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.
Nikita Gundala manages brand marketing and thought leadership for Pulsar Group across the SEA and ANZ markets. With over three years of first-hand experience in the influencer marketing and PR industries, she specializes in translating real-time insights and audience intelligence into actionable content. Nikita holds a master’s in Marketing and Digital from ESSEC Business School, Singapore. She has contributed to the wider industry conversation by co-authoring articles and reports for The Business Times Marketing Interactive.
Audiences are no longer finding information through traditional search engines that favour established news outlets. AI models now highlight highly relevant and contextual information to audiences to often include niche and regional publications alongside major news media. This change challenges the old media hierarchy around tiered publications and pushes organisations to reconsider how and where they need to show up to stay visible in an AI-first world.
Yes, organisations must focus on optimising their own content for LLMs, but will that always drastically increase the chances of AI models picking up your page? Probably not always. Smart strategy means targeting the specific publications your actual target audience reads — because those are the sources AI models retrieve when answering niche questions.
It’s closer to digital PR than SEO
Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is changing how brands approach online visibility. For years, traditional SEO meant focusing on your own site—optimising keywords, building backlinks, and improving on-page content. But AI models work differently. Instead of just using your website, these AI engines rely on trusted third-party sources to answer questions. This shift is taking place gradually, of course. LLMs increasingly source from earned media (where it is accessible) and even offsite links from trusted sites. Owned media is still where the organisation has maximum control of how it’s own content travels, but a pivotal strategy shift is needed to match what AI models are picking up and citing.
To succeed with AI search, comms professionals need to think more like a digital PR strategist than a SEO expert. The best way to stand out is by earning mentions, quotes, and citations in the external publications your audience—and the AI systems they use—trust most. This does not make a distinction between Tier 1 or Tier 2 media. If AI models are crawling sites that mention an organisation, but the organisation does not acknowledge or even know those sites are being prioritised by LLMs, they risk falling behind in being the right kind of visible.
To make this strategy work, looking beyond common metrics like traffic to the site or domain authority is not enough. Even a respected industry site will probably not influence AI answers as much if its content is behind a paywall or blocked from search engines. For AI visibility, accessibility to the site or page, structured data that can be crawled, and strong audience alignment are important. Since AI systems use both slow training cycles and fast real-time web searches (RAG), being featured on accessible, relevant niche sites helps an organisation show up accurately when models learn and when they search the web in real time.
Why is Tier 2 media punching at Tier 1 weight?
According to Isentia's report How AI is destabilising trust and reputation amongst audiences, LLMs cite industry and trade publications about twice as often as traditional news sources. Company content and industry press make up over 60% of the share of voice LLMs use, while traditional news is twice as likely to generate negative sentiment. Thus, tier 1 outlets no longer automatically dominate AI-generated responses and may sometimes have the opposite effect.
Two main factors are driving this shift in which media is picked up by LLMs:
The paywalled problem was further expanded on by Dr Momoko Fujita during the Digital News Report: Australia webinar that news organisations must figure out how to make paywalled content easily readable by LLMs. By bridging this gap, these organisations can ensure that AI tools deliver accurate, high-quality reporting rather than missing out on premium content. If not, high-quality coverage may never reach the model. Isentia’s Prashant Saxena, VP of Revenue and Insights, SEA, during a recent partner event with IABC APAC on Why AI Visibility is the next reputation frontier illustrated a paywalled Bloomberg story, for example, that was accurately summarised details it could read at the top level, but fabricated details about raised guidance, even though guidance had been cut. This is because it could not read the rest of the article and tried its best to assume what it can with the information that’s accessible.
Specificity outweighs prestige. Tier 2, trade, and specialist publications are often more accessible, focused, and likely to provide the concrete, citable facts models need. Amy Chappell, Vuelio's Head of Insights Strategy, found a similar trend across sectors in her report on the visibility of supermarkets in the UK “ The role of AI, LLMs, and earned media in shaping reputation” and noted that supermarkets were most often cited by trade publications like The Grocer and Grocery Gazette, not national newspapers. Trade press stories, being more focused and well-sourced, provide models with clearer, more citable facts than broader national articles. This doesn’t mean that Tier 1 coverage does not matter — CEOs value front-page exposure because it remains highly influential. However, relying only on tier 1 hits now means missing significant AI visibility opportunities.
Cited vs consulted: LLMs read a hundred sources, but cite only a few
Which type of media gets cited relies upon how AI models scan different pages. If these models are citing much more niche media outlets, we can assume that a lot of these pages that are consulted could be a part of very relevant Tier 2 media that ends up actually getting cited, and that we’re seeing more and more examples of in AI answers. At the IABC APAC and Isentia webinar on measuring brand visibility in AI answers, Prashant Saxena, Isentia's VP of Revenue and Insights for SEA, stated that in the search era "we would get sources on our page one, page two, mostly page one", and people would click through to form their own opinions. The combined click-through rate in that era was 35 to 40 per cent. Nowadays, he says, "it's just four to five per cent" — since LLMs provide a smooth, ready-made answer and "most of us aren't really checking the citations".
