The Applause Trap: A Candid Examination of Nigerian PR’s War on Trust, By Chido Nwakanma

Review: “When Applause Lies: Communication, Power & the War Between Reputation & Perception in Nigeria” by Prof. E. S. Dandaura

Overview

Professor E. S. Dandaura’s inaugural lecture at Nasarawa State University, Keffi (delivered on April 15, 2026), offers an ambitious and timely intervention in Nigerian communication scholarship. Drawing on four decades of academic and professional experience in theatre, development communication, and public relations, Dandaura presents a multi-layered argument about the fundamental disconnect between institutional communication and public trust in Nigeria.

Dandaura’s central thesis is candid—Nigeria suffers not from insufficient communication but from a dangerous imbalance between perception (manufactured visibility) and reputation (earned credibility). It is provocative, empirically grounded and ground-shifting about definitions and practices in Nigerian public relations.

Dandaura is a scholar-practitioner equipped to diagnose this crisis, having progressed “from stage to stage” through theatre studies, development communication, cybersecurity, science communication, and reputation governance.

Definitions

Perception: Perception is how your brain takes in sensory information (from the eyes, ears, skin, nose, tongue, etc.) and organises, interprets, and makes sense of it to create your experience of reality.
Reputation: Reputation is the overall opinion, belief, or perception held by people (or a community or society) about a person, organisation, brand, product, or thing, based on past actions, behaviour, character, or performance.

The Significance of Reputation: Engaging Fombrun (1996)

Dandaura’s inaugural evokes Charles Fombrun’s foundational work on reputation, which merits careful examination. Fombrun (1996) defined reputation as “the collective judgment of stakeholders regarding credibility and reliability”—a definition that Dandaura adopts and extends into distinctly Nigerian territory.

Where Dandaura aligns with Fombrun:
The lecture correctly emphasises that reputation cannot be “declared into existence” but must be earned through “consistent conduct, accountability, and institutional memory.” This stands in sharp contrast to perception, which Dandaura describes as “immediate,” “responsive to visibility,” and “shaped quickly through communication.” This distinction underpins the lecture’s conceptual bedrock and faithfully reflects Fombrun’s insight that reputation is an aggregate of past behaviours rather than a projection of future intentions.

In Reputation: Realizing Value From The Corporate Image (1996), Harvard scholar Charles Fombrun set out a paradigm. Reputation matters in significant ways and goes beyond appearances. Fombrun stated, “A reputation embodies the history of other people’s experiences with that service provider.

Good reputations increase credibility, making us more confident that we’ll really get what we’re promised.”

Where Dandaura extends beyond Fombrun: Fombrun’s work primarily addressed corporate reputation in market economies and focused on corporate bodies. Dandaura transplants this framework to Nigeria’s postcolonial governance context, where the stakes involve not merely brand equity but democratic legitimacy itself. His “Dramaturgical Power-Communication Model” argues that in Nigeria, reputation operates within what he terms a “theatre state”—where power is performed rather than simply exercised, and applause functions as a strategic instrument rather than genuine affirmation.

This extension is significant because it addresses what Fombrun’s model leaves under-theorised: the relationship between reputation and power asymmetries. Dandaura’s “Power Preservation Loop” suggests that in contexts where accountability mechanisms are weak, incumbents rationally invest in perception management rather than reputation-building—a behavioural prediction that Fombrun’s static framework does not generate.

Core Contributions

The lecture advances three interconnected conceptual innovations. I draw out a fourth.

1. The Dramaturgical Power-Communication Model:

This framework casts society as a stage, power as performance, and communication as direction. While Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical sociology provides the intellectual ancestry, Dandaura’s innovation lies in specifying how this dynamic becomes self-reinforcing through the “Power Preservation Loop”—where perception substitutes for reputation, applause for trust, and performance for accountability.

2. The Applause Index:

This quadrant-based framework maps the relationship between perceived acclaim (applause) and actual public confidence (trust). The most dangerous quadrant—”performative governance”—describes conditions in which applause is high but trust remains low. This diagnostic tool has practical policy applications, though Dandaura stops short of operationalising it with specific metrics.

