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.
Following our webinar on 5 May, our panelists respond to the questions we didn’t get to on the day.
AI is already shaping your organisation’s reputation — whether you’re managing it or not.
On 5 May, Isentia brought together three leading voices in communications and insights for a conversation about what’s really happening on the ground as AI reshapes the workspace. Catherine Arrow (Executive Director, PR Knowledge Hub), Russ Horell (Isentia APAC’s ex-Chief Revenue Officer) and Ngaire Crawford (Isentia and Vuelio's Executive Director for AI Strategy in PR & Comms) explored how communications leaders are navigating AI conversations with executives and boards, where pressure is increasing across risk, measurement and strategic advisory, how teams are adapting workflows and decision-making in response to AI influence, and where do communicators see the right opportunity.
The session saw many questions popping up from our audiences that we couldn't really address them all. So we went back to our panelists and asked them to respond. Below, Catherine Arrow and Ngaire Crawford share their thoughts on what attendees most wanted to know.
Catherine Arrow is the Executive Director of PR Knowledge Hub, a professional development and training organisation for public relations practitioners. A veteran of the communications industry with deep expertise in strategic counsel, crisis and issues management, and information disorder, Catherine is known for her clear-eyed thinking on the intersection of AI, reputation and organisational responsibility. She is a trusted voice on what AI actually means for practitioners — not in theory, but in practice.
One of the main difficulties is that organisations and their leaders seldom have a clear picture of what they already have at their fingertips when it comes to AI. Many organisations, for example, use the Microsoft suite and may already have access to Copilot, but what can actually be achieved depends on the licences, payments and subscriptions in place. At the same time, leadership teams are influenced, as we all are, by the level of hype that has bubbled to the surface over the last 12 months. Too often, AI is regarded as a passive tool that lives inside a box and as practitioners we have a role to play helping leaders move beyond that limited view. We need to help them understand not only the functional use of particular tools but the bigger picture, to understand the impact AI may have on the organisation’s decision-making, relationships, reputation and licence to operate. The issue is whether the organisation understands the consequences of handing decisions, or the appearance of decisions, to AI in ways that may affect stakeholders, employees, communities of interest and others connected to the organisation’s activities.
So, when I need to tactfully push back or redirect the conversation, my starting point is usually a set of simple questions. What are you trying to achieve with this? How does it align with your organisational outcomes? Is it being applied ethically? Do you understand the consequences? What could it do to your reputation, relationships and ability to maintain your licence to operate?
That approach allows the conversation to move away from the excitement of the new shiny tools and back towards purpose, responsibility and organisational impact. From there, you can begin to workshop the options, discuss the implications, consider the real costs and identify the areas that need attention before AI of any kind is deployed.
Yes, AI picks up social media commentary but it will only pick up what it can access. Generally, that means publicly available commentary or material available through an API connection or approved data source. So, in terms of general digital chatter, yes, AI can identify and interpret some of that activity.
The difficulty is that we have to be careful about what it is actually reading. You can already see this in some AI overviews and AI-generated summaries, where the system may refer to “chatter” or online discussion without always digging deeply enough into whether the original sources are genuine, reliable or themselves AI-generated. So we end up with AI nested inside AI, nested inside AI.
That creates a bigger problem for communication and engagement. People are increasingly using AI to generate and optimise social media content but that is not the same as engaging with people. At the same time, many platform algorithms are designed to reward optimised content. The result is a circular loop where AI feeds AI, which feeds AI again. Human language, judgement and connection get pushed aside.
People can become immune to this kind of content because it does not sound like the way we speak to each other, nor does it reflect the way genuine relationships are built. Then, when conflict or outrage is layered on top, the environment becomes even harder to interpret.
So the short answer is yes, AI can monitor social media commentary. The longer answer is that it often does so in ways that require considerable caution, human judgement and a much deeper understanding of what is being surfaced, amplified and missed.
Personally, I try to maintain credibility by doing my best to remain human. That is probably the best advice I would give to others as well. Use your own intelligence to understand the people and communities you want to engage with. Do not use AI as a barrier between you and them. Use it as a handy tool. Let it help you edit where necessary, test an idea or explore an angle, but do not hand over your voice, judgement or identity. The same applies to imagery. If you are creating images with AI, treat it as a collaboration rather than giving the system an idea and simply running with whatever it gives back. AI-generated imagery carries assumptions and bias, so we must question what is produced and make conscious choices about what we use.
For me, maintaining credibility and authenticity means being yourself and not allowing AI to suffocate your identity. That will become harder to do as digital twins, synthetic voices and other tools make it easier for organisations to use it as a mask. The real challenge is not so much maintaining credibility. It is about maintaining humanity, empathy, kindness and a genuine wish to connect with others beyond the AI-intermediated space.
Different AI systems can reflect, distort or flatten cultural context in several ways and one of the biggest concerns is the continental drift between the major model providers. Many of the systems most widely used are strongly shaped by US language, culture, law, commercial assumptions and social norms. At the same time, Chinese models are being developed within a very different political, linguistic and cultural environment – much better at APAC languages for example. So the question is twofold: whether an AI system is “accurate” and “accurate according to whom, trained on what, governed by which assumptions and optimised for which worldview”?
Training data matters enormously. In the early days of the general release of generative AI, we saw certain words and phrases appear everywhere. “Delve” is one example, and “dive into” is another. These were signals of the linguistic patterns embedded in the data, the training process and the reinforcement layers shaping outputs. When those patterns are repeated at scale, they begin to influence the way people write, speak and frame ideas. Over time, that blunts understanding, with distinctive voices, local idioms and cultural ways of knowing pushed towards a generic machine-mediated style.
There is important work being done by Māori researchers and others on the cultural impact of AI, particularly in relation to language and data sovereignty, indigenous knowledge and the right of communities to determine how their knowledge is represented, protected and used. The research is still developing but the concern is real. AI systems can absorb, repackage and reproduce cultural knowledge without context, consent or accountability. They can also misread or flatten concepts that do not translate neatly into dominant languages or Western knowledge structures.
That is why the homogenisation of culture and language is something we need to understand and contest. In many ways, AI becomes a form of digital colonisation. Knowledge is scraped, curated, classified and reproduced by systems that may have no meaningful relationship with the people, histories or communities from which that knowledge came. In some instances, it risks rewriting history, or at least a narrowing of it, where contested, local or marginalised perspectives are buried beneath the most available, most optimised or most dominant version of events.
So, different AI systems may distort cultural context by privileging dominant languages, simplifying complex meanings, mistranslating concepts, omitting local histories or reproducing the worldview of their developers and training environments. They may flatten culture by making everything sound the same. And that presents a real danger, not only for communication professionals but for society more broadly, because shared understanding, cultural memory and social cohesion all depend on our ability to recognise difference, preserve nuance and respect the knowledge that communities hold for themselves.
The Managing Information Disorder session will stream live on 2nd July. Please register here.
In case you can't make it, you can always signup and access the live recording. As part of the session, you will also receive the Information Disorder Framework and the practical tools that accompany it, designed to help you recognise and respond to misinformation, disinformation, mal-information, narrative attacks, deepfakes and other risks in the current information environment.
If you would like to know more about AI, the AI in Public Relations – What’s New, What’s Next and What Now? session is also available. It is designed to help you get up to speed with the latest developments, understand what they mean for public relations practice and identify what you need to do next.
You can also access some of the resources Catherine mentioned during the webinar, including the Chaos Compendium, which is freely available. It exists to help you think through what is happening now, prepare your organisation for the months ahead and take practical steps to manage the risks, issues and pressures already coming into view.
Ngaire Crawford is Executive Director for AI Strategy, with a mandate spanning both Isentia and Vuelio to ensure the Group’s AI strategy is coherent, credible and commercially effective. A driving force behind Isentia’s insights and measurement capability for a number of years, Ngaire is a well-respected voice across the communications measurement industry — with customers, at industry events, and in the broader conversation about the future of PR and communications. Her curious, thoughtful approach, deep expertise in measurement, and early adopter mindset with AI have helped shape much of what Isentia is building.
If we assume people are already off the first rung and past treating AI as a workflow assistant for drafting and summarising, the more interesting mistakes tend to start after that.
The one I’d put first is assuming this is a more neutral information environment than it actually is. It’s a tempting thing to believe after years of algorithmic outrage, the idea that AI hands everyone a calmer, more balanced version of events is genuinely appealing. But I don’t think the echo chamber disappears with LLMs; it just gets dressed differently. Social platforms built echo chambers by amplifying whatever made you angry. LLMs have a gentler version of the same habit, they’re built to be helpful and agreeable, so if you ask a leading question you’ll often get an answer that politely validates your framing. And the more personalised they get, the more pronounced that becomes. So when you’re thinking about how your audiences are forming views through these tools, what matters isn’t just what the system “says” — it’s who’s doing the asking, how they’re asking, and what the system has already learned about them.
And then a more practical one: getting the order of operations wrong when you build out intelligence capability. The instinct to bring more of this in-house is understandable, but it often gets handed straight to a data or tech team, and however good the pipeline they build, you can end up with something impressive that produces information nobody quite knows how to act on. What’s signal versus noise for this organisation, what’s actually useful to a comms leader — are communications questions, not engineering ones. Sort those out first and the technology tends to slot in behind them; do it the other way round and you usually get the impressive-but-unusable version.
The thing is, “perform” is doing two jobs. There’s visibility (does evidence-rich content get cited more?) and there’s reputation (when you do get cited, is the picture the system paints one you’d actually recognise?) They’re not the same question, and an evidence base does fairly different things for each.
On visibility, it’s, broadly yes. Well-sourced, clearly structured, quotable content does tend to get picked up more, there’s research pointing that way, though honestly it’s mostly from controlled studies and it moves around a lot depending on the topic and the platform. But what’s getting rewarded there is just clarity, good sourcing, consistency, authority. Which is less a shiny new lever and more the basics of communications.
Reputation is where “perform better” can start to lead you astray. Getting cited isn’t the same as being represented well. You can have a flawless evidence base, get pulled into an answer, and still find that answer describes you in a way you’d never have approved because the model’s also leaning on everything everyone else has said about you. You can definitely nudge your visibility, but how you’re represented is downstream of your whole information environment, and that’s a slower, longer term shift.
So yes, a real evidence base matters, but not because it’s a button you press to perform better. It matters because being genuinely worth referencing is what trusted sources cite, and it’s those sources, built up over time, that shape how these systems talk about you. What I’d be wary of is treating an “overt evidence base” as something you manufacture to game your way in.
What comes through clearly in both Catherine’s and Ngaire’s responses is that AI is a shifting set of conditions that communications professionals need to understand, question and actively work within, not just hand over.
The organisations that will navigate this well are not necessarily those with the most sophisticated AI tools. They are the ones asking better questions earlier, about purpose, about accountability, about what it means to remain genuinely credible and human in an environment where both are increasingly easy to fake.
If you missed the webinar or want to revisit it, access the recording here. Watch this space — there’s more to come.
" ["post_title"]=> string(44) "Inside the AI Shift: Your Questions Answered" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(189) "Panelists from Isentia's "Inside the AI Shift" webinar address some of the audiences' unanswered questions on maintaining credibility, AI leadership and evidence-based content performance. " ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(43) "inside-the-ai-shift-your-questions-answered" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-06-09 02:26:47" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-06-09 02:26:47" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=48129" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Panelists from Isentia’s “Inside the AI Shift” webinar address some of the audiences’ unanswered questions on maintaining credibility, AI leadership and evidence-based content performance.
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) "2026-06-04 04:13:37" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-06-04 04:13:37" ["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" }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.
The next time a journalist, investor or potential customer wants to know about your organisation, it’s now increasingly likely they won’t Google you. They'll ask an AI.
They'll type a question into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini, something like "Who are the leading renewable energy companies in Australia?" or "What's the best PR agency for healthcare in Singapore?" and the AI will give them an answer. The question is whether your own organisation shows up in that answer.
The implications are significant for communications professionals, whether they’re in the agency-side working with clients or in-house managing a brand. The rules of reputation and discovery are being rewritten, and there’s a new kind of playbook that we all need to adapt to. That’s what’s going to take us forward.
For decades, earned media has been the backbone of credibility. A strong piece in a respected outlet signalled trust, authority and relevance. This hasn't particularly changed, but the way that coverage gets used has.
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of publicly available content - news articles, company websites, industry reports, social media, expert commentary. When someone asks an AI a question, it synthesises all of that material into a single answer. If an organisation has a strong, consistent, well-sourced presence across those channels, it is more likely to show up. If it doesn't, it becomes invisible and is absent from the conversation entirely.
Gartner's latest predictions for Chief Communications Officers underline how serious this shift is. They forecast that as LLMs increasingly replace traditional search, PR and earned media budgets will double by 2027. What they say is that this is a communications challenge, one that requires PR expertise to build trust, secure quality coverage, and maintain consistent messaging across stakeholders.
Their research also predicts that by 2029, 45% of CCOs will be using narrative intelligence technologies to monitor reputation amid rising disinformation, a recognition that the old keyword-based approach to media monitoring simply can't keep up with the way stories now form, spread and multiply.
One of the less obvious risks in this new landscape is what happens when AI starts feeding on itself.
Catherine Arrow, Executive Director of the PR Knowledge Hub, raised this point during Isentia's recent Inside the AI Shift webinar. As she explained, "AI can identify and interpret some publicly available commentary. The difficulty is that we have to be careful about what it is actually reading. You can already see this in AI overviews where the system may refer to online discussion without digging deeply enough into whether the original sources are genuine, reliable or themselves AI-generated. So we end up with AI nested inside AI, nested inside AI."
That creates a real problem for anyone in communications. If the content landscape is increasingly populated by AI-generated material which is optimised to be found by algorithms rather than to inform real people, then the signals that LLMs rely on to build their answers become less trustworthy. Human judgement, original thinking and genuine expertise become harder for these systems to find, precisely because they're being drowned out by content that was designed to game them.
Catherine puts it simply, "People can become immune to this kind of content because it does not sound like the way we speak to each other, nor does it reflect the way genuine relationships are built. Then, when conflict or outrage is layered on top, the environment becomes even harder to interpret."
For PR and comms teams, it's not enough to produce more content. The right content needs to be produced, one that is original, expert-led, and well-placed in the channels and formats that LLMs are most likely to surface.
So what does it actually look like to build LLM visibility into your communications strategy? It starts with the fundamentals, but applied with new intent:
This is where the gap between media monitoring and media intelligence becomes critical. Monitoring tells you what's been said. Intelligence tells you how stories are forming, which perspectives are shaping them, and where your organisation sits within those narratives — including how AI systems are representing you.
Dr Nici Sweaney, Founder and Director of AI Her Way, made this distinction sharply during Isentia's AI as a New Stakeholder webinar. "What will set people apart, and what AI cannot replicate is the human lens. The judgment, the relationships, the institutional knowledge, the strategic read of a room. The organisations that lean into supporting their people to harness these tools, rather than just deploying the tools, will be the ones best placed.”
That's an important framing. The answer to AI disruption is to get clear on what only humans can do and then make sure the tools we’re using actually support that.
There's a temptation, when faced with a challenge like this, to throw more content at the problem – more posts, more articles, more releases. But Catherine Arrow points out the risks of that approach.
"Maintaining credibility and authenticity means being yourself and not allowing AI to suffocate your identity. That will become harder to do as digital twins, synthetic voices and other tools make it easier for organisations to use it as a mask. The real challenge is not so much maintaining credibility. It is about maintaining humanity, empathy, kindness and a genuine wish to connect with others beyond the AI-intermediated space.”
That advice matters just as much for organisations as it does for individuals. Brands that let AI do their thinking, generating bland, interchangeable content at scale, will find themselves blending into the noise rather than cutting through it. The brands that show up in LLM answers will be the ones with a clear, consistent, well-evidenced point of view.
Dr Nici Sweaney reinforced this from the operational side. "Ethical use is not about not using AI. It’s about using it with intention, honesty, and a clear sense of what good looks like on the other side.”
She was also direct about the risks of rushing in, "Don’t add new shiny AI projects on top of already overloaded teams. That creates resentment, not buy-in. Start by solving the problems people already have."
There's another layer to this that often gets overlooked and that’s the cultural one.
Catherine Arrow raised important concerns about how different AI systems can distort or flatten cultural context. Many of the most widely used models are shaped by US language, commercial assumptions and social norms. Chinese models operate within a different political and cultural framework. For organisations working across the Asia-Pacific region, it directly affects how the brand, messaging and the market are understood and represented by AI.
"Different AI systems may distort cultural context by privileging dominant languages, simplifying complex meanings, mistranslating concepts, omitting local histories or reproducing the worldview of their developers and training environments. They may flatten culture by making everything sound the same.”
For communicators operating across diverse markets, this means paying close attention to where content sits, who produced it, and whether the AI systems the audiences are using can actually interpret it with the nuance it deserves.
This is precisely the challenge that Isentia's Lumina suite was built to address. Lumina is an intelligent suite of AI tools trained on the language, workflows and realities of modern public relations and communications, designed to empower, not replace, the human element of communications strategy.
Isentia's Lumina AI View feature will allow organisations to track how their brand, competitors and key topics are described by leading LLMs, with auditable claims, citations and transparency with regards to the sources. It's the difference between wondering whether AI is getting your story right and actually being able to see for yourself. These aren't generic AI features bolted onto a monitoring tool. They're intelligence systems built for the way communicators actually work.
The communications landscape has shifted. AI isn't just a tool the team might use, it's a stakeholder in its own right, actively shaping how an organisation is discovered, understood and evaluated.
For PR and comms professionals, the priorities are to ensure experts, commentary and evidence are placed widely enough for LLMs to find them and include them in their answers. Intelligence is imperative and required to how narratives are forming across both traditional media and AI platforms. All of this needs to be done without losing the human credibility that makes communications worth paying attention to in the first place.
As Dr Nici Sweaney put it, "The people who get the most from AI aren’t the ones who use the most tools, they’re the ones who understand their work deeply enough to know exactly where AI can add the most leverage."
That's the opportunity. The question is whether we’re set up to take it.
To explore how Isentia's Lumina suite can help your team navigate AI visibility, get in touch or discover Lumina.
" ["post_title"]=> string(51) "If AI can't find you, neither can your stakeholders" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(140) "We explore why LLM visibility should be a priority for PR and comms teams — and why harnessing AI, not just deploying it, is what matters." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(49) "if-ai-cant-find-you-neither-can-your-stakeholders" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:57" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:57" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47943" ["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.