International Women’s Day (March 8) is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. The day also marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity.
For International Women’s Day this year the call is to #pressforprogress. With the World Economic Forum releasing information that gender parity is still over 200 years away and an intense global spotlight on women through #metoo and #timesup there is pause for thought on how this information and data can drive change. However, the broad nature of global movements means that it can be easy to disconnect and not always understand the impact in your local environment.
One of the IWD calls to action is to forge positive visibility of women by identifying ways to make them more visible and select them as spokespeople and leaders. I work in communications measurement and media research, and we deal with data about organisations, media strategies and consumer behaviour on a daily basis. Our work is built on the idea that media representation and public opinion can be understood and changed.
I’ve been lucky enough to see a desire for change from the clients that I work with and to produce research that should be a driver for change. Some of the consistent findings across media in New Zealand are: Significantly lower volumes of women presented as a subject matter expert or commentator.
Significantly lower volumes of women presented as a subject matter expert or commentator
Women are described as having earned their position or success more often than men.
Female success is often contextualised by male failure. (This is particularly true in coverage of athletes).
Women are not shown in a diversity of roles, and are more likely to be positioned with their family, partners, coaches and other support people.
As a quick example, over the past 12 months 72% of all sources quoted in banking and financial coverage in New Zealand, were men. For the dairy industry, 82% were men. In the tertiary sector, which I thought would be a palate cleanser, only 33% of all sources were women.
As with anything involving communication, this is a two-way street with media. For some organisations we specifically examine how often they position women for comment, or are quoted in media releases and kits, and what the specific take up of that is compared to men. So far, the data supports that a female spokesperson is more likely to be cut out of final copy. We have also found that there is a higher likelihood that journalists have a direct relationship with experts and commentators who are men. Women are more likely to have this relationship facilitated through a communications function or other support network.
Organisations are becoming more conscious of the impact that representation may have on their brand in the future. In the context of ethical and values-based consumerism, where the expectation on brands is to match with personal beliefs and authenticity, gender can play an important role. It may contribute to reputation in unexpected ways, including being an employer of choice.
While some of these findings are challenging, the increased interest from organisations to understand how the representation of women affects their brand, is a positive step. We now have clients who are solely focused on improving their profile – not only by an increased presence of women – but openly celebrating gender diversity initiatives and how these initiatives are being reported on, and discussed online by potential employees or customers.
If nothing else, I hope that this information allows for pause, and reflection on how we all contribute to the representation of women through our small choices, whether that be who is positioned to speak on a topic, or what language is used, and how much space is given. Representation is important. How often we see women, and how they are framed helps to shape our expectations. We can’t change what we don’t understand or can’t see clearly.
Ngaire Crawford is Head of Insights for Isentia in New Zealand. Her team of New Zealand-based analysts work across a broad range of clients measuring their communication strategies, and use media to help organisations understand their audiences and issues that are important to them.
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
Many organisations know stakeholder engagement matters, but turning that knowledge into an approach that consistently works is another story. At the recent webinar How to Master Your Stakeholder Strategy, leaders from Meridian Energy, the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, and Isentia shared lessons from the field on what meaningful engagement really looks like.
Know who your stakeholders are
Stakeholders aren’t just on the periphery. As Mandy Griffiths from the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing explained, they are “the people who really have a great influence on whether the things that you’re working on or decisions you’re making are successful or not.” Internal stakeholders can be just as critical as external ones, especially in large organisations. Choosing terminology that reflects value and honesty helps too: her team prefers “critical friends” because it signals both importance and the possibility of differing views.
Build trust with evidence
Phil Clarke from Meridian Energy described how evidence can guide engagement strategies. By surveying 500 stakeholders mid-way through a two-year project, his team gained clear insights into what drives trust. This evidence-led approach, he says, “gives teams effectively a cheat sheet for what they need to do to build trust among their stakeholders.” Starting with data rather than assumptions helps teams focus their efforts where it matters most.
Learn through listening
Complex situations, like the pandemic, show why humility and iterative learning are essential. Mandy recalled that asking communities directly about their needs often revealed challenges her team hadn’t anticipated. “So many times we went in thinking we knew what the biggest pain points were, and it turned out to be something else entirely,” she said. Taking the time to listen ensures effort is spent on the right priorities.
Measure, adapt, and personalise
Measurement underpins high-performing strategies. Ngaire Crawford from Isentia stressed that “late teams don’t guess, they measure,” from establishing baselines to tracking engagement and adapting based on what the data shows. Effective strategies also go beyond simple demographics, grouping stakeholders by motivations, concerns, influence networks, and communication preferences. Closing the feedback loop is crucial: “Stakeholders who feel heard are the ones that are most likely to become advocates,” Ngaire explained.
Key takeaways
Treat stakeholders as central, not peripheral.
Use evidence to understand trust and guide decisions.
Listen first, act later, assumptions can mislead.
Measure and adapt continuously.
Personalise engagement based on motivations, not just demographics.
The common thread from the webinar: engagement works best when it’s informed, iterative, and genuinely centred on the people involved.
Watch the full webinar here, or contact our team to see how Isentia’s SRM solutions can help you achieve your stakeholder goals.
Building stakeholder strategies that work in the real world
Many organisations know stakeholder engagement matters, but turning that knowledge into an approach that consistently works is another story. At the recent webinar How to Master Your Stakeholder Strategy, leaders from Meridian Energy, the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, and Isentia shared lessons from the field on what meaningful engagement really looks like. […]
During reputational crises, many brands find themselves pressed into strategies that are entirely reactive. However, a better understanding of a brand's audience and stakeholders – how they communicate and what they value – would empower brands and the teams running their messaging to respond more authentically, helping comms land in the right way at the right time. With AI content taking over audience news and social feeds, brand leadership must invest in creating a framework that actually measures authenticity.
Prashant Saxena, VP of Revenue and Insights, for Isentia (SEA region) in his research paper on "Authenticity in the age of AI" has identified cues or signals that audiences subconsciously look for when identifying if a social post is written by a human or virtual influencer. Understanding these cues gives brands and PR leaders a much needed manual or playbook that guides them with the content audiences expect to consume. These equip us with a practical roadmap with clear implications for AI governance and digital literacy amidst the workplace and audiences.
Why is authenticity in crisis?
There is a trust gap, as audiences show declining faith in brands and their leadership. Some of these factors are highly polarised, such as differing responses to CEOs and their part in society. But the most universal, and nascent, challenge to brand trust appears to be the rollout of AI. Businesses are now under the microscope, with changes to business models, substandard service and inauthentic communications all likely to be blamed on leadership teams haphazardly implementing AI solutions.
Astronomer's former CEO Andy Byron and the controversy at the Coldplay concert has added to this decline in trust and all the more underscores an authenticity crisis. Post the controversy, there was a fake apology statement that was circulated on X and other social media platforms. The company had to release a statement saying that the apology was in fact fake and was concocted by someone who wanted to satisfy audience sentiments. This is very telling in that, audiences will always be more attracted to content that conforms with their views and would accept anything at face value without having the need to fact check.
This underpins the need for brands to be as authentic as possible when it comes to responding to crisis.
Cues in action
Audiences are more alert than ever to signals of what feels genuine online. These subtle markers, from factual accuracy and cultural relevance to tone, consistency, and timing, influence whether people trust a brand’s message, engage with it, or scroll past.
Our analysis of leadership posts on social platforms reveals a pattern. The more authenticity cues a post displayed, the higher the engagement it received. It’s not about relying on one signal but about layering multiple ones together. Posts that showed identity, accuracy, emotional expression, and consistency outperformed those that didn’t. For brands, this insight offers a practical takeaway. Every post can be tested against these cues. The closer the content aligns with them, the more likely it is to spark meaningful engagement. When conversations are filtered through these markers, the most valuable audience feedback comes into focus, the kind that helps brands adjust strategies and connect more deeply with people.
Looking at how tech leaders post on LinkedIn shows just how powerful authenticity cues can be. Piotr Skalski’s celebration of hitting 30,000 GitHub stars combined identity, visuals, community validation, and more - and it drew the highest engagement. Tay Bannerman’s post leaned on accuracy, cultural insight, and emotion, earning slightly less traction, while Oliver Molander’s take on ChatGPT carried fewer cues overall and saw the lowest engagement of the three. This comparison highlights how posts with a richer mix of cues tend to resonate more, while those with fewer signals struggle to spark the same response.