3. The Seven Laws of Reputation and Perception:

Dandaura draws empirical generalisations from the Nigerian experience. He outlines principles, including the “Applause-Trust Gap,” “Performance over Narrative,” “Crisis Revelation,” and “Reputation Gravity”. Law 7 (“Perception inevitably gravitates towards reality over time”) echoes Fombrun’s observation that reputation ultimately reflects accumulated performance, but Dandaura adds a distinctly Nigerian temporal dynamic: reputation corrects slowly yet decisively.

4. Paradigm shift in Nigerian PR:

The thesis of the vice president of NIPR builds on his 2015 paper outlining the case and a Nigerian definition of public relations. He argued then that public relations in Nigeria lacked cultural grounding and was often superficial. He further develops that thesis in this inaugural address by showing the emptiness of perception against reputation.

Unfortunately, current practice prioritises perception management, particularly in government communication.

Strengths

Empirical grounding: Unlike many inaugural lectures that remain purely theoretical, Dandaura marshals concrete evidence: Afrobarometer (2023) data showing 70%+ exposure to communication alongside <30% institutional trust; Edelman Trust Barometer (2024) figures placing government trust at approximately 32%; and the Nigeria Reputation Perception Index (2025) scoring Nigeria at 35.2%.

These figures lend the argument empirical weight.

Contextual specificity: The lecture avoids universalising claims, repeatedly insisting that Nigeria’s communication pathologies require locally grounded analysis. The contrast between indigenous communicative systems (where “legitimacy came from confirmation”) and contemporary “announcement governance” provides historical depth often missing from communication studies. Courageous examples: Dandaura’s willingness to name specific cases—President Bola Tinubu’s power-supply promises and the subsequent parody videos, the NNPC’s credibility challenges, and MTN and Airtel’s service gaps—demonstrates scholarly integrity. The 2026 lecture date allows him to assess the Tinubu administration’s performance three years into its term, finding the applause-reputation gap largely unaddressed. Disciplinary bridge-building: The lecture successfully integrates theatre studies (performance theory, audience analysis), communication theory (Habermas, Grunig, agenda-setting), public relations scholarship (Fombrun, excellence theory), and political science (Ekeh’s two publics, Fukuyama’s trust theory). This interdisciplinary synthesis is genuinely novel. Limitations Operationalisation gap: The Applause Index remains conceptual rather than operational.

Dandaura does not specify how “applause” or “trust” would be measured over time, nor does he set thresholds for quadrant classification. Without measurement protocols, the framework risks remaining a heuristic rather than an analytical tool.

Selection bias in examples: The lecture focuses heavily on communication failures while giving limited attention to cases where Nigerian institutions have successfully closed the applause-trust gap. For instance, the critique of the telecommunications sector acknowledges improved service quality over two decades but emphasises persistent gaps. A more balanced treatment might strengthen the argument by showing that closure is possible. Causal direction ambiguity: Dandaura argues that performance drives reputation, yet the relationship may be more complex. Does poor performance cause low trust, or does low trust lead citizens to perceive performance negatively, regardless of objective outcomes? The lecture acknowledges this complexity in passing but does not resolve it. Under-theorised digital transformation: While Dandaura notes that citizens now “co-create narratives through real-time platforms,” he does not fully integrate this insight into his model. The #EndSARS movement (2020) demonstrated that digital publics can rapidly construct counter-narratives that overwhelm institutional communication—a phenomenon that may fundamentally alter the perception-reputation dynamics Dandaura describes. The Fombrun Connection Revisited Returning to Fombrun (1996), the lecture’s most significant contribution may be its demonstration that reputation theory requires political-economic contextualization. Fombrun wrote for managers seeking to build corporate reputation in relatively stable institutional environments. Dandaura writes for citizens and reformers navigating what he terms “performative governance”—where institutions communicate abundantly but deliver inconsistently. This contextual shift generates novel propositions.

