R U OK? is a public health campaign founded in Australia, focusing on creating a world where we’re all connected and protected from suicide. Their mission is to inspire and empower people to meaningfully connect with those in their world and lend support when they are struggling with life.
R U OK? focuses on building the motivation, confidence, and skills of the help-giver—the person who can have a meaningful conversation with someone who is struggling with life. R U OK? encourage four steps to have a meaningful conversation:
1. Ask R U OK?
2. Listen
3. Encourage action
4. Check in
R U OK? have a host of free resources to help you ask, ‘are you OK?’ and lend support to the people in your world every day of the year. Because when we genuinely ask, ‘are you OK?’, and are prepared to talk to them about how they’re feeling and what’s going on in their life, we can help someone who might be struggling to feel connected and supported long before they’re in crisis.
The annual R U OK? Day campaign is their National Day of Action, where people are reminded that every day is the day to start a meaningful conversation that could change a life.
To assess their impact and gauge progress towards their goal of behavioural change, R U OK? sought to evaluate the effectiveness of their campaign messaging, ambassadors, and public discourse in their communities. Additionally, they wanted to understand the main narrative in these communities to shape their future campaign themes and strategies.
Our approach
Through a number of different datasets, Isentia provided the organisation with comprehensive insight into its campaign messaging as well as the volume and quality of media reporting on R U OK? This valuable information was obtained through Isentia’s Media Analysis reports shedding light on common themes, trends, and messages associated with R U OK? through media coverage.
“We know Isentia are trusted friends. We know we can come to the team with any ideas or queries and be provided with a great solution. Our long term partnership has allowed us to go on this journey together, seeing such change in the Australian landscape for health and suicide prevention.
Isentia’s reports have helped us (and continue to) understand the impact of our coverage and the reach of our campaign messaging, and that every day is the day to ask, are you OK?”
Katherine Newton, R U OK? CEO
The analysis revealed the following:
– Message penetration in the media
– Impact of ambassadors and spokespeople
– Campaign effectiveness in raising awareness and encouraging meaningful conversations
– Measurement of media coverage quality and tone for R U OK?
– Insights into community, workplace and school engagement with R U OK? and the types of positively received content.
Outcome
Isentia’s support to R U OK? has helped them measure their campaign impact consistently over time.
Our analysis quantified the success of R U OK? in reducing negative portrayals of suicide and stigma in the media and R U OK? events. With an impressive 87% national brand awareness and a 25% participation rate, it highlights the positive and supportive behaviour that emerges when individuals actively engage in these conversations.
Media coverage, including increased editorial attention, has effectively promoted R U OK?, raising awareness and fostering an important culture around meaningful conversations.
The organisation’s brand mentions, advertising space rate (ASR), and cumulative audience figures have consistently increased each year, also indicating the successful penetration of their messages. The most prominent messages, in terms of volume, emphasise that R U OK? builds awareness of suicide and mental health issues, while the annual campaign day helps to build community capacity to have meaningful conversations with the people in their world.
What our analysis showed
Our analysis demonstrates the positive changes in the Australian landscape regarding health and suicide prevention. People are more engaged, have a better understanding of their role in suicide prevention, and desire deeper connections. This means genuinely asking, ‘are you OK?’, and knowing how to connect with and support others when they express they are not okay.
Isentia’s data and analysis not only fulfilled their objectives but exceeded their expectations. The reports provided are invaluable, so much so that we are their sole earned media insights provider.
These Media Analysis reports helped the organisation understand the impact of their messaging on their audience. They learned what worked and what didn’t, providing insight for future messaging and their content development strategy. These reports have also served as a valuable tool for reporting to the R U OK? board of directors, funding partners, and government. Providing concrete evidence of the organisation’s campaign impact in the media and success in stimulating community action for suicide prevention.
“Isentia’s Media Analysis reports help us look at the narratives to see where people are at and where we can take them next.”
For more information on how Isentia’s data and insights can help your organisation, simply fill out the form below.
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.
The Your Right to Know Campaign was established in response to deteriorating media freedom. It prompted an unprecedented collaboration between competitors including Nine, News Corp, the ABC, SBS, The Guardian and journalists’ union in the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. All in an effort to call for reforms to protect public interest from Australia.
Politicians dominate the discussion
On Monday 21 October, Australian media organisations blacked-out text on print newspapers, instead of showing front-page headlines. The first bold statement instigated by campaign members. As a result, it created a lot of chatter in the media - mentions spiked at 3,042 across across social and traditional media.
Data analysed by Isentia, shows in the week October 21 to October 25 2019 there were a total of 6,242 mentions of "press freedom."
While it was the media who started the campaign on Monday, through the week politicians had 60% share of voice on the topic. Prominent journalists followed with 22.8% and CEOs of media organisations 15.3%.
Groups leading the conversations. Key term used ‘Press Freedom’ 21 - 25 October 2019
Top spokespeople
Despite journalists and media organisations instigating the campaign, politicians dominated the conversations. The top spokespeople discussing the topic for the week period were:
1.Scott Morrison, Australian Prime Minister - 95 mentions
2.Anthony Albanese, Federal Opposition Leader - 38 mentions
3. Barnaby Joyce, Nationals MP - 33 mentions
4.Hugh Marks, CEO Nine Entertainment - 33 mentions
Dominating the discussions, politicians generated negative sentiment around “press freedom”.
Sentiment of the keyword “press freedom” in the media from 21-25 October
Background
Over the past two decades, 75 laws related to secrecy and spying have been passed through parliament. These laws criminalise some practices within journalism and penalise whistleblowers. Government wrongdoings could be hidden and important decisions regarding public information may be concealed. As a result, Australia has been described by the New York Times as the world’s most secretive democracy.
Media organisations are taking action with the ‘Your Right to Know’ campaign. They’re determined to change the government's approach to media freedom so they can provide Australians with essential information. They’re pressing for the introduction of a Media Freedom Act, which they say would be advantageous for national security, press freedom and democracy, and ensure legitimate journalism is not subject to criminal charges.
If you would like to receive unparalleled media insight or to better understand trends in the media, get in touch with us today.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(66) "Your Right to Know: Who is leading the Media Freedom conversation?"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(240) "The Your Right to Know Campaign was established in response to deteriorating media freedom. It’s prompted an unprecedented collaboration between competitors. All in an effort to call for reforms to protect public interest from Australia. "
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(27) "your-right-to-know-campaign"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2020-01-23 05:07:22"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2020-01-23 05:07:22"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(31) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=4160"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Your Right to Know: Who is leading the Media Freedom conversation?
The Your Right to Know Campaign was established in response to deteriorating media freedom. It’s prompted an unprecedented collaboration between competitors. All in an effort to call for reforms to protect public interest from Australia.
Likes, shares, comments and retweets. These social media metrics are often used by marketers to measure the performance of their campaigns or contents. However, this is just the tip of an iceberg. In this whitepaper, Isentia reveals why.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(18) "The social numbers"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(197) "Likes, shares, comments and retweets. These social media metrics are often used by marketers to measure the performance of their campaigns or contents. However, this is just the tip of an iceberg. "
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(18) "the-social-numbers"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2023-07-07 03:18:03"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2023-07-07 03:18:03"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(35) "https://isentia.wpengine.com/?p=977"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Whitepaper
The social numbers
Likes, shares, comments and retweets. These social media metrics are often used by marketers to measure the performance of their campaigns or contents. However, this is just the tip of an iceberg.
As the campaign began, election coverage was dominated by cost-of-living pressures, leadership scrutiny, and policy promises, with both major parties positioning themselves as the answer to Australians' economic concerns. Labor’s pledge to crack down on supermarket price gouging and the Coalition’s push for fuel excise cuts framed a debate over immediate financial relief versus long-term economic stability.
Meanwhile, discussion on social media took time to catch up with the news cycle, and reflected both frustration and polarisation, with content on tax policy, government spending, and leadership trustworthiness fuelling engagement. The campaign’s tone was further shaped by high-profile moments, including Senator Jacqui Lambie’s emotional exchange over public service cuts and Peter Dutton’s push to capitalise on voter discontent, reinforcing the election’s framing as a referendum on economic management.
