professionals, B2B thought leaders, and growing companies alike, investing in these signals is foundational rather than cosmetic.

Detavernier Strategic Communication has been retained to support the U.S. division of Beckers Group within the context of its broader crisis communication readiness efforts.

For the German company, a crisis management framework was first developed centrally and is now gradually being implemented across 16 countries on five continents.

About Beckers Group

Beckers Group is a privately owned, global coatings company that develops high-quality, environmentally compatible paint systems. The company’s expertise is built on a history of more than 150 years.

Today, approximately 1,800 employees work across 23 production sites in 17 countries, providing products and custom-made solutions to customers in close to 60 countries around the world. Beckers Group serves industrial customers globally and is known for its long-term focus on sustainability, innovation, and close collaboration with its partners.

Part of a Broader European–U.S. Collaboration

This engagement takes place within the context of Detavernier Strategic Communication’s participation in a German-led network of boutique agencies, designed to enable structured cross-border collaboration for international clients.

Through this network, the firm supports globally operating organizations on communication challenges that require coordinated execution across countries, regions, and markets.

Image disclaimer: The stock image used in this article is for illustrative purposes only and does not depict Beckers Group offices, facilities, or employees.

Sorry laws define the legal boundary that allows crisis communicators to express empathy after an incident without turning empathic statements into admissions of liability, making legal awareness essential to effective crisis messaging.

When a crisis hits, communicators will naturally want to acknowledge what happened and show empathy toward those affected. From a legal standpoint, however, statements that come close to—or are perceived as—apologizing can carry risk, as they may later be scrutinized as potential admissions of fault. This tension between humane communication and legal exposure is exactly where sorry laws come into play and why crisis communicators need to understand them.

Sorry laws, also known as apology laws, shape what organizations can safely say after an incident. They do not eliminate legal risk, nor do they replace legal counsel. They do, however, define the legal boundaries within which crisis communicators operate when crafting early responses that acknowledge harm and express concern.

Why crisis communicators need to understand the law

Crisis communication does not take place in a vacuum. In any material incident—whether an industrial accident, a product failure, a data breach, or an environmental spill—public statements will be reviewed through a legal lens. Legal counsel will assess language for admissions, exposure, and downstream litigation risk before senior leadership speaks publicly.

Communicators who understand the legal context are better positioned to act as strategic advisors rather than tactical editors. Knowing how sorry laws work allows communicators to level with legal counsel and understand the constraints under which counsel will advise leadership. It also explains why certain formulations are likely to be approved while others are likely to be struck.

Communicators who anticipate this review can design messages that stay within legal boundaries and explicitly signal this when submitting a first draft. This moves the communicator upstream in the decision-making process and strengthens their role as a credible advisor rather than a last-minute reviewer.

What sorry laws are and what they are not

At their core, sorry laws exist to allow individuals and organizations to communicate empathy after an incident—literally, to say “sorry”—without that expression being used against them in court proceedings to establish liability.

Most sorry laws protect expressions of sympathy or benevolence, such as statements conveying compassion, regret, or concern for those affected. In many jurisdictions, such expressions are inadmissible as evidence when offered to prove fault.

At the same time, sorry laws are neither uniform nor unlimited. Not all states have them. Many statutes protect sympathy but not admissions of fault. Some laws apply broadly, while others were drafted with specific contexts in mind. Statements that move beyond empathy and address negligence, causation, or responsibility may still be admissible. This distinction is central for crisis communicators, because saying “we are sorry this happened” is legally very different from saying “we are sorry we caused this.”

How widespread are sorry laws?

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, thirty-nine U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have laws that protect expressions of sympathy, condolences, or apologies by medical professionals from being admitted as evidence against them in civil court. While these statutes are often discussed in a medical context, several jurisdictions extend similar protections more broadly, including to accident situations.

For crisis communicators, this provides an important baseline. Apology protections are relatively common, but their scope, wording, and applicability vary significantly by jurisdiction. Knowing that a law exists is not enough. Understanding how it is written is what matters.

Texas as a concrete example

Texas provides a clear illustration of how sorry laws work in practice.

Section 18.061 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code states:

“A court in a civil action may not admit a communication that expresses sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of an individual involved in an accident if the communication is offered to prove liability of the communicator.”

The statute defines “communication” broadly, explaining that it includes “a statement, a writing, or a gesture that conveys a sense of compassion or commiseration emanating from humane impulses.”

At the same time, Texas law draws a clear boundary. Communications that include statements of negligence or culpable conduct are not protected and may still be admissible in court.

For crisis communicators, the takeaway is straightforward. In Texas, there is legal room to express empathy early and publicly, provided that messaging remains focused on compassion and avoids language that implies fault or causation.

California’s approach

California’s approach is similar in structure, though articulated differently.

Under California Evidence Code § 1160:

“The portion of statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person or the family of that person shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in a civil action.”

The statute then adds an important limitation:

“A statement of fault, however, which is part of, or in addition to, any of the above shall not be inadmissible pursuant to this section.”

In practical terms, California law protects only the empathetic portion of a communication. Any accompanying admission of fault remains admissible. For crisis communicators, this reinforces the same operational principle seen in Texas: empathy is protected; fault is not.

Anticipating legal review in crisis messaging

One of the most effective ways crisis communicators can add value is by anticipating legal review rather than reacting to it.

Communicators who understand sorry laws can design initial statements that clearly separate expressions of sympathy from any discussion of cause or responsibility. They can also proactively explain how the language aligns with applicable statutes when submitting drafts for review.

Explicitly signaling this awareness reduces friction with legal counsel and reinforces the communicator’s credibility as a risk-aware advisor rather than a tone-focused advocate.

The strategic value of empathy

Beyond legal considerations, empathy has strategic value. Silence following an incident often fuels speculation, anger, and reputational damage. Stakeholders such as employees, customers, local communities, and regulators expect acknowledgment and concern.

Sorry laws exist in part because lawmakers recognized that discouraging basic expressions of humanity can exacerbate conflict rather than reduce it. From a crisis management perspective, carefully worded expressions of concern can demonstrate leadership presence, reduce escalation, and buy time for investigation and response without prematurely committing the organization to legal positions it may later regret.

What sorry laws do not replace

Sorry laws do not eliminate legal risk, nor do they replace the role of legal counsel. They do not authorize communicators to make admissions or override legal advice. Instead, they define the space in which communicators and lawyers can collaborate more effectively.

The goal is not to practice law, but to communicate with legal literacy.

Conclusion

Crisis communication is as much about judgment as it is about words. Understanding sorry laws equips communicators with the context they need to exercise that judgment responsibly.

By knowing whether apology protections exist in their jurisdiction, how those protections are formulated, and where their limits lie, crisis communicators can draft safer initial statements, anticipate legal review, advise leadership with confidence, and preserve empathy without escalating legal exposure.

In high-stakes situations, that combination of human sensitivity and legal awareness is what distinguishes credible crisis advisors from well-intentioned but risky communicators.