Some trends can be picked ahead of their time, however the explosiveness of a random tweet, call-to-action or cat video is almost impossible to pin-point.
While trends will mostly fade back and be replaced with another, the occasional and rare trend can have legitimate and measurable impacts on society. A recent example of this is the anti-plastic straw movement that took off in 2018.
It started with a terribly sad and visceral video of a straw being removed from the nose of a sea turtle – it’s likely you’ve seen it yourself. The internet is filled with images and videos relating to the impacts of pollution and climate change on the wildlife, however this video happened to stick in the social media sphere long enough to cause a stir.
In the context of environmental upset and helplessness, the plastic straw became the epitome of our harmful single-use plastic culture. In the space of a couple of months, plastic straws were disappearing from venues and public discourse stigmatised their use. Massive chain restaurants such as McDonalds and Starbucks announced plans to ban the plastic straw, as well as some cities and countries introducing bans or taxes on similar single-use products.
While this is ultimately a positive movement with good intention, rejecting the use of plastic straws is an easy and short-term relief to an overwhelming frustration with single-use consumer culture. This year we’ve been seeing similar trends emerge with the rise of keep-cup popularity and debates over plastic bags in super markets.
These trends may be tokenistic, however, they are telling of widespread sentiment and signify the public’s desire to be heard and responded too.
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.
An organisation’s reputation is at its core, really how people feel about them. These feelings can be based on their interaction and knowledge of the brand, or their experience with the products and services the organisation provides. This reputation is important as it can often dictate the actions or choices audiences and buyers make, impacting an organisation financially and its ability to grow. If managed and measured, the value of an organisations reputation can safeguarded and used as a source of growth by strategically influencing key consumer’s consideration over the competition and the market more broadly.
People can interact directly with an organisation more than ever before, on social media, targeted advertisements, in-store experiences, customer support to name a few.
Social media is a great place to listen to the voice of consumers and key audiences who choose to voice their experiences online. It provides insight into what your organisation has done well or needs to do better. When used in conjunction with additional data, like survey analysis it can also reveal what channels and content are contributing to this perception, and how this can be shifted. Drawing from online resources and social media, Isentia has established 3 drivers to identify and quantify an organisation’s reputation.
The first driver is about the future direction of an organisation.
Does your organisation have a strong leader? Does your organisation seek to innovate? Does it shape the way society thinks? Is your organisation authentic in its messaging? Is your organisation likely to succeed?
When an organisation shows these qualities, it raises consumer trust and confidence, but it’s important that this is authentic. An example of this is Honestbee. Honestbee’s strategy covered several of these points - they were a fast expanding and innovative Singaporean startup in the online grocery delivery business. The founders focused on being perceived as successful, with plans for rapid expansion.
However, In October 2018, Habitat, the world’s first tech-integrated multi-sensory grocery and dining destination launched. Three months after the launch of Habitat, it was discovered Honestbee was deep in financial debt. This was a shock to the industry as Honestbee had a good strategy. Their downfall had been in their inauthentic messaging which resulted in the organisation losing trust of their consumers and investors.
Culture is determined by the organisation having strong values and integrity.
Is the organisation socially responsible? Are practices fair and transparent? Do they promote a balanced workplace? Is it an environment where people aspire to work? Do they have ethical relationships with their business partners?
The growing number of organisations ‘going green’ is as good example of how the market can reflect and appeal to the values of today, in this case by demonstrating they're more environmentally conscious. In a 2019 Nielsen study, it was shown 1 in 3 consumers prefer eco- friendly products. Both Fairprice and Redmart, grocery chains in Singapore, also expressed growth in demand for their environmentally friendly products.
An organisation’s workplace culture, including ethical behaviour can also negatively impact an organisation. For example, Google was challenged for the way cases of sexual harassment were handled within the workplace. They were also challenged for questionable deals in AI technology that resulted in a protest of 20,000 employees across their offices. Google’s poor behaviour was exposed which led to criticism from Amnesty International and a backlash on social media.
Delivery is how good an organisation is at delivering on it’s day to day business.
Do people perceive the organisations products are good quality? Are the products well received? Is the organisation well known in the industry? Do customers have a good experience? Are they successful?
A good example of how delivery can be analysed is in the sphere of reputation is the case of, Razer Inc. known as an organisation passionate about gaming. With a tagline ‘For Gamers. By Gamers’, they are well known in the gaming industry for supply gaming software, hardware and accessories.
