Blog post
May 12, 2026

Federal Budget 2026: Tax reform divides, housing dominates, and the sectors left wanting

Isentia’s budget night analysis of stakeholder reactions straight from lock-up this evening in Parliament House as they addressed the Conga-line, along with fresh analysis of key media releases from a range of sectors.

The 60-Second Summary

The 2026 Federal Budget is a story of broken promises and big bets. The Labor government went where it said it wouldn’t in the last election just 12 months ago, scrapping the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, winding back negative gearing on existing properties, and imposing a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts. 

The dominant mood from stakeholders? Split right down the middle. Unions and social services groups cheered what they called a once-in-a-generation rebalancing of the tax system. Business groups, property investors, and the Coalition called it a betrayal that will scare investment offshore.

Behind the tax headlines, the Budget committed an additional $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade to defence, $25 billion in extra public hospital funding, $14.8 billion for fuel security, and $2 billion for housing enabling infrastructure. But the cuts were deep, in particular the $37 billion savings from the NDIS. 

For many, this is a budget of trade-offs: young homebuyers gaining ground, while older Australians and people with disability are left anxious about what comes next.

Independent Senator David Pocock’s initial reaction to the Budget commended the Treasurer on many elements, however Pocock noted changes to gas company taxes were sorely missing. 

Senator Pocock said many Australians will be looking at the Government’s Budget and wondering why it didn’t put their best interests ahead. “When you read through the budget papers, clearly, it sucks to be poor, it sucks to be old, and it sucks to be a native species. And we have to make sure the Australian Government is spending its money on the priorities the Australian people want”.

Key Numbers at a Glance

Defence spending$14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade, along with other measures, brings total funding in the portfolio to $887 billion to 2035-36
NDIS savings$37 billion in cuts
Public hospital funding$25 billion additional
Fuel resilience package$14.8 billion
Housing infrastructure$2 billion for 65,000 homes
Working Australians Tax Offset$250 per worker

Sector Scorecards

Tax & Cost of Living  [Mixed]

The headline reforms in this budget are all about tax. The government replaced the 50 per cent Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount with an inflation-indexation model capped at 30 per cent. They went further – restricting negative gearing to new builds (limited to two properties), and imposing a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions. 

Dubbed as ‘once in a lifetime’, tax reform proposals include the introduction of a permanent $250 Working Australians Tax Offset, and cuts to the low-income marginal rate from 16 to 15 per cent (dropping to 14 per cent in July 2027). These CGT and negative gearing changes are forecast to raise $3.6 billion in their first two years.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) welcomed the measures as a generational rebalancing. ACTU President Michele O’Neil said this Budget was about fairness, giving workers a better shot at housing and ending a system that taxed work harder than wealth. 

But the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) warned the changes would drive investment offshore. ACCI acting CEO, David Alexander said matching spending blowouts with tax hikes would lock in a slow-growth economy. 

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) took a middle path, welcoming productivity measures but flagging concern about the CGT and negative gearing changes making Australia less competitive.

“Higher taxes will scare away investment in Australian businesses and send this funding to more welcoming overseas jurisdictions,” said Mr Alexander.

Queensland Independent Senator Bob Katter called the low-income tax cut so small it “doesn’t even buy a beer” and accused the government of breaking its promise not to change CGT and negative gearing. 

The Australian Industry Group’s, Innes Willox noted Australia now has among the highest CGT rates in the world, however Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie broadly welcomed the tax reforms. Goldie did however criticise the $250 tax offset, saying it was ‘going to everyone in paid work while 4 million people on the lowest incomes; those on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, the Disability Support Pension got nothing’.

Housing & Property  [Mixed]

Housing dominated the Budget narrative yet again. The CGT and negative gearing changes were framed as the government’s answer to the affordability crisis, backed by $2 billion in water, roads and sewage infrastructure to support 65,000 new homes over the next decade. 

A $60 million National Youth Housing Supplement will unlock social housing for over 4,000 young people, fixing a long-standing “youth housing penalty”, making young tenants financially unviable for community housing providers.

Homelessness Australia CEO, Kate Colvin called it a hard-won win for young people failed by a system that catches them in crisis, yet never houses them. The Australian Community Housing sector’s Mark Degotardi said the Budget restores balance to a housing system long overdue for reform.

