This report aims provides insight into the Banking Industry in Vietnam. We look into people’s preferences into their customer experience; using either traditional or digital banks, we deep dive into the topics driving social conversations about the banking industry, and the top mentioned brands related to the banking industry in Vietnam.
We have explored the latest trends and unpacked the current situation faced by the digital banking industry in Vietnam.
Download the whitepaper and read more.
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.
There’s no doubt the GameStop saga caused quite a stir within the finance industry and beyond. From a communications perspective, I’d like to reflect on the reputation of the finance industry and what’s changed as a result of the incident. I’d also like to explore the sentiment towards different financial institutions.
It’s important to delineate between investment banks, hedge funds (including HFTs and other obscure finance organisations) and commercial banks. For all the flak that commercial banks get, on the whole, individual banks are pretty good at communicating with consumers, maintaining their reputation and avoiding healthy skepticism turning into outright criticism.
Both professionally and personally I am compelled to regularly read the comments under breaking news articles shared on social media, and no matter what the cause or issues, I cannot recall a single story’s response being so absolutely one-sided.
When Isentia did an analysis of social media conversation relating to the GameStop saga, it found 88% of comments expressed an opinion about the topic supported the insurgent Wall Street Bets group. Approximately 50% of comments expressed a clear statement that hedge funds were losing at their own game and deserved no sympathy. The positively gleeful schadenfreude at the losses sustained by the hedge funds unified groups that in any other contexts would be building strawmen to attack each other in a never-ending battle of replies. Commenters in support of Wall St Bets floated conspiracy theories of the Democratic Party’s and Joe Biden’s personal involvement, while others called for the beginning of a socialist revolution. Robinhood closing positions and restricting trading in GME united such disparate voices as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump Jr., a potential dinner party for the ages that was cut short by AOC reminding Cruz of his role in the January 6th Capitol storming.
This reaction shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Recent real-life examples, like the GFC have built up doubt in financial institutions like hedge funds and investment banks, and cultural representations of these organisations tend to be negative.
Looking at Hollywood films about investment bankers and hedge funds, we see a list of negative depictions; The Big Short, Wall Street: Greed is Good, Wolf of Wall Street, Margin Call and American Psycho. Indeed, it’s hard to find a positive depiction of Wall Street and high finance with the possible exception of the Pursuit of Happyness.
Opinions of ‘Wall Street’ in the 2017 US YouGov survey, found that 77% of people believed that “most people on Wall Street would be willing to harm consumers if they believed they could make a lot of money and get away with it”, 72% believed Wall St financiers were more greedy and selfish than regular people. By contrast, in 2018, only 66% of 18-24 year olds and 76% of 25-34 year olds said they have always believed the earth was round. Put another way, you would possibly have more success on social media, arguing for a theory of a flat earth, than you would for the idea that there are ethics on Wall Street.
But none of this is new, those surveys are years old, people still talk about the open wounds of the GFC in 2008 and American Psycho was released in 2000. It may have ebbed and flowed at times, but movements like Occupy Wall Street didn’t feel like a response a single moment, but looked to address long-standing grievances. People have long been cynical about hedge funds and investment banks, and it doesn’t appear much has been done by the industry to improve the situation. Thought pieces on public relations and branding express exasperation with the financial services sector, generally acknowledging early in the text; ‘we know you don’t like it but here’s why you need it’, much like a dentist explaining flossing.
And who could blame hedge funds and investment banks for being ignorant in the modern world of communications? They are non-consumer facing businesses. They don’t have issues like other non-consumer-facing businesses (mining companies) that regularly seek community and environmental project approvals and face a highly organised and powerful climate change movement. They also don’t have an easy story to tell. The mining sector’s blue-collar jobs and regional economies have a more convincing message than providing liquidity to financial markets and diversifying risk.
So if the reputation hasn’t changed why would we suddenly talk about it from a communications perspective? Because the consequences have changed. The power of social media conversation and accessible trading platforms has meant that suddenly the poor reputation of these firms not only makes them a target for activist financial consequences, but also an entirely unsympathetic one (again, 88% of commenters on social media supported the actions of Wall Street Bets, and celebrated hedge fund losses). The question of regulating future market distortions such as GameStop is made politically complicated by this sentiment.
The other thing that’s changed; the messaging is clearer. People often distrusted Wall Street, but the usual attacks of income inequality and regulation tend to be murky and complicated. The frequent usage of the word democratisation is probably the most interesting development in the entire GameStop saga from a communication perspective.
Anyone who has studied or read about behavioural economics and knows about experiments in the Dictator Game will readily understand there is an innate drive towards fairness in our dealings with others, and perceptions of unfairness encourage us to punish the perpetrators, even if it’s to our own detriment. Thus, generating a clear narrative of unfairness is a powerful tool to generate support for a cause. The traditional attacks of income inequality are often the flagship of anti-Wall Street or anti-finance messaging and are often blurred enough to create a reasonable level of debate. Even if everyone agrees that regulation isn’t working, surveys in the US show deep divides between whether people believe the problem is about not enough regulation, not adequate enforcement of existing regulation, or if it’s the wrong type of regulation. This disagreement makes it difficult to build a clear policy of reform.
Democratisation, however, feels like it is a more powerful and clearer message. Propelled into the limelight most clearly by the actions of Robinhood, it asks a question of fairness that is far harder to obscure or dispute. We can argue whether or not the game is rigged, but no one can deny it’s unfair if you’re not allowed to play.
As a communications professional I am interested in the development of the narrative of democratisation and accessibility, and how those who support regulation in the post-GameStop era find ways to attack this sentiment. I am also interested to see how investment banks and hedge funds respond. They’re clearly starting with a difficult story to tell. While none of this has been a problem before, they now need to find a way to communicate with the wider public, particularly young people. They also need to shift a narrative that has existed for decades if not longer. In this partisan era one might avoid consequences from the antipathy of either progressives or conservatives, but the concentrated and focused antipathy of both, united by a simple and powerful message, is something to be concerned about.
There’s no doubt the GameStop saga caused quite a stir within the finance industry and beyond. From a communications perspective, I’d like to reflect on the reputation of the finance industry and what’s changed as a result of the incident. I’d also like to explore the sentiment towards different financial institutions.
The Australian public’s reaction to government reforms and leaders was especially eventful. Debates about campus safety by the Royal Commission, a tax deal between Labor and the Greens unsettling the finance and property sectors, and a speech on “monoculture” by Pauline Hanson shifting opinion polls in an unexpected way; were three complex stories that saw audiences taking different sides, leading to many perspectives and angles.
We used Isentia's Lumina to track the different viewpoints, key people, and stories with the largest volume and audience. Over four weeks (22 June to 17 July), we found 62 unique perspectives and nearly 900 media items across these three stories.
Here’s a quick overview:
▸ Campus Antisemitism at the Royal Commission — Pro-Palestinian groups, Jewish advocacy groups, and the federal government each put a different framing on the same hearings. Key drivers: Nasser Mashni, Yasmine Johnson, the Australian Union of Jewish Students, Jason Clare, TEQSA.
▸ The Labor–Greens Tax Deal — Government and Greens call it fairness for first-home buyers; finance and business groups call it policy on the run. Key drivers: Jim Chalmers, Nick McKim, the Self-Managed Super Fund Association, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
▸ Pauline Hanson's Monoculture Speech — A push for cultural unity that critics called divisive, followed by a real slide in the polls. Key drivers: Pauline Hanson, Paul Hogan, Murray Watt, Newspoll, Redbridge.
The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion’s hearings on university campuses was the biggest story by far. In less than a week, it drew 33 perspectives and 453 media items, reaching over 628k audiences. The story’s size came from the many institutions involved—student groups, representative bodies, and the federal government—each offering their own view on the same testimony.
Pro-Palestinian advocacy groups had the widest reach, making up about a third of all coverage. Spokespeople like Yasmine Johnson from Students for Palestine and Nasser Mashni from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network told the commission their campus protests are a legitimate justice movement. They also raised concerns that criticism of government policy is being confused with antisemitism, which they say limits open debate.
Jewish student and staff groups also received significant coverage, making up about a fifth of the total. The Australian Union of Jewish Students described campuses where some students feel hesitant to attend and highlighted gaps in how universities handle complaints and support those affected. Most of this coverage came from wire services and was widely shared across news outlets like The Australian or the Midwest Times.
The federal government provided a third perspective, with similar coverage. Education Minister Jason Clare said universities had been slow to act and announced plans to tighten governance standards. This includes clearer anti-racism policies covering both antisemitism and Islamophobia. Reports also noted that TEQSA, the regulator, warned universities about outside groups joining campus protests, and the government’s antisemitism envoy suggested universities could face funding cuts if they do not do enough.
The second-biggest story was more focused but still managed to stir strong reactions. Labor’s deal with the Greens to close a borrowing loophole for self-managed super funds, in return for Greens support on capital gains tax and negative gearing changes, led to 22 perspectives and 232 media items, reaching nearly 177k audiences.
The government, supported by the Greens, presented the deal simply — it closed a loophole that allowed wealthy investors to use their super funds to compete with first-home buyers at auctions. Treasurer Jim Chalmers cited a 2014 recommendation to support the change, and Greens treasury spokesman Nick McKim called it a win against "wealthy property investors."
The Greens, however, took a tougher stance and received similar coverage for saying the deal was only a partial win. They argued that allowing existing arrangements to continue would let Labour protect wealthy investors rather than renters, and said the housing crisis would now be "squarely of Labor's design." This shows that support from a governing partner does not always mean they are satisfied, as Country News highlighted.
Finance and business groups pushed back with nearly as much coverage. The Self-Managed Super Fund Association and the Australian Finance Industry Association said the borrowing rules did not pose a systemic risk and argued that regulators should focus on "aggressive marketing" and property spruiking, not legitimate investors. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warned that the wider capital gains tax changes could hurt business investment. ABC News gave the most detailed account of this perspective, noting the sector was "surprised" by how the deal was made.
This story had the fewest perspectives (just seven) but still reached nearly 236k people through 210 media items. That’s a bigger audience than the tax story, which had three times as many viewpoints.
The story began when Pauline Hanson used a National Press Club speech to argue that Australia should replace multiculturalism with a single "monoculture." She cited Paul Hogan and the Socceroos as examples. The backlash was quick and unexpected and Hogan himself called her a "pelican" and said her views were racist. His response ended up shaping the story more than her monoculture speech.
What makes this story notable is what happened afterward. Two polls, Newspoll and Redbridge, showed One Nation’s primary vote dropping by about two points (Dairy News Australia) and Hanson’s personal approval falling ten points into negative territory. Labor regained a narrow lead and Labor minister Murray Watt quickly described the numbers as a "reality check,". This framing spread almost as widely as the original speech, as the Bendigo Advertiser reported.
The speech and the poll results are really one story seen from three sides — Hanson’s message, her critics’ reactions, and Labor’s use of the polling. Each angle received similar coverage, showing that the speech missed its mark and gave the government a useful talking point.
First, the number of perspectives in a story is important. A story with many viewpoints, like the antisemitism hearings, needs a different monitoring approach than one with just a few, because the loudest voices might not always be the most important.
Second, pay attention when several perspectives are about the same size, as in the tax deal. If no single viewpoint stands out, the issue is likely still being debated. It’s a good idea to check back after some time instead of treating the first coverage as the final answer.
Third, compare any polarising message to the Hanson example before recommending it to a client. The numbers show that a divisive message can get attention but still turn public opinion against the speaker.
What links these stories is how much is lost when they are reduced to just two sides. The antisemitism hearings, the tax deal, and Hanson’s polling drop were all more complex than their main headlines suggested.
That’s why it’s valuable to track a story by its different perspectives and key drivers. See what Lumina can reveal for your industry or clients, and check out more analysis like this on the Isentia blog.
See how Isentia’s Lumina tracked 62 perspectives across 3 major Australian stories, revealing how media coverage really spreads and who ends up controlling the narrative.
There is a new frontier where public perception is shaped: Large Language Models. Right now, LLMs are answering critical questions about your organisation. What are they saying? And more importantly, which sources are shaping those answers?
To navigate this landscape, public relations professionals don't need generic tools, but rather technology that speaks their language, and addresses the realities of a changed media and informational landscape.
That is why we're unveiling Lumina AI View, the latest addition to our intelligent suite of AI tools from Isentia. Trained specifically on the workflows and challenges of modern PR & communications, Lumina AI View helps you understand exactly what AI knows about you, and how it learned it.
AI View tracks your citation strength and source quality alongside those of your competitors, giving you a clear view of where you hold authority and where you have gaps.
Lumina AI View maps your AI reputation from the ground up, allowing you to:
Lumina AI View is built on the principle that insights get stronger with repeated measurement. To help you maintain a clear view of your reputation, our proprietary scoring system provides regular updates that show you:
Whether you run it weekly, on-demand, or whenever you need a check-in, patterns will emerge, trends will become clear, and you will build a baseline that makes any sudden narrative changes both comprehensible and the prerequisite to action.
Lumina AI View is part of Lumina AI, a comprehensive suite of AI tools built specifically for communicators. Our Lumina suite evolves traditional media monitoring into narrative intelligence, enabling you to truly understand how perceptions form, evolve, and impact your reputation.
Get in touch to register your interest and see what Lumina AI View can do for you.
" ["post_title"]=> string(66) "Introducing Lumina AI View: AI Visibility Built for PR & Comms" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(158) "Lumina AI View, the latest in Isentia's AI suite, is trained on PR & comms workflows to help you understand what AI knows about you — and how it learned it." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(59) "introducing-lumina-ai-view-ai-visibility-built-for-pr-comms" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-07-15 03:12:57" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-07-15 03:12:57" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47963" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Get in touch or request a demo.