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 Singapore general election was quick and felt like more of a touch-and-go event, but a lot was observed and could be learnt from media and audience reactions to the event.
We analysed, using Pulsar TRAC, more than 270k mentions across online news, podcasts, TV, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, X, forums and blogs in Singapore between March 28th - May 7th 2025, to see how the conversation was moving and being influenced by media and audiences. Based on this, we listed what we’ve learnt from this year’s election.
Chee Hong Tat’s defence of the GST hike shows the PAP leaning heavily on long-term fiscal planning. This was mainly covered by media outlets like the CNA, mentioning how these hikes were to eventually work on providing benefits to the seniors of society and that it wouldn’t be possible if these hikes weren’t in place. Audiences across X and Facebook expressed their concerns around this, but were equally appreciative of open dialogue with the public.
The peak in the US mentions were partly a consequence of Trump’s trade tariffs that wasn’t received particularly well by the rest of the world. PM Wong expressed his opinions on how Singapore continues to be a partner to the US but would expect a fair tariff rate in return. Big foreign peaks were tracked by Reuters and The Guardian that framed the election poll as a barometer of regional politics. Many of the foreign media talk about the opposition parties in Singapore and express that a healthy opposition makes for important parliamentary debate on essential matters like rising living concerns and jobs in Singapore.
The Straits Times leads the election coverage with many of its articles being linked or reposted around social media, mostly Instagram, Facebook and Reddit with audiences giving timely updates on speeches, election street campaigning or their favourite candidates, intending to start conversation. CNA and Mothership show the same pattern, each pulling far larger numbers once clips hit Facebook, X, TikTok and Reddit.
#ge2025 sat far above every other tag, yet party tags #pap and #rp still drove thousands of mentions. On keywords, PM Lawrence Wong outranked party names with the most mentioned on social posts. It’s important to note that these mentions are by audiences on social media like TikTok, X, Reddit, Instagram and Facebook. Lately, even short clips from podcasts around elections are becoming viral, not just on Instagram or TikTok, but even on Facebook that generally hosts long-ish format videos, second to YouTube.
Yah Lah BUT logged more than a hundred election clips, nearly double its nearest podcaster, The Daily Ketchup. Audio hosts mixed humour, policy, and hot‑takes that travelled into short‑form video. These podcasts have been a growing trend in Singapore, hosted by youngsters who often invite political candidates onto their shows and pose questions that a young Singaporean would like to ask their leaders. These podcasters have seen their content travel fast on TikTok and Instagram reels for quick insights, but still have most of their audience engagement on YouTube.
Singapore’s GE2025 didn’t just offer political drama—it showed how media, both old and new, shape what people see and feel. From viral videos to policy debates, from mainstream reports to TikTok podcast clips, every format played a role.
Interested in learning more? Email us at info@isentia.com
" ["post_title"]=> string(59) "5 things we learnt from the Singapore general election 2025" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(59) "5-things-we-learnt-from-the-singapore-general-election-2025" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 03:06:48" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 03:06:48" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=39805" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }The Singapore general election was quick and felt like more of a touch-and-go event, but a lot was observed and could be learnt from media and audience reactions to the event. We analysed, using Pulsar TRAC, more than 270k mentions across online news, podcasts, TV, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, X, forums and blogs in Singapore […]
This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives.
At the start of the campaign, traditional media focused on familiar priorities. The Labor government’s May budget led with cost-of-living relief, fuel excise changes and increased rental support. The Liberals responded with proposals for nuclear energy and a plan to cut 40,000 public service jobs. While these issues framed the early weeks, they were quickly overtaken in online discussions by stories with more cultural weight.
On social media, a video comparing Peter Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely, while Anthony Albanese’s “delulu with no solulu” moment during a Happy Hour podcast interview was picked up by national outlets and widely shared on social platforms. Personality often generated more interest than policy.
