Advertising trust is shaped by who delivers a message, how clearly its targeting is explained, and the environment in which people see it. The available benchmarks span Nielsen’s global September 2021 study, UK online-advertising research from February 2019, U.S. news-consumer research from September 2020, and later UK regulatory and campaign measurements.
Contents
- Global benchmarks for advertising trust
- Acceptance and control of online advertising
- Personalisation, transparency and relevance
- Advertising in news environments
- Brand perceptions and actions
- Regulation and public confidence
- Trust and commercial outcomes
Global benchmarks for advertising trust
Nielsen’s 2021 Trust In Advertising Study found that 88% of global respondents identified recommendations from people they know as the advertising or information source they trusted most. The study was fielded in September 2021, so this is a historical global benchmark rather than a current estimate.
That interpersonal channel stood well above several paid digital formats. Nielsen reported that recommendations from known people were trusted by 50% more respondents than lower-ranked channels such as online banner, mobile, SMS and search ads. The comparison indicates a substantial gap between personal endorsement and many standard digital placements, although the source presents it as a relative trust comparison rather than a percentage-point difference.
Trust also varied by region. Nielsen reported that advertising trust was up to 20% lower in North America and Europe than in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Because the source describes this as “up to” 20%, it should be read as a reported upper difference, not as one uniform regional gap.
The format and voice of an ad mattered in audio as well. Nielsen’s Beyond martech: building trust with consumers and engaging where sentiment is high reported a 71% brand-recall rate for host-read podcast ads in its 2021 podcast ad-effectiveness measurements. Brand recall is not the same measure as trust, but it shows how a familiar presenter can support message retention in a trusted-feeling context.
Acceptance and control of online advertising
The Ofcom and ICO Adtech Market Research Report surveyed UK-weighted adults aged 18 and over from 25–27 February 2019. It found that 82% of UK adults in the adtech sample had visited free-to-use websites that display advertising.
Among UK adults who visited those free-to-use advertising-supported websites, 63% found it acceptable for sites to show ads in return for free access. This suggests that the basic exchange—advertising funding access to content—had majority acceptance in the measured sample.
Acceptance did not mean that visitors felt fully comfortable with the way advertising was delivered. Control was divided as follows:
| Reported control over ads | Share of UK visitors |
|---|---|
| No control | 42% |
| Some control | 34% |
| Full control | 18% |
| Unsure | 6% |
The figures were reported by the Adtech Market Research Report for 25–27 February 2019. They show that the largest single group, 42%, felt they had no control over which ads were shown. At the same time, 52% reported some or full control when those two categories are considered together. The displayed percentages may not sum to exactly 100% in every source chart because of rounding.
Relevance was another part of the value exchange. Among the same UK visitors, 54% preferred relevant ads to seemingly random ads, while 20% disagreed that they preferred relevant ads. The remaining responses are not specified in the supplied claim, so these figures should not be treated as a complete response distribution.
Personalisation, transparency and relevance
The UK results distinguish between an ad seeming personalised and a person receiving an explanation of how that personalisation worked. About 33% of visitors to free-to-use advertising-supported websites considered the ads they saw individually relevant to them.
Perceived personalisation was more common than strong perceived relevance. Overall, 58% felt the ads seemed personalised at least some of the time. Within that group, 9% said ads seemed personalised all of the time and 50% said this happened some of the time. Separately, 28% said ads never seemed personalised. These are reported source percentages and are retained as displayed; they may reflect rounding.
Information about the process was less visible. Only 24% recalled that the websites provided information about how ads were personalised. Half, or 50%, said the websites did not provide that information, while 26% were unsure whether such information was provided.
This produces a useful practical distinction for advertisers and publishers. Personalisation can be noticed without being understood. In the measured UK sample, more people said ads seemed personalised at least sometimes than said they remembered receiving information about the personalisation. The figures do not establish that missing explanations caused lower trust, but they do identify transparency as a separate audience experience from relevance.
Advertising in news environments
The IAB report, How Advertising in News Benefits Brands: The Value of News, used research from Magid involving 2,029 U.S. news consumers aged 18–54 surveyed from 9–14 September 2020. Its results concern U.S. news consumers and should not be generalized to every advertising audience or geography.
When asked about advertising within news, 84% said it either increased or maintained brand trust. That total consisted of 38% who said news advertising made brands more trustworthy and 46% who said it had no effect on brand trustworthiness. The remaining 16% said it made brands less trustworthy.
The surrounding news source also carried a measurable trust level. The average trust score for the news sources chosen by U.S. news consumers was 69%. Traditional news sources averaged 72%, compared with 67% for digital news sources. Meanwhile, 40% were skeptical of user-generated news or social posts from everyday people.
Respondents also associated news advertising with several brand qualities. The reported shares finding brands more customer-focused, innovative, believable or relevant were:
| Brand perception after advertising in news | U.S. news consumers |
|---|---|
| More customer-focused | 47% |
| More innovative | 45% |
| More believable | 42% |
| More relevant | 41% |
These measurements describe perceptions reported during 9–14 September 2020. They do not show that every news placement produces the same result, and they do not independently verify a causal effect for each individual brand.
Brand perceptions and actions
Across product categories, advertising in news produced an average 4-percentage-point trust-score increase among U.S. news consumers in the IAB/Magid research. The reported lift was 5 percentage points for media brands and 6 percentage points for telecommunications brands. These are average trust-score changes across the measured categories, not forecasts for a specific campaign.
Trust-related perception was accompanied by reported next steps. After seeing a brand ad in news, 45% said they were more likely to search online for information or reviews. Another 43% said they were more likely to consider trying or buying from the brand, 43% said they were more likely to visit the brand’s website, and 39% said they felt more comfortable recommending the brand.
The executive sample showed a different level of response. Among U.S. business executives, 63% said an ad in news made a brand more trustworthy, while 21% said it had no effect on brand trustworthiness. Business executives reported an average 7-percentage-point trust lift across product categories. The consumer and executive samples are separate and should be compared as audience perspectives, not combined into one population estimate.
Regulation and public confidence
The Advertising Standards Authority’s UK-wide awareness campaign provides a later UK view of advertising confidence. Between October 2022 and March 2023, 36% of UK adults said they had seen the ASA’s campaign ads. Among those who saw or heard the campaign, 80% were aware of an organisation to complain to about advertising, and 48% recognised the ASA logo.
Among UK adults who saw the campaign, 67% felt confident that ads were regulated. Trust in the ASA was 65% among those who saw the campaign, compared with 53% among UK adults overall. Only 6% of UK adults said they distrusted the ASA after the UK-wide campaign wave. The ASA reported that trust in the UK advertising industry increased by about 33% across the UK after the campaign wave; this is a tracking result, not a population-wide causal estimate.
The ASA’s March 2024 report on the latest campaign wave reported trust in the ASA at 48% among all adults, 57% among adults aware of the ASA, and 64% among adults recognising its logo. It also reported that trust in advertising and trust in the advertising industry were each 50% higher among people who trusted the ASA than among people who did not.
Operational enforcement was substantial in 2024. According to the ASA’s Annual Report 2024, its Active Ad Monitoring System processed 28 million ads, ten times the 2023 volume. The ASA secured amendment or withdrawal of 33,903 ads, of which 84% were non-paid online ads. These are regulatory measurements, not consumer trust percentages.
Trust and commercial outcomes
The IPA research on trust-building advertising examined databank campaign observations submitted from 1998–2024. Its percentages describe campaign outcomes and are not consumer survey percentages.
Among for-profit campaigns with very large increases in brand trust, 93% also reported at least one very large business effect. The comparable figure across all for-profit campaigns in the IPA databank was 66%.
The trust-building campaign group was reported as 27 percentage points, or 41%, more likely to report at least one very large business effect than the all-campaign average. The most effective for-profit trust-building campaigns reported an average of 65% more very large business effects than the average across for-profit campaigns.
Taken together, these observations connect trust with business outcomes without turning the relationship into a guaranteed return. The IPA figures are based on campaigns submitted to its databank, while the Nielsen, Ofcom/ICO, IAB/Magid and ASA figures use different populations, dates and definitions. The safest comparison is therefore directional: trusted recommendations, understandable advertising practices, credible environments and visible accountability all appear in the evidence as distinct parts of advertising confidence.