Dandaura “Credibility Transfer and Debt” (Law 6) suggests that borrowed legitimacy (e.g., political endorsements) functions as debt that must be repaid through performance or defaulted upon during crises. This financial metaphor has no equivalent in Fombrun’s work but captures an essential aspect of the dynamics of reputation in low-trust environments. Similarly, “Reputation Gravity” (Law 7) qualifies Fombrun’s assumption that reputation adjusts continuously. Dandaura argues that in Nigeria, perception can diverge from reality for extended periods, but any correction, when it occurs, is often abrupt and decisive. This suggests non-linear reputation dynamics that Fombrun’s equilibrium-oriented framework does not anticipate. Conclusion Professor Dandaura has delivered an inaugural lecture that is at once a scholarly contribution, a policy intervention, and a personal testimony. Its significance lies not in theoretical novelty alone—the perception-reputation distinction has ample precedent—but in its systematic application to Nigeria’s specific governance pathologies and in its courageous naming of names. For scholars of African communication, political economy, and public relations, the lecture offers testable propositions and a diagnostic framework worthy of empirical refinement. For practitioners, it poses an uncomfortable ethical question: whether to continue “manufacturing applause for power” or to “speak truth to power.” For citizens, it provides conceptual vocabulary for the phenomena they experience daily—applause that feels hollow, communication that convinces no one, and governance that performs rather than delivers. The lecture’s closing image—that “reputation has patience” while perception demands immediacy—captures its essential wisdom. In the war between reputation and perception, Dandaura argues, perception wins battles but reputation wins wars.

Whether Nigeria’s institutions will learn this lesson before the next crisis forces its recognition remains, as the professor might say, a question only performance can answer. Box: Dandaura’s Principles • Perception vs. Performance/Reputation: Perception is immediate, often misleading, and shaped by communication or staged narratives. Reputation, by contrast, is the enduring judgment based on consistent actions, integrity, and character. Communication can influence perception but cannot substitute for real performance; only lived experience sustains trust. “Communication may shape perception, but only experience can sustain trust. Communication should follow performance—not lead it.” This links to the R-A-C-E principle of research, action, communication, and evaluation. Action should come before communication and not otherwise. • Applause vs. Belief/Trust: Applause (public approval or visibility) can be manufactured, manipulated, or staged for attention without genuine conviction or belief.

Mistaking loud applause for true legitimacy or trust creates unstable ground. “Any nation that mistakes applause for belief is standing on dangerously unstable ground. Applause is attractive. It is loud. It is visible. But it is not always truthful.” • Exposure ≠ Trust: High exposure to messages (e.g., government communication reaching ~70% of Nigerians) does not equal belief (~30% in some cases) or trust (government trust often 24–30%, despite overall national trust indices around 65%). Visibility is frequently mistaken for credibility. • Communication as Staging vs. Reflection: Modern communication often stages legitimacy (creating an illusion of support) rather than reflecting actual performance or truth. This leads to a “war” between perception (fleeting and manageable) and reputation (earned and resilient). • Listening and Feedback as Essential: Effective communication requires listening—feedback, interpretation, and action. Many institutions fail here by assuming audiences will accept messages uncritically. “Institutions must relearn the discipline of listening.” • Legitimacy from Performance, Not Presentation: True legitimacy and sustainable credibility arise from consistent performance and accountability, not theatrics or narrative control. “When truth is allowed to breathe, reputation aligns with reality.”

Accountability itself is the strongest form of communication. Dandaura also introduced the APLOS Index (sometimes called the Applause Index), a conceptual tool to measure the gap between perceived public approval (applause/perception) and actual trust (reputation).

This quantifies the disconnect in Nigeria’s communication landscape. Core Takeaway In Dandaura’s framework, Nigeria (and its leaders and institutions) faces a “reputation war” in which short-term perception management and applause-seeking undermine long-term trust. The solution lies in prioritising performance, truth, listening, and alignment between actions and communication—letting reputation emerge organically rather than forcing perception. He urges a shift away from “roadside critics” and applause-manufacture towards speaking the truth and building genuine credibility. These ideas align with broader work on Nigeria’s Reputation Perception Index and on reputation management in public relations and governance. The exact “seven laws” may be set out in the unpublished lecture text, as public reports emphasise overarching principles rather than a numbered list. For the most precise version, consult recordings or transcripts from the Nasarawa State University event or from Dandaura’s publications.