Both major parties tried to engage younger voters where they spend their time. Albanese’s appearance on podcasts and his interviews with influencers like Abbie Chatfield reflected a values-driven approach. Dutton’s appearance on Sam Fricker’s podcast targeted young men through a more casual, conversational format.
Mainstream media covered these appearances but often through the lens of political tactics rather than substance. When Abbie Chatfield’s pro-Greens posts attracted AEC scrutiny in early April, the story became more about influencer regulation than her political message.
The second leaders’ debate on 10 April marked a turning point, with stark contrasts on energy, education and immigration. Dutton's focus on crime and border control drew backlash, while Albanese was seen as calm but cautious. Instead of clarifying party differences, the debate intensified existing divides.
Online commentary quickly split along ideological lines. Audiences did not just debate the leaders’ points but used the debate to reinforce partisan views, highlighting how polarised public discourse has become.
Influencers became central to election storytelling. Abbie Chatfield faced strong support and criticism after posting about the Greens and questioning the Liberal Party’s media strategy. The Juice Media released satirical videos targeting defence and energy policies, resonating with disillusioned younger audiences.
Even incidents unrelated to official campaigns became flashpoints. In February, a video from an Israeli influencer alleging antisemitic comments by NSW nurses went viral, triggering political statements and shifting media attention to broader issues of hate speech and accountability online.
As the election neared, cultural tensions gained traction. On 12 April, media attention turned to Peter Dutton after reports emerged that his Labor opponent Ali France was leading in Dickson. Around the same time local authorities dismantled a tent encampment in the area while Dutton was campaigning in Perth. This raised questions about leadership and visibility on local issues.
Across social and news media, themes like Gaza, curriculum debates and identity politics took centre stage. Slogans such as “Get Australia back on track” were interpreted as echoes of US political rhetoric. Jacinta Price and Clive Palmer were both linked to similar messaging, fuelling memes and commentary about the Americanisation of Australian politics.
Rather than rallying around shared policy concerns, audiences engaged with content that reflected deeper anxieties about national identity and international influence.
What stood out the most wasn’t necessarily the policy itself, but the moments, memes, and messages that tapped into cultural tensions. The freedom for media and social media users to connect with and amplify these narratives created an arena where some politicians struggled to engage effectively. While some stuck to party lines without fully understanding the patterns driving media and social discourse, others embraced the shift, adapting to the rhetoric that was emerging online. The lesson is clear: in today’s media environment, ignoring what people are saying or the patterns of conversation isn’t an option.
" ["post_title"]=> string(59) "Media and social highlights from the election campaign 2025" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(58) "media-and-social-highlight-from-the-election-campaign-2025" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 15:58:16" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-08 15:58:16" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=39776" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives. 1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it At the […]
The biggest influence on public perception of the 2025 election campaign was not policy. It was identity, culture wars, and a growing fear of Australia 'becoming America'. What began as a focus on easing the cost of living quickly widened into a broader debate about national identity. Media coverage and social media feeds revealed a tug of war. On one side was policy messaging. On the other, gaining considerable ground, were culture and identity narratives fuelled by anxiety over external influence.
At the start of the election cycle in early March, news coverage centred on cost of living pressures and tax cuts. The Labor government's budget announcement and the Liberal Party’s response cemented the agenda, with topics like supermarket price gouging, fuel excises, and nuclear energy proposals striking a chord with voters. Early discussion on social media showed a clear focus on making life more affordable for families. But in the background, frustration around Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs and concerns about Australia–U.S. relations began to surface. Peter Dutton’s early promise to cut 40,000 public service jobs and push for a return to office work further fuelled comparisons between Dutton and Trump among Australian audiences.
As the election cycle progressed, international events and conflicts moved to the forefront. Trump’s presence in global headlines alongside Canada's similarly timed election, intensified comparisons between Australian and Canadian public attitudes toward American influence. Media narratives shifted from domestic cost-of-living concerns to broader conversations about defending the Australian way of life and protecting national interests particularly in education, reshaping the battleground on which voters made their decisions.