Financial stability, such as supermarket pricing, fuel costs, and tax changes. Leadership trust and credibility are also key drivers of attention, with moments of high emotion or political confrontation.
On the heels of the federal budget announcement on March 24, which forecasts a decade of deficits, news coverage highlighted the Albanese government’s focus on energy bill relief and Medicare spending to appeal to voters. Treasurer Jim Chalmers linked the budget to rising global uncertainties, including the impact of US President Trump’s trade agenda.
Coverage framed the campaign as a contest over economic management, with viral headlines emphasising Labor’s energy bill relief and the Dutton’s fuel excise cuts. A widely shared ABC analysis dissected the competing tax plans, while a Reddit thread debating the impact of Dutton’s fuel excise proposal gained thousands of comments. Meanwhile, opposition leader Peter Dutton's response positioned the Liberal Party as prioritising immediate cost-of-living relief, sparking mixed reactions online. Both major parties are also expected to prioritise domestic gas supplies, with the Liberals proposing a gas reservation scheme, a move likely to be mirrored by Labor—an issue that has driven heated debate on social platforms.
As cost-of-living issues dominate, media outlets underscore the increasingly fragmented political landscape, with minor parties gaining traction and complicating the path to a majority government.
Social media discussions on the 2025 Australian federal election are increasingly centred on energy and housing policies, particularly Peter Dutton's plans. Housing affordability has emerged as a key concern, fueled by moments like Prime Minister Albanese being heckled over handling of the housing crisis. A far-right vlogger interrupted Albanese's press conference in Brisbane, linking the housing issue to immigration—a narrative gaining traction online. On platforms like Reddit and Instagram, users question the credibility of Dutton’s energy price cut proposals, with his refusal to release modelling drawing criticism. Protests, like the one at Brisbane’s XXXX Brewery on March 29, further fuel debate over his stance on gas and nuclear energy. A popular quote from Jason Clare, shared by The Project TV, added fuel to the fire: "This is a distraction from his nuclear reactor policy which is about as popular now as a fart in an elevator."
This combination of frustration, disbelief, and growing scrutiny highlights the importance of accessible, relatable political messaging, especially as voters increasingly turn to online platforms to engage with election issues.
Attention was heavily focused on Peter Dutton's criticisms of Prime Minister Albanese, with his claims that Australia is "going backwards" and promises of "relief now" drawing backlash. Critics have pointed out Dutton’s apparent alignment with US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and policies, leading to comparisons between the two leaders. On March 27, a widespread reaction emerged questioning why Albanese would invite Trump to Australia, suggesting it was a politically risky move. Meanwhile, the debate surrounding the federal budget heated up, with Albanese's government unveiling new tax cuts for workers ahead of the election, only for the Shadow Treasurer to declare that they would repeal these cuts if the Liberals won.
Coming out of the Federal Budget, social media audiences shared mixed reactions, with many pushing for more progressive measures like taxing the fossil fuel industry to fund universal basic services and addressing wealth inequality with The Guardian's explainer video drawing attention to the line "lots of little treats" promised for Australians. As the election approaches, a recurring theme in the commentary is the desire for systemic change.
Leading social media posts from March 24–30, 2025, highlight public frustration with key election issues: cost of living, Trump’s influence, tax cuts, and gas and energy policy.
A viral Reddit post warning of how a Liberal victory could cost around 40,000 public service jobs, sparked debate on outsourcing and economic fallout. Concerns over Trump-style politics intensified after journalist Quentin Dempster warned of ABC defunding under Dutton. Jim Chalmers’ 7.30 interview gained traction for exposing inconsistencies in Dutton’s tax stance. Meanwhile, a protest at Brisbane’s XXXX Brewery against Dutton’s gas and nuclear policies ignited further debate over energy costs.
These discussions reflect mounting scepticism over political promises on affordability, fairness, and sustainability.
Media coverage has framed the election as a contest over economic management, focusing on tax cuts, Medicare, and cost-of-living relief. Meanwhile, social media tells a more polarised story, with viral posts amplifying concerns about public service cuts, leadership trust, and Trump-style politics. While traditional outlets highlight policy promises, online conversations centre on credibility and systemic change. As the campaign unfolds, will media narratives align with voter priorities, or will audience-driven discourse take the lead?