According to their annual report, their revenue last year, hit an all-time high of 712 billion US dollars. While online reviews of their mostly praise the high quality of Razer products, a common complaint on sites such as trustpilot.com, Reddit and Forum Hardwarezone are about slow or unhelpful customer support. Some customers even expressed that due to the poor customer support for products, they were even considering switching brands. This signals an opportunity. While Razer Inc has performed well financially and seemingly has a message that appeals to their key consumer, by improving their touchpoint experience and capacity to deliver they could potentially eclipse the competition and swing those who were apathetic towards other brands.
This is just a small glimpse of how your organisation’s reputation can be analysed and measured by a combination of social media data and more traditional market research techniques. Executing a broad analysis of your organisation based on the 3 drivers of Strategy, Culture and Delivery, we can assist in gauging your organisation’s reputation and how it fares against competitors. With a clear metric for overall reputation and a breakdown of performance by driver, Isentia's Reputation Analysis helps your organisation identify areas for improvement and where there are opportunities to strengthen PR, marketing and engagement strategies.
Request a sample of Isentia's Reputation Analysis here.
An organisation’s reputation is at its core, really how people feel about them. These feelings can be based on their interaction and knowledge of the brand, or their experience with the products and services the organisation provides. This reputation is important as it can often dictate the actions or choices audiences and buyers make, impacting […]
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" }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.
What 71 stories, 400+ perspectives, and 50 million audience impressions reveal about the media narratives shaping the 2026–27 Federal Budget.
The 2026–27 Federal Budget was released on 12 May and included some of the most ambitious policy changes in years.
Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers described it as a budget of ‘reform and resilience’, and the media coverage that followed reflected just how much there was to unpack.
We used Lumina, our AI-powered media intelligence suite, to surface the biggest stories, map different perspectives, and identify the key drivers behind each narrative. This clustered over 48 hours before and after the Budget into 71 different stories, more than 400 perspectives and the total audience reach topped 50 million cumulative views.
Below are the five stories that stood out, what the different perspectives tell us, and what communicators should be watching out for.
| ▸ Property Tax Reform — Two evenly matched perspectives: affordability for buyers vs. reduced housing supply. Key drivers: Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers, Master Builders Australia, Property Council ▸ The Policy Reversal — Government says circumstances changed; opposition says trust was broken. Key drivers: Angus Taylor, Bill Shorten, Peta Credlin, Sean Kelly ▸ NDIS Changes — Sustainability concerns meet advocacy from families and disability organisations. Key drivers: Katy Gallagher, People with Disability Australia, ACOSS ▸ Market Reaction — Investors moved ahead of the speech; banks fell, miners rose. Key drivers: BHP, CSL, DroneShield, Tony Sycamore (IG) ▸ Small Business Support — Permanent write-off welcomed, but owners want more help with rising costs. Key drivers: Jim Chalmers, CPA Australia, Xero |
The centrepiece of this budget was a major overhaul of property investment tax. It was the most covered story of the night, and the perspectives on the announcement were split right down the middle.
The Government positioned the reforms as a step toward fairness. Negative gearing will be restricted to newly built properties from July 2027, and the 50% CGT discount will be replaced with an inflation-indexed model.
Furthermore, a 30% minimum tax will now apply to distributions from discretionary trusts. Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that these changes will aid a projected 75,000 Australians to buy their first home over the next decade. This perspective accounted for about 50% of coverage across the story (ABC Online).
Industry groups like the Master Builders Australia and the Property Council warned the changes would reduce new housing supply by 35,000 homes, push up rents, and discourage investment.
These perspectives made up approximately 50% of total coverage. That near-perfect split is notable. In most policy debates, one side tends to lead in terms of coverage, yet here, the two perspectives are running neck and neck
That balance tells us the debate around these reforms is far from settled. Neither side has won the narrative.
Why it matters for communicators: This is going to be a long-running conversation. Both sides have credible data. If your organisation has a stake in property, construction, or financial services, now is the time to develop your position and prepare for sustained engagement.
Behind that policy detail, however, was a more political story. The government had made promises before the 2025 election that it would not change negative gearing or CGT. This budget announcement made changes to both policies, and the coverage explored what that means.
The Government’s explanation around the changes took up about 43% of coverage. Previous Labor Minister and now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Bill Shorten argued that the housing situation had worsened since the election ,and the government had a responsibility to act. Unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese held the same position. In his interviews, Shorten pointed to the earlier redesign of the stage three tax cuts as an example of a policy change that voters ultimately accepted.
Political commentators offered an analytical view, making up about 40% of coverage. Former Labor adviser Sean Kelly and others noted that the fallout from changing a position depends on context, and that history offers examples of both successful and costly reversals.
The opposition’s framing accounted for about 18% of coverage so far, as we wait for their formal response to the Budget next week. Liberal leader Angus Taylor and his colleague Michaelia Cash described the move as a trust issue. A leaked government document giving Labor MPs talking points to explain the change added another dimension to the story (The Australian).
Why it matters for communicators: Past commitments stay in the public record. For communicators working on policy-related messaging, it’s worth thinking about how your stakeholders weigh trust against outcomes, especially as this story continues to develop.
The NDIS story stood out in Budget coverage for a different reason. It was one of the most emotionally resonant conversations of the night.
The government framed its changes as essential for the scheme’s long-term sustainability, and this perspective made up about 58% of coverage. Ministers pointed to cost growth and fraud as reasons to tighten eligibility, with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce positioned as the mechanism to protect genuine participants while saving $37.8 billion over four years (Sydney Morning Herald).
Disability advocacy groups responded with concern, accounting for about 42% of coverage. Organisations like People with Disability Australia highlighted that over 160,000 participants could be affected, many of them children.
The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) noted the budget also lacked additional support for people on income support. By budget night, advocacy groups had organised a press conference and gathered more than 13,000 petition signatures. This was a story where the personal weight of the coverage mattered more than the volume.
Why it matters for communicators: Personal stories and advocacy will shape this conversation more than policy. If you work in health, disability, or social services, this is one to monitor closely and maintain the human element in the approach.
One of the more interesting stories of budget day was how the share market reacted before the Treasurer even stood up to speak.
The ASX 200 fell across the day. Banks were under pressure because of their exposure to residential mortgages, with analysts pointing to the risk of falling property prices if the tax reforms reduced investor demand.
Rising oil prices from the Middle East added to the mood (NEWS.com.au). And earlier in the week, Australian stock market stalwart CSL dropped over 16% on a separate profit warning, dragging the healthcare sector with it.
But mining stocks went in the opposite direction, with BHP hitting a record high on strong commodity prices for copper and iron ore. Different parts of the economy were reading the same budget in very different ways.
Why it matters for communicators: When investors move before an announcement, it tells you the narrative is already established. For organisations with listed exposure or investor-facing communications, the property reform story is one to address proactively.
Making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent was a positive headline, but the coverage revealed a gap between the announcement and business owners’ lived experience.
The government’s framing dominated, making up about 75% of coverage. The write-off sat alongside a broader $3.5 billion tax relief package, which Treasurer Chalmers called part of the most comprehensive productivity push in decades.
But the remaining quarter of coverage tells a different story. Xero research showed only 35% of small businesses were confident the budget would address their challenges. Many described the $20,000 threshold as too low for the investments they actually need to make, especially given rising fuel and material costs.
The broader sense was that while the write-off is helpful, it doesn’t change the fundamentals of a tough operating environment.
Why it matters for communicators: Headline announcements and on-the-ground sentiment don’t always match. For industry groups and advocacy organisations, grounding your messaging in real-world experience will resonate more than repeating the numbers.
There are two factors that emerge as key considerations.
First, the property tax conversation is set to continue for the months ahead. Both sides have credible arguments and strong stakeholder backing; these sentiments will undoubtedly be reinforced by the Opposition next week. If your organisation is connected to housing, property, or financial services in any way, a long-term narrative strategy will serve you better than a one-off reaction.
Second, keeping an eye out for how the election reversal narrative evolves is important. It will become a reference point for future government commitments. For anyone working on government-related messaging, it’s worth considering how your audiences balance trust with outcomes. Media outlets are actively searching for inconsistencies – as are social media users – so any change must be clearly explained and a credible narrative developed.
The 2026-27 Federal Budget was a budget that asked big questions and looked to a new future. The media coverage showed a public working through what these changes mean, with perspectives spread evenly across the biggest stories of the night.
For communicators, the value is in looking beyond the headlines. Understanding the different perspectives, the people and organisations driving them, and the patterns connecting them is what turns a reactive media response into a strategic one.
To explore these kinds of insights for your own industry, discover what Lumina can surface for you. For more insights from the Isentia team, fill in the form below and we’ll get in touch.
Get in touch or request a demo.