But others were sharply critical. Master Builders Australia CEO, Denita Wawn said the government’s own modelling showed the tax hike would reduce supply by 35,000 homes, and even with productivity measures adding 65,000, the net gain of 30,000 was nowhere near enough when Australia already falls short by around 200,000 homes. The Property Council’s Mike Zorbas called the tax changes a roll of the dice, warning the government must closely monitor investor behaviour.

“If the tax hike on property had not been introduced tonight, we would instead be up by over 100,000 homes over 10 years,” said Ms Wawn.

The Greens were scathing from the other direction, saying property investor tax perks were largely intact, with around 95 per cent of the benefit remaining, and no new money for public housing.

Healthcare & Medicare  [Mixed]

The budget proposed $25 billion in additional funding for public hospitals under the new National Health Reform Agreement and introduced a three-year-old health check through GPs, funded by Medicare. 

But the Australian Medical Association (AMA) said the rest was thin. AMA President, Dr Danielle McMullen warned of a remaining funding gap of at least $9.6 billion in hospital funding and criticised the lack of broader Medicare modernisation.

“Urgent care centres and targeted bulk billing in certain geographic areas are not long-term solutions. We need to see true reform of Medicare,” Dr McMullen said.

The AMA also raised alarm over cuts to the private health insurance rebate for over-65s, warning it could force older Australians to drop or downgrade cover and pile extra pressure on public hospitals. 

The Australian College of Nursing called for a national nursing workforce strategy, warning of a projected shortage of more than 70,000 nurses by 2035. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) also welcomed the three-year-old health check and RSV vaccination funding but flagged disappointment with racism in the health system.

Disability & NDIS  [Negative]

The Budget’s single biggest savings measure is a proposed $37 billion cut to the NDIS through tighter eligibility, stronger fraud controls, mandatory provider registration and a target of reducing participant numbers by 160,000 by 2030. 

The Business Council of Australia supported the structural reforms as necessary to return the scheme to its original intent. The BCA commended the government’s “tough decisions” to make the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) more sustainable and expressed approval for the expected return to a budget surplus earlier than previously forecast, but disability advocates and welfare groups remain alarmed.

ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said people with disability were frightened about what the reforms mean and urged the government to keep them at the centre of any changes. 

The Greens accused the government of cutting $37 billion from disability services to fund $53 billion in weapons spending, where Independent Bob Katter acknowledged the NDIS needed restructuring to tackle rorting, but said the measures targeted eligibility fraud while the bigger problem, rorting by scheme administrators, remains unaddressed.

“It is outrageous that fraudulent businesses have been created with the primary purpose of effectively thieving from, neglecting and defrauding some of the most vulnerable members of our society,” Mr Katter said.

Defence & National Security  [Positive]

As previously announced, the government is proposing commitments of $425 billion to defence over the next decade, targeting 3 per cent of GDP by 2034. This is a proposed increase of $14 billion over the next four years, and $53 billion across the decade. 

Spending targets include accelerating nuclear submarines and surface ships under AUKUS, expanding long-range strike capabilities, and boosting uncrewed systems. Bob Katter welcomed the spending direction but said it failed to shore up foundations, calling for action to regain control of strategic assets like ports and airfields and to increase the number of combat-ready civilians.

Energy & Environment  [Negative]

Energy policy drew some of the sharpest reactions. The government committed $14.8 billion to a Strengthening Australia’s Fuel Resilience package and $10 billion to extend domestic fuel stockpiles. 

The ACTU welcomed these as job-saving measures. But the Climate Council slammed the government for the proposed $19 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies and for forgoing gas export tax revenue, calling it a massive free kick for fossil fuel corporations.

“This Budget maintains the $19 billion gravy train for big fossil fuel corporations,” said Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claimed seven times more funding was being spent on initiatives that damage nature and climate than protect it. Both the Climate Council and ACF criticised the government for failing to impose a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, which they estimated could raise $17 billion annually.

Small Business  [Mixed]

Small business had some wins: the $20,000 instant asset write-off was made permanent, and companies under $1 billion turnover can now carry back tax losses against tax paid up to two years earlier (at a budget cost of $2.3 billion over three years). 

ACCI welcomed both measures. But the 30 per cent minimum tax on trust distributions alarmed the sector. ACCI’s David Alexander warned the trust tax would damage business operations and productivity due to management having their pay permanently cut by the government. Trusts are commonly used by small businesses to protect assets and ensure continuity.

Education  [Negative]

Education seemed a lower priority in this year’s Budget. The Greens’ Senator Faruqi rallied with the National Union of Students to demand the reversal of job-ready graduates’ fee hikes that have produced $52,000 arts degrees. 

The Student’s Union National President Felix Hughes said the words “student” and “university” were not mentioned once in the Treasurer’s speech. The Australian Education Union welcomed the housing commitments that could help teachers locked out of the areas where they teach, but flagged concern about $472 million in savings to disability funding. 

“Budgets are about priorities and young people will look at this budget and wonder if they are a priority at all,” said Felix Hughes, NUS National President.

Aged Care  [Mixed]

The government reclassified personal care as clinical care in aged care, removing co-contributions for services like showering and mobility assistance. 

Uniting Care welcomed the $3 billion investment but said it wasn’t enough for high-quality residential aged care. Council of the Ageing’s Patricia Sparrow noted no new home care packages were announced in the Budget, despite older people waiting up to a year for support. 

Sparrow also raised alarm about the private health insurance rebate changes hitting 2.6 million older Australians. National Seniors’ Chris Grice said older Australians were already contacting them, unhappy about the insurance changes, and questioned how a 30 per cent minimum tax on shares helps create affordable housing.

Science & Research  [Mixed]

The R&D tax incentive threshold was raised from $150 million to $200 million, and the refundable offset was lifted from $20 million to $50 million, and CSIRO received a $387 million funding boost. 

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering welcomed the investment in publicly funded research agencies. But Science & Technology Australia’s Ryan Winn warned the sector had alost $1.5 billion in research funding, including $800 million from the Australian Economic Accelerator program, making the research landscape much leaner. 

Infrastructure & Transport  [Mixed]

The $2 billion housing-enabling infrastructure fund was the main infrastructure announcement. Civil Contractors Federation CEO Nicholas Proud welcomed the direct connection between infrastructure and housing as the missing piece. 

Big-ticket items include $3.8 billion for Melbourne Rail and $50 million for Sydney-Canberra rail. Bob Katter slammed the regional infrastructure spend as ridiculously low, demanding funding for North Queensland projects. 

The tourism sector was hit by a $10 increase in the passenger movement charge (from $70 to $80), which Tourism and Transport Forum CEO Margy Osmond called a shocker, generating over a billion dollars over the forward estimates.

Employment & Industrial Relations  [Mixed]

This Budget includes reforms to employment services, which ACOSS said it hoped would transform a system that has treated low-income people shockingly for far too long. Skills recognition for overseas qualifications was welcomed as a productivity measure. 

But the Electrical Trades Union’s Michael Wright warned that despite record investment in vocational education, electrical apprenticeship commencements have fallen every year since 2022, with a forecast shortfall of 40,000 electricians by 2030.

Social Services & Welfare  [Negative]

ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie gave the Budget’s starkest welfare critique: 4 million people on the lowest incomes – on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension, or the Age Pension – got no cost-of-living relief. 

The remote area allowance, at $9 per week, has not increased in 25 years. The government’s own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has recommended fixing income support adequacy four years in a row, and four years in a row those people have been left waiting.

Childcare & Early Learning  [Negative]

The Parenthood’s Georgie Dent called the Budget a missed opportunity for families with young children. There was no expansion of paid parental leave and no clarity on the future of the 15 per cent early childhood educator wage increase set to expire. 

With 260,000 educators unsure whether their wages will go backwards and 1.4 million families paying childcare as their second-highest household expense, Dent said parents needed answers immediately.

Australian Public Services  [Mixed]

The CPSU said overall Australian Public Services sector staffing levels were maintained, but job cuts already underway at the Department of Health, Home Affairs, and Social Services would continue. 

The union welcomed a $387 million CSIRO funding boost and continued funding for nearly 4,000 frontline Services Australia staff but criticised $3.7 billion spent on contractors and consultants while trained public servants lose their jobs.

What This Means for You

This is a Budget that will be dissected for months to come. The government has taken a clear political gamble, hoping that Australians care more about housing affordability and tax fairness than they do about investment incentives and keeping promises.

The dominant narrative from our analysis of stakeholder reaction is ‘broken promises’ versus ‘long overdue reform’, and which framing wins depends heavily on whether house prices actually begin to ease.

For communicators and PR professionals, the biggest story to watch is the investor response. The Property Council, Master Builders and the Financial Services Council have all flagged they will commission independent modelling of the supply impact. 

We will no doubt continue to hear about the impacts of the NDIS cuts, with $37 billion in savings and 160,000 participants potentially losing access, the disability sector will mobilise. This will become a rolling story as implementation details emerge. 

Meanwhile, the silence on income support, nothing for JobSeeker, nothing for the remote area allowance, leaves Labor exposed to the criticism that its cost-of-living relief leaves some large big gaps. 

Lastly, the health insurance “rebate cut”. Over three million older Australians have just been told they will pay more for cover. That is a large, politically engaged demographic. 

Expect aged care, seniors’ advocacy, and private healthcare groups to run hard on this in the weeks ahead. And the veterans’ cuts, $780 million stripped from allied health could turn into a longer-burning issue, especially with a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide still fresh in public memory.

Stay Across the Budget Coverage

The reactions will keep rolling in over the coming days as sectors digest the detail, and the opposition delivers its budget reply. Watch this space for the latest stories and perspectives around the Budget, and in the coming weeks as Senate Estimates begins. 

If you’re interested in how Isentia can support you with media and parliamentary monitoring, fill out the form below and we will be in touch. 




Share

Similar articles

object(WP_Post)#8034 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(50341) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 11:53:50" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 11:53:50" ["post_content"]=> string(26341) "

A weekly tracker tracing the stories, figures and policies driving media and social coverage in the 2026 New Zealand General Election across Online News, TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums. This edition covers conversations and coverage from 1st – 8th October, highlighting what’s shaping the election conversation.

1. Election Conversation

21,637
total mentions this week
4,360 media17,277 social

2. Media Issue of the Week

National Proposes Drug Testing and Benefit Cuts for Jobseekers

National29 media items

National announced a five-point welfare policy: random drug testing for JobSeeker recipients (with sanctions for repeat failures), reduced payments for long-term beneficiaries, and a doubled stand-down period for repeatedly leaving jobs without good reason. Labour and the Greens called it "punching down" and "cruel"; ACT proposed going even further; Luxon defended it as "fairness" for taxpayers.

The single largest media cluster this week (183 of 600 sampled items) was generic "campaigning intensifies as election day nears" coverage. This welfare policy, while smaller by volume (29 items), is a genuine flashpoint: a specific, controversial announcement that sharply divided every major party and will likely keep generating reaction into next week.

3. What's happening across media and social?

4,360 media items · 17,277 social items · share of each channel's own conversation, so the two bars are directly comparable

MediaSocial
Issues
Cost of Living
Media
15.8%
Social
24.5%
Economy & Jobs
Media
19.4%
Social
13.4%
Housing
Media
10.5%
Social
7.7%
Health
Media
8.5%
Social
9.3%
Infrastructure & Transport
Media
9.8%
Social
7.1%
Education
Media
8.2%
Social
8%
Parties
National
Media
25.5%
Social
31.3%
Labour
Media
18.9%
Social
25.9%
NZ First
Media
18.3%
Social
17.2%
Greens
Media
10.3%
Social
20.8%
ACT
Media
11%
Social
3.9%

The Greens get more than twice the relative attention on social media as in the news. On social, the Greens are 20.8% of party conversation; in the news, they're 10.3%.

Health is a top-four issue on social but not in the news this week - Infrastructure takes its place in media's top four instead. Social conversation is tilting toward the health system while media coverage stays on economy, cost of living and infrastructure announcements.

4. Party Share of Conversation

1. National33.7%
2. Labour26.7%
3. NZ First20.7%
4. Greens18.9%

Share of conversation measures attention and mentions only - it is not polling and should not be read as an indication of electoral success.

5. Top candidates this week

1. Christopher Luxon2,301
2. Chris Hipkins2,058
3. Winston Peters1,446
4. David Seymour757
5. Chloe Swarbrick609

Luxon and Hipkins remain close at the top as the campaign enters its final stretch. Peters follows, still driven by coalition speculation. Seymour moves up to fourth on the back of ACT's economic-reform push (including floating a higher superannuation age), overtaking Swarbrick, whose fifth-place mentions continue to track the Greens' polling strength.

6. Election Issues

Top 4 themes this week

Cost of Living3,584
Economy & Jobs3,359
Housing1,846
Infrastructure & Transport1,709

How are policies landing for each party?

Each major party's most prominent specific policy, and how social conversation reacted to it

NegativeNeutralPositive
National
Infrastructure investment · 53 items
Neg 42.3%Neu 36.5%Pos 21.2%
Labour
Capital gains tax (incl. farms) · 70 items
Neg 85.5%Neu 14.5%Pos 0%
Greens
Wealth tax · 67 items
Neg 17.9%Neu 65.7%Pos 16.4%
ACT
KiwiSaver tax removal · 23 items
Neg 4.3%Neu 4.3%Pos 91.3%

Volume and sentiment above are based on social media data only.

7. Issues to Watch

  • National's welfare drug-testing policy is a fresh, sharply divisive flashpoint - the "punching down" framing from Labour and the Greens, and ACT signalling it wants to go further still, both point to more reaction next week.
  • Labour's capital gains tax remains the week's clearest negative outlier (85.5% negative on social). National's own infrastructure pledge is also net-negative this week (42.3% vs 21.2% positive), despite infrastructure announcements usually landing on safer ground than tax policy. ACT's KiwiSaver policy, by contrast, remains clearly positive (91.3%).
  • On social, discussion of the Greens is mostly about polling results and tactical voting rather than their own policy: 14% of their social conversation is coalition/tactical-voting framing (which bloc to "party vote" for), versus just 2% specifically about their wealth tax policy - their polling surge is driving attention more than their platform is.

If you want to find out more about how Isentia can help you understand the NZ media landscape, please reach out to us here.

" ["post_title"]=> string(71) "NZ Election 2026: Welfare, Greens and the policies driving conversation" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(152) "What’s shaping New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation? Explore the key policies, parties and issues driving media and social discussion this week." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(69) "nz-election-2026-welfare-greens-and-the-policies-driving-conversation" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 12:06:35" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 12:06:35" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50341" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
NZ Election 2026: Welfare, Greens and the policies driving conversation

What’s shaping New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation? Explore the key policies, parties and issues driving media and social discussion this week.

object(WP_Post)#7814 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(50056) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-09-21 02:41:53" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-09-21 02:41:53" ["post_content"]=> string(21525) "

A customer evaluating a brand, a journalist researching a CEO, and a policymaker looking up a public agency are all doing the same thing — discovering organisations through AI. The difference is that they may each receive a different description, supporting evidence, and overall impression.

This shift represents a major change in modern communications.

Large language models (LLMs) now interpret information for audiences, rather than just helping them find it. Instead of listing search results, they retrieve content, select authoritative sources, and generate a single synthesised answer that many users accept without reviewing the original articles.

For PR, communications, and marketing professionals, this presents a new reputation challenge. Your organisation now has multiple AI-generated reputations, each shaped by the model your stakeholders use. Understanding these differences is becoming as important as understanding media coverage – in fact, the two are often closely linked.

There isn't one AI version of your organisation

A common misconception is that ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity all access the same information. In reality, they  don’t. 

At a high level, all leading LLMs are built on similar foundations. They're trained on vast collections of books, websites, news articles, public documents and licensed datasets that help them understand language and generate human-like responses. Increasingly, they're also capable of retrieving live web information, allowing answers to incorporate recent events rather than relying solely on historical training data.

However, their similarities end there.

Each LLM uses a unique combination of training data, retrieval architecture, and ranking logic. As a result, each model answers three key questions differently before generating a response:

  • What information should I retrieve?
  • Which sources should I trust most?
  • What deserves emphasis in the final answer?

These decisions fundamentally shape how organisations are represented. To explain this better, we summarise how different AI models consult different publications and finally cite them in AI answers:

LLMs are not impartial, but come with their own weights and balances. In a sense, it reflects dynamics we already see at play across PR & Comms. 

If four experienced journalists had to write a profile of the same CEO after attending the same press conference and have access to the same reports, one may write about leadership, another  financial performance, another governance and another might frame the story around innovation. None are necessarily wrong—they're simply viewing the event through a lens of individual expertise, and therefore, making different editorial decisions.

LLMs behave in similar ways. As a result, organisations are now represented by multiple AI-generated narratives, rather than a single authoritative digital narrative.

The same prompt can produce four different narratives

These differences are most apparent when users ask AI questions that require judgment rather than simple factual recall.

Consider a prompt like: "Which are the leading banks in Southeast Asia?" Across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity, you will likely see many of the same names — DBS, UOB, OCBC, and Maybank. This overlap occurs because all four models recognise these institutions as major regional banks.

However, the models differ in their explanations of why these banks are considered leaders.

ChatGPT may highlight DBS's digital banking leadership and customer experience. Claude is potentially more likely to discuss governance, regional strategy, and long-term institutional strength. Gemini may emphasise recent awards and publicly available web information, while Perplexity often presents answers as research comparisons supported by multiple citations. These changes are not necessarily so big as to be immediately noticeable, but over time the results accumulate. 

An organisation may not meaningfully change between two users asking two different LLMs , but the reputation narrative shifts accordingly. This distinction matters because stakeholders rarely ask AI for isolated facts. They ask questions like:

  • Should I work with this company?
  • Which university is most innovative?
  • Has this government agency delivered on its commitments?
  • Who are the market leaders in this sector?

AI responds by interpreting credibility, authority, and context, rather than simply retrieving documents.

For communications teams, this means your organisation is increasingly evaluated through comparative prompts, where competitors, industry peers, and institutional benchmarks appear alongside your organisation by default.

Every LLM has its own citation fingerprint

When ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Perplexity answer a question, they first retrieve documents from distinct information ecosystems. A recent study analysed 17.2 million AI citations across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and Perplexity and found that each model retrieves from substantially different source ecosystems rather than a shared pool of webpages. Two LLMs can answer the same question accurately while relying on entirely different publications.

Instead of viewing these as technical differences, it is more useful to consider them as citation behaviours. Each model consistently references different types of publications when explaining organisations. 

  • ChatGPT – Building consensus from multiple sources

ChatGPT functions more like an executive briefing writer than a traditional search engine.

Rather than listing multiple links, ChatGPT typically combines information from several credible publications into a coherent narrative. If mainstream media, company information, and industry commentary consistently describe an organisation as a market leader, ChatGPT is likely to reinforce that positioning, regardless of the original source.

For a prompt like "Tell me about Singapore Airlines”, a typical ChatGPT response integrates its history, customer experience, awards it has won over time, its financial performance, etc., into a cohesive description. Individual articles become almost invisible, as the model prioritises a coherent narrative in its answer over transparently showcasing all citations. 

For brands, this means consistency across publications is very valuable. ChatGPT values credible signals that repeat across multiple publications over one off news moments.

  • Gemini – Reading the living web

Gemini approaches organisations differently, as its retrieval is closely linked to Google's broader information ecosystem.

When we ask  "What has Enterprise Singapore done to support AI businesses?", Gemini is more likely to include recent programme announcements, official government webpages, and newer online reporting. Its responses often feel more current because they draw from a web ecosystem designed to reflect continuously updated information.

For government agencies, this has practical implications. Official announcements and well-structured public information become machine-readable assets that help AI explain policy more accurately. These become important information touchpoints into how audiences understand government through AI.

  • Claude — explains the ‘why’, in addition to the ‘what’

Claude's defining feature is its emphasis on context.

Other models often prioritise concise answers but Claude frequently elaborates on why an organisation is respected. Questions about leadership, governance, ethics, and institutional reputation tend to produce more detailed explanations rather than brief summaries.

For a prompt like "Why is DBS considered one of Asia's leading banks?", Claude is more likely to discuss how the bank has regionally expanded, its digital transformation, what’s unique about its leadership etc. Its responses resemble analyst reports more than search summaries, as it favours high-authority editorial and institutional content.

For executive communications, this makes Claude particularly influential. Leadership narratives and corporate values often receive more contextual treatment than with other models.

  • Perplexity — makes your media strategy visible

Perplexity changes the experience by treating citations as a central feature rather than a supporting detail.

A question comparing two sustainability leaders, for example, typically returns numerous linked sources from business media and research publications. Users can immediately review the origin of each claim.

For PR teams, this creates greater transparency. Publication quality becomes visible within the user experience and is not hidden behind an AI summary. This means media strategy influences the evidence presented alongside the perception of the organisation. 

How commercial brands and government agencies are represented differently

Although LLMs behave similarly across sectors, the questions users ask differ fundamentally.

  • For brands, AI compares before customers get the chance 

Consumers rarely ask AI what a brand does. They definitely do ask which brand is better.

Questions like:

1. Which airline has the best customer experience?
2. Is Salesforce better than HubSpot?
3. Which bank is most innovative?
4. Who are the leaders in cloud computing?

These questions are inherently comparative.

As a result, your organisation is often introduced alongside competitors before stakeholders visit your website.

During a recent Isentia webinar on Measuring your brand’s visibility in AI answers, we analysed airlines across multiple LLMs with Lumina AI View. Using identical prompts, different models highlighted different airlines and emphasised varying strengths, such as premium service, operational performance, innovation, and customer experience. Competitive positioning shifted depending on the model, even though the underlying organisations remained unchanged.

For commercial communicators, competitor association is becoming as important as share of voice. AI evaluates brands in context, not in isolation.

  • AI becomes the interpreter of policy for government agencies

Public sector organisations encounter a different reputational challenge. Audiences increasingly ask questions that begin with how, why and can I trust:

1. What support does this agency provide?
2. Has this ministry achieved its policy goals?
3. What AI initiatives has this department introduced?
4. Has this programme faced criticism?

LLMs then synthesise official publications and institutional information into a single accessible explanation. This changes the role of public communications. The objective is not to ensure AI models have sufficient credible, authoritative context to explain complex policy accurately.

As AI becomes the primary interpreter of government information, communications teams are responsible for managing both visibility and understanding.

Measuring AI reputation with Lumina AI View

Reputation has been shaped across three familiar environments: media, search and social. AI introduces a fourth environment.

LLMs condense dozens of publications into a single response, reducing the traditional discovery process between a question and an opinion.

During the recent webinar, Prashant Saxena, VP of Revenue and Insights says, “We used to Google it. Now we're ChatGPT-ing it.”

This behavioural shift is significant. Reuters Institute research found that only a small proportion of AI chatbot users regularly click through to original articles. 

Practically, every piece of earned coverage now has two audiences:

  • The people reading it.
  • The AI models learning from it.

Both shape reputation.

This is the challenge Lumina AI View was designed to solve.

Instead of measuring whether an organisation appears in ChatGPT, AI View measures how different LLMs represent the organisation. Using consistent question sets across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, and Google AI Overviews, it compares narratives, citations, and competitive positioning through a unified reputation methodology.

The framework is built around four familiar dimensions: Direction, Performance, Integrity, and Innovation. Rather than tracking keywords alone, AI View identifies which reputation pillars dominate AI responses, which publications influence those narratives, and how representation differs across models. It also gives the organisation an AI score based on all the above factors.

The tool also shows organisations which publications are covered by different AI models. If the organisation’s AI score on the tool is high for ChatGPT, but struggles with or is a lower score on Gemini or Perplexity, the tool allows you to see where you’re underperforming. If there are publications that are covering the wrong information, or the important ones just don’t show up, then that’s an indication to why the AI score is low on that platform. 

What this means for PR and communications professionals

The communications profession has always adapted to new discovery channels, from newspapers to search engines, and from social media to digital news.

AI is different because it does not simply help audiences find information, but it increasingly determines how organisations are introduced.

For communications leaders, this changes media strategy in three key ways. 

  • First, publication quality becomes more important than quantity, as different LLMs repeatedly reference authoritative sources when constructing narratives around your organisation.
  • Second, visibility for the organisation’s spokespeople now extends beyond interviews and articles. The expertise attributed to leaders increasingly shapes how AI explains an organisation's direction and credibility. 
  • Finally, competitor positioning is now continuous rather than campaign-based, as AI naturally compares organisations whenever users ask for recommendations or leadership insights.

Organisations that succeed in this new environment are those that have leadership, performance, integrity, and innovation represented consistently across every major AI model, regardless of where audiences and stakeholders begin their search.


Want to see which sources are shaping how AI describes your organisation? Get in touch about Lumina AI View.

" ["post_title"]=> string(50) "How do different LLMs represent your organisation?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(136) "Uncover how different LLMs treat your brand, explore key model capabilities, and learn how PR teams can measure and shape AI visibility." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(49) "how-do-different-llms-represent-your-organisation" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-09-21 02:42:00" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-09-21 02:42:00" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50056" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
How do different LLMs represent your organisation?

Uncover how different LLMs treat your brand, explore key model capabilities, and learn how PR teams can measure and shape AI visibility.

Ready to get started?

Get in touch or request a demo.