Authenticity isn’t one-dimensional. It’s built from many layers, and brands that balance the scale and efficiency of AI with recognisable human signals will stand out. Those who manage both can achieve more by building trust, relevance, and long-term human connection. Ching Yee Wong, VP of Communications, APEC at Marriott International said, "AI can enhance planning and recommendations, but the human element remains central to the experience. Technology supports efficiency, while cultural sensitivity and personal care must remain human-driven."
How the launch of Chat GPT-5 did not conform with audience expectations
The GPT-5 launch was not the best. The expectations were so high, that audiences knew it was bound to disappoint. Why was it not up to mark? The online vocal users of a brand are the spokespeople that the brand did not choose. These audiences are loyal users of the product and in exchange, they expect that the brand provide them with what they need. The monetary aspect becomes irrelevant if the brand delivers.
When OpenAI launched GPT-5, many long-time users felt let down. The decision to merge earlier models into one version was seen by some as a cost-cutting move, and the disappointment was loudest among the platform’s most loyal audience. Running these reactions through our authenticity cues showed a clear gap in cultural relevance. The release didn’t reflect the expectations or norms of its most vocal users. That’s an important lesson for brands and leaders - audiences want to feel heard. The best way to achieve that is by analysing online conversations through these cues, which can reveal what people truly expect and guide how to respond.
Interested in learning how Isentia can help? Fill in your details below to get access to our latest Authenticity Report and read more about our cues designed to measure brand authenticity.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(58) "How to rebuild brand trust through authentic communication"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(134) "Learn the major cues or signals that help PR leaders and brands measure authenticity, to deal with reputation risks and rebuild trust."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(58) "how-to-rebuild-brand-trust-through-authentic-communication"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2025-10-07 03:02:53"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2025-10-07 03:02:53"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=42501"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
How to rebuild brand trust through authentic communication
Learn the major cues or signals that help PR leaders and brands measure authenticity, to deal with reputation risks and rebuild trust.
With a population of over 46,000 and a reputation for heritage streetscapes, and parks, the City of Burnside is one of Adelaide’s most well-known residential councils. But managing communications in a busy media landscape is no easy task. The council needed to ensure positive stories reached the public, while also tracking emerging issues and maintaining accurate records to support decision-making and accountability.
The challenge? Like many local governments, the City of Burnside needed a sharper, tailored approach to media monitoring.
The council wanted to:
See which local stories were gaining traction
Track sentiment and emerging issues early
Give executives and council members timely, accurate information
Simplify reporting and access hard-to-reach broadcast and parliamentary content
In this case study, we explore how the City of Burnside uses Isentia to:
Monitor story impact and public sentiment
Spot trends in other councils and anticipate issues
Share key updates automatically with leadership and teams
Receive proactive alerts and summaries on major events
With Isentia embedded across the organisation, the council can respond confidently, manage reputational risks, and make informed decisions across communications and planning.
How Isentia helps the City of Burnside manage its reputation and anticipate complex issues
With a population of over 46,000 and a reputation for heritage streetscapes, and parks, the City of Burnside is one of Adelaide’s most well-known residential councils. But managing communications in a busy media landscape is no easy task. The council needed to ensure positive stories reached the public, while also tracking emerging issues and maintaining […]
Mass AI-generated content has overwhelmed our social feeds, and that has set a sense of panic among PR leaders. Brand communications were tricky earlier, but this has been exasperated even further by AI content. Audiences have been left confused, whether it be not being able to differentiate between real and fake personalities online or fake statements being circulated to mislead audiences. This has kept leadership wondering how they can cut through and impact their target audiences who are, at the moment, overstimulated with AI-driven content.
We analysed 30M data points between 1st January 2025 - 12th August 2025 globally on social and mainstream media like X, Forums, Online news, LinkedIn, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. We looked at real world cases of how audiences have been misled to believe something is real, and how this started a domino effect on the content being consumed by the world today.
The rise of synthetic content outranks fact-checkers by a mile
Synthetic media has taken over the internet and audience feeds have been flooded with unrelated and unreliable AI content. What's important to note is that, with mass AI content, unreliability can lead to getting into a dangerous spiral of consuming nonsensical content that does not benefit anybody. As a result, audiences have started to defend the content they see by wanting to only subscribe to what conforms with their expectations. With a decline in the number of fact-checkers, misinformation and disinformation have become rampant.
A real word case was when in the US a squirrel named Peanut “P-Nut” was given euthanasia for being illegally kept by a US citizen, a fake statement by President Donald Trump, in disagreement with the euthanasia by the authorities, was widely circulated on X. Audiences sympathised with this statement and stood by Trump, going as far as gathering support to make him the next President. This was a snowball effect, and the reason this happened was because the audiences had a public figure support what they were already thinking and Trump’s statement conformed with their expectations. Although the statement did not have any AI-involvement, it has become a case in point to understand how audiences perceive AI content. If they like what they see, whether it is human or AI, not a second is spared to confirm its authenticity.
Virtual influencers are creeping in on social media feeds
Mia Zelu, a virtual influencer, grew popular during this year's Wimbledon. On her Instagram, she had uploaded a photo carousel that looked like she was physically there at the All England Club enjoying a drink. At first, she seemed real, but the media and audiences quickly questioned it. She posted the images in July of this year during the tournament with a caption, but was quick to disable her comment section adding to the mystery and debate. There was a lot of online backlash with audiences clearly frustrated with how easily deceiving this could be. Despite the backlash, her follower count grew and her account now has about 168k followers.
The conversations around AI influencers is only just beginning and raises serious questions on authenticity, digital consumption and how AI personas can truly affect audience perceptions - without truly existing.
AI means brands are operating in a space of reduced trust
According to the AI Marketing Benchmark Report 2024, the trust deficit directly impacts brand communications strategies, as 36.7% of marketers worry about the authenticity of AI-driven content, while 71% of consumers admit they struggle to trust what they see or hear because of AI.
Audiences are not rejecting AI outright, but the opacity around it could be dangerous, making their confidence in AI as a tool shaky. This is where PR leaders need to make authentic communication a necessity and not just a "nice-to-have". In times where audiences are doubting whether a message was written by a human or a machine, the value of genuine and sincere human-driven storytelling rises.
Real-world instances where AI as a tool misses
Scepticism towards AI doesn’t just come from high-profile controversies. It shows up in small, everyday moments that frustrate audiences and remind them how fragile trust can be.
Grok’s image blunder: A widely shared photo of a young girl begging for food in Gaza was wrongly tagged by Grok as being from Iraq in 2004. The mistake spread quickly across platforms, fuelling anger about misinformation and raising questions about the reliability of AI tools.
McDonald’s drive-thru glitch: A customer in the US posted a TikTok showing how AI at a drive-thru added nine extra sweet teas to her order. The error caused by crosstalk from another lane, might seem trivial, but it highlights how automation can fail at simple tasks and how easily those failures go viral when shared online.
Air Canada chatbot case: A customer seeking information about bereavement fares was misled by the airline’s chatbot. When the company was asked to explain this, they claimed the chatbot was “responsible for its own actions.” A Canadian tribunal then, rejected this defence and ordered Air Canada to compensate the passenger. The incident drew widespread coverage, reinforcing public concerns that businesses are over-relying on AI without accountability.
Audiences expect to consume "more real and less fake"
The November 2024 Coca-Cola holiday campaign controversy exemplifies how quickly AI-generated content can trigger consumer backlash. When Coca-Cola used AI to create three holiday commercials, the response was overwhelmingly negative, with both consumers and creative professionals condemning the company's decision not to employ human artists. Despite Coca-Cola's defense that they remain dedicated in creating work that involves both human creativity and technology, the incident highlighted how AI usage in creative content can be perceived as a betrayal of brand authenticity, particularly devastating for a company whose holiday campaigns have historically celebrated human connection and nostalgia.
This kind of response to a multinational company really sets the record straight around what audiences expect to consume. PR leaders and marketers need to tread carefully when creating content, making sure there's no over-dependence on AI and that is obvious for anyone to point out there is no human creativity. Authenticity is in crisis only when we let go of our control around AI. This mandates a need for more fact-checkers and more audits around brands and leadership.
Interested in learning how Isentia can help? Fill in your details below to access the full Authenticity Report 2025 that uncovers cues for measuring brand and stakeholder authenticity.
Mass AI-generated content has overwhelmed our social feeds, and that has set a sense of panic among PR leaders. Brand communications were tricky earlier, but this has been exasperated even further by AI content. Audiences have been left confused, whether it be not being able to differentiate between real and fake personalities online or fake […]