As the election campaign progresses, the question remains: Will political leaders adjust their approach to reflect public sentiment, or will the disconnect between media coverage and voter priorities continue to shape the debate?
Setting the stage for election 2025: early media narratives & social media’s growing influence
As the campaign began, election coverage was dominated by cost-of-living pressures, leadership scrutiny, and policy promises, with both major parties positioning themselves as the answer to Australians’ economic concerns. Labor’s pledge to crack down on supermarket price gouging and the Coalition’s push for fuel excise cuts framed a debate over immediate financial relief versus long-term […]
While renewables like wind and solar are often framed as the future of energy, the renewables market faces many challenges in seeing that journey through, especially regarding Australia’s Paris climate agreements. The path to a clean energy future in Australia is fraught with disruptions and distractions, as media reports, and exploring the factors shaping media coverage of energy alternatives and clean energy reveal a shifting understanding of renewable energy sources.
Peak media coverage of renewables centres on government actions seen as hindering clean energy progress. Stories like keeping Eraring operational, nuclear energy debates, and delays in environmental law reforms highlight a perception of indecision on ecological issues. While traditional media spikes around policy updates, social media discussions are steadily growing, reflecting increasing public engagement with Australia’s renewable energy transition. Analysing these trends reveals how media narratives shape and respond to audience perceptions in this evolving debate.
Renewable energy is widely hailed as a cleaner, cheaper, and more stable alternative to fossil fuels, but media and social discussions paint a more complex picture. Concerns about affordability and feasibility are growing, driven by economic shifts, supply chain issues, and the lingering effects of the 2022 energy crisis, which media attribute to cold snaps and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, all while Australia remains heavily reliant on coal and gas exports.
Topics like grid overload, the need for better battery subsidies, and the failure of taxpayer-funded rebates to support solar businesses dominate conversations. Meanwhile, wind farms face local opposition due to environmental and land use impacts, and debates over nuclear energy disrupt investment in solar and wind, further complicating Australia’s clean energy strategy.
Nuclear energy’s potential introduction into Australia’s future energy mix has further unsettled renewables investors, with media highlighting concerns over its impact on wind and solar investments. For more context listen to our podcast interview with Pablos Holman, General Partner at Deep Future. Wind energy faces criticism for using taxpayer funds to benefit private companies, while hydrogen’s future is uncertain following high-profile project withdrawals by Fortescue and Origin. The media’s portrayal of these issues underscores ongoing public and industry doubts about Australia’s renewable transition and the role of nuclear in the energy debate.
Watch below the shifts in coverage of significant policies and strategies over time to understand why some strategies stay in the headlines while others peter out.
The Labor government’s flagship Future Made in Australia Bill is central to its energy vision and, in November, was passed to support a net-zero transition. The May budget highlighted turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower with dedicated funds for solar, battery, and hydrogen projects. However, the opposition has framed hydrogen and critical minerals tax breaks as "corporate welfare". Over time, it looks like Labor’s Future Made in Australia Bill is at a tug of war for media attention against the opposition’s nuclear strategy. Australia’s energy future, however, is not wholly detached from fossil fuels. Labor's Future Gas Strategy positions gas as a necessary transition fuel while being central to Australia’s energy and export sectors.
Climate activists criticise the Future Gas Strategy for extending Australia's reliance on fossil fuels. Media critics call it another "broken promise" by the Albanese government, highlighting mismanagement that has negatively affected energy supply and costs. Though the "Future Made in Australia" narrative around energy security resonates with many, the government’s conflicting strategies raise questions about long-term benefits and who truly gains from its policies.
Australia's shift to clean energy faces complex debates and conflicting government signals, from promoting renewables to considering nuclear power. Despite loud voices in the media advocating for taxpayers and businesses, deeper media analysis reveals multiple layers and motives behind their arguments.
Insights into media and public perceptions towards Australia’s clean energy future
While renewables like wind and solar are often framed as the future of energy, the renewables market faces many challenges in seeing that journey through, especially regarding Australia’s Paris climate agreements. The path to a clean energy future in Australia is fraught with disruptions and distractions, as media reports, and exploring the factors shaping media […]