On March 28, coverage and discussion spiked as Anthony Albanese officially announced the election date. Earlier, on March 10, a surge in conversation centred on new polling that suggested a potential hung parliament, sharpening media focus on Labor. Albanese’s appearance on Today, where he responded to frustrations about delayed campaigning with, “We’re just about helping people, because that’s what people expect,” reinforced his image as a community-focused leader and contrasted with how past prime ministers were criticised during disasters. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton’s social media attention rose on April 12, as reports surfaced of his opponent Ali France leading in Dickson while a local tent encampment was demolished by Moreton Bay Council. Dutton, campaigning in Perth during the demolition, attracted criticism. A few days later, a compilation of clips linking Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely. These moments highlighted the distinct leadership styles that shaped voter perceptions throughout the campaign.
Although Labor drew the most attention overall, Dutton and the Liberals gained momentum across social media. The Liberal Party’s early use of trends, AI tools, and memes attracted conversation, but the involvement of influencers and podcasts proved polarising. Coverage also highlighted a generational divide, with young women leaning left and young men leaning right. Influencers played a key role in shaping these dynamics, from Albanese’s Happy Hour podcast appearance on March 26, where his “delulu with no solulu” challenge dominated news cycles, to Dutton’s interview on Sam Fricker’s podcast aimed at young male voters. As the campaign progressed, news increasingly focused on character attacks and gaffes at the expense of policy debate. Issues like housing, supermarket competition, HECS relief, and energy bills remained core to party platforms, but many audiences were drawn into yarns covering personality clashes and culture wars.
The most shared news items from the beginning of the campaign to recently underline this shift of attention to cultural conflict. Posts about the mobilisation of Muslim voters around Gaza, criticism of Liberal candidates campaigning in military uniforms, warnings about public service job cuts, and debates over the political leanings of young male voters all reveal how specific cultural flashpoints and niche group appeals dominated discussion. Instead of broad policy debates, election discourse was fragmented into controversies that inflamed identity-driven tensions, polarised audiences, and heightened distrust.
Whether leaders spoke about getting Australia back on track, building a better Australia, or even making Australia great again, these slogans signalled clear messages to voters. More often than not, the public expressed a desire to distance Australia from the United States, particularly in defending healthcare and education systems that set Australia apart. Early in the campaign, when a journalist suggested Anthony Albanese’s use of "build back better" echoed Joe Biden’s slogan, the comment was quickly dismissed. Though not officially endorsed, the slogan’s use by Jacinta Price and Clive Palmer quickly eclipsed party lines, fuelling memes and comparisons to US Republicans across social media. This did little to help the Liberals distance their official slogan, 'Get Australia back on track,' from US political parallels. As Trump’s influence became a talking point, glimpses of Trump-style messaging were eagerly picked up by news outlets and social media alike, often overshadowing Labor’s campaign messaging and limiting its cut-through.
As the campaign unfolded, it became harder to separate policy from personality or promises from the cultural narratives surrounding them. Media and social media attention did more than reflect public interest. They helped shape it, steering the election conversation toward identity, values, and questions about Australia's place in a changing world. Whether that influence outweighed policy in swaying voters is still up for debate, but it clearly changed how the campaign was seen, shared, and remembered.
" ["post_title"]=> string(68) "Did culture wars cut through more than policy on the election trail?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(67) "did-culture-wars-cut-through-more-than-policy-on-the-election-trail" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-05-01 04:22:11" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-05-01 04:22:11" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=39594" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }The biggest influence on public perception of the 2025 election campaign was not policy. It was identity, culture wars, and a growing fear of Australia ‘becoming America’. What began as a focus on easing the cost of living quickly widened into a broader debate about national identity. Media coverage and social media feeds revealed a […]
Get in touch or request a demo.