Communications teams now face a new consideration: the distinction between sources that are consulted and those that are cited. At the IABC APAC and Isentia webinar, Takeo Apitzsch, Hoffman Agency’s Chief Digital and AI Officer, explained that AI models scan hundreds of pages to generate an answer but cite only a select few to users. This means that the audience sees only a small, curated portion of the sources that actually influenced the AI's response and a lot of what actually shapes the AI answer doesn’t get visible credit. Therefore, organisations need to make sure they reach out to those publications that AI models can actually crawl and audiences trust the most.
What does this mean for communications professionals?
We are seeing four practical shifts:
Rebuild your tier list based on what LLMs actually cite, not on internal assumptions. A so-called “low-priority” trade publication or niche forum may contribute more to your AI visibility than a national outlet you have long targeted.
Keep your reshuffled tier list fresh, not just correctly ranked. InWhy is content freshness the new currency for AI visibility? we discuss that a page that hasn't been updated in eighteen months is far more likely to drop out of AI answers altogether, no matter how well it once performed. Getting the right tier 2 outlets on side is only half the job done. Feeding them (and your own owned channels) on an ongoing basis is the other half.
Treat consistency as an essential. The largest gap between an organisation’s claims and what an LLM will confidently state is often due to inconsistencies between owned content and third-party coverage. When this occurs, the model may stop providing factual answers altogether.
Shift your focus from share of voice to share of mind. It is now less about how much you are discussed and more about whether the systems mediating the most have got the correct information about your organisation.If the system holds the wrong version, your audience may never access the right one.
Structurally, as Ashley Knapp, Head of Brand and Corporate Affairs, East Asia at Schneider Electric noted during the webinar, these efforts can no longer remain siloed. Owned, earned, shared, and paid media have traditionally been managed by separate teams. Now, because of AI visibility, this required a unified approach, as models do not distinguish between departments but are first to detect inconsistencies.
This also means reconsidering the PESO (paid, earned, shared and owned) strategy deployed by organisations since the way that LLMs access and prioritise them has changed. They prioritise brevity in content due to the high costs of GPUs and data centres. As a result, the shortest, clearest, and most trusted answers are favoured which benefits brands with strong reputations. Earned media remains important, but its influence now depends more on the credibility of the analyst than the platform. Shared content amplifies messages more than ever but is also where misinformation spreads fastest. Paid media is becoming more prominent in some models, though brands are still learning how this impacts visibility.
Media monitoring companies are becoming strategic AI visibility consultants
This shift requires media monitoring companies to evolve. Tracking mentions and sentiment across media channels has been central to media intelligence, but AI visibility has added a new dimension to this. This means monitoring not only what is said about an organisation, but also which sources AI models use when answering questions about that organisation, and assessing how current, authoritative, and consistent those sources are. This gives media monitoring organisations an opportunity to own what they’ve developed and also be thought leaders in this space. Stakeholders value the “so what” advice much more than just knowing “this is what is being said about you in the media”.
Lumina AI View addresses this by tracking which sources ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other models cite when representing an organisation, benchmarks citations against competitors, identifies narrative shifts before they reach stakeholders, and regularly scores AI visibility against four reputation pillars: Direction, Performance, Integrity, and Innovation, These pillars have always supported reputation management, now applied to a largely unseen audience.
If you're weighing up where a tool like this sits alongside the rest of your stack, our own comparison,Best AI Tools for PR & Comms Teams (2026), breaks down how AI-assisted coverage, measurement, crisis response and reporting tools stack up, Lumina included.
Because that’s really the mindset shift comms teams, and the firms advising them both need to make. As Takeo put it on the IABC APAC and Isentia webinar: “I fear that this is the mindset shift communications teams and their advisors must adopt. I fear that AIs will be your secondary, and if not, at least equal… audience in the future.” Beyond human visibility, reputation is about being accurately represented by the systems that mediate access to your audience, which is an additional layer that cannot be trivialised anymore.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(97) "How relevant is Tier 1 and Tier 2 media hierarchy in impacting how organisations show up in LLMs?"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(243) "The hierarchy that exists between Tier 1 & 2 publications today is being challenged. AI models are the new way audiences discover information requiring organisations to rethink how they show up to remain visible in an AI-mediated environment. "
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(96) "how-relevant-is-tier-1-and-tier-2-media-hierarchy-in-impacting-how-organisations-show-up-in-llms"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2026-09-09 02:24:17"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2026-09-09 02:24:17"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=49871"
["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 relevant is Tier 1 and Tier 2 media hierarchy in impacting how organisations show up in LLMs?
The hierarchy that exists between Tier 1 & 2 publications today is being challenged. AI models are the new way audiences discover information requiring organisations to rethink how they show up to remain visible in an AI-mediated environment.
Would you trust a brand more if an AI model recommended it? For many, the answer is yes – and it’s changing the very nature of PR & Comms.
Our latest report digs into the changing nature of trust, as audiences turn to AI models for quick answers instead of going to organisations or media outlets directly, with AI fast becoming the final stop in the comms cycle.
This report unpacks:
Why trust has shifted, and where audiences are having these conversations
Why AI has become the last stop in the comms cycle
Methods for staying on top of your brand trust and reputation
To access the full report, fill in the form below: