Back to all articles
Blog post
June 9, 2026

Inside the AI Shift: Your Questions Answered

Following our webinar on 5 May, our panelists respond to the questions we didn’t get to on the day.

How comms leaders need to adapt to this new AI shift at the workplace?

AI is already shaping your organisation’s reputation — whether you’re managing it or not.

On 5 May, Isentia brought together three leading voices in communications and insights for a conversation about what’s really happening on the ground as AI reshapes the workspace. Catherine Arrow (Executive Director, PR Knowledge Hub), Russ Horell (Isentia APAC’s ex-Chief Revenue Officer) and Ngaire Crawford (Isentia and Vuelio’s Executive Director for AI Strategy in PR & Comms) explored how communications leaders are navigating AI conversations with executives and boards, where pressure is increasing across risk, measurement and strategic advisory, how teams are adapting workflows and decision-making in response to AI influence, and where do communicators see the right opportunity.

The session saw many questions popping up from our audiences that we couldn’t really address them all. So we went back to our panelists and asked them to respond. Below, Catherine Arrow and Ngaire Crawford share their thoughts on what attendees most wanted to know.

Catherine Arrow, Executive Director, PR Knowledge Hub

Catherine Arrow is the Executive Director of PR Knowledge Hub, a professional development and training organisation for public relations practitioners. A veteran of the communications industry with deep expertise in strategic counsel, crisis and issues management, and information disorder, Catherine is known for her clear-eyed thinking on the intersection of AI, reputation and organisational responsibility. She is a trusted voice on what AI actually means for practitioners — not in theory, but in practice.

Q1. Comms professionals often have an idea of how AI can help us, but often the C-Suite have other (less informed) ideas. Do you have examples of how you’ve tactfully pushed back or diverted focus back to where you feel it should be (outcomes focused)?

One of the main difficulties is that organisations and their leaders seldom have a clear picture of what they already have at their fingertips when it comes to AI. Many organisations, for example, use the Microsoft suite and may already have access to Copilot, but what can actually be achieved depends on the licences, payments and subscriptions in place. At the same time, leadership teams are influenced, as we all are, by the level of hype that has bubbled to the surface over the last 12 months. Too often, AI is regarded as a passive tool that lives inside a box and as practitioners we have a role to play helping leaders move beyond that limited view. We need to help them understand not only the functional use of particular tools but the bigger picture, to understand the impact AI may have on the organisation’s decision-making, relationships, reputation and licence to operate. The issue is whether the organisation understands the consequences of handing decisions, or the appearance of decisions, to AI in ways that may affect stakeholders, employees, communities of interest and others connected to the organisation’s activities.

So, when I need to tactfully push back or redirect the conversation, my starting point is usually a set of simple questions. What are you trying to achieve with this? How does it align with your organisational outcomes? Is it being applied ethically? Do you understand the consequences? What could it do to your reputation, relationships and ability to maintain your licence to operate?

That approach allows the conversation to move away from the excitement of the new shiny tools and back towards purpose, responsibility and organisational impact. From there, you can begin to workshop the options, discuss the implications, consider the real costs and identify the areas that need attention before AI of any kind is deployed.

Q2. How much is AI picking up on social media commentary as part of its description of organisations?

Yes, AI picks up social media commentary but it will only pick up what it can access. Generally, that means publicly available commentary or material available through an API connection or approved data source. So, in terms of general digital chatter, yes, AI can identify and interpret some of that activity.

The difficulty is that we have to be careful about what it is actually reading. You can already see this in some AI overviews and AI-generated summaries, where the system may refer to “chatter” or online discussion without always digging deeply enough into whether the original sources are genuine, reliable or themselves AI-generated. So we end up with AI nested inside AI, nested inside AI.

That creates a bigger problem for communication and engagement. People are increasingly using AI to generate and optimise social media content but that is not the same as engaging with people. At the same time, many platform algorithms are designed to reward optimised content. The result is a circular loop where AI feeds AI, which feeds AI again. Human language, judgement and connection get pushed aside.

People can become immune to this kind of content because it does not sound like the way we speak to each other, nor does it reflect the way genuine relationships are built. Then, when conflict or outrage is layered on top, the environment becomes even harder to interpret.

So the short answer is yes, AI can monitor social media commentary. The longer answer is that it often does so in ways that require considerable caution, human judgement and a much deeper understanding of what is being surfaced, amplified and missed.

Q3. How are you maintaining credibility in a landscape flooded with AI-generated content?

Personally, I try to maintain credibility by doing my best to remain human. That is probably the best advice I would give to others as well. Use your own intelligence to understand the people and communities you want to engage with. Do not use AI as a barrier between you and them. Use it as a handy tool. Let it help you edit where necessary, test an idea or explore an angle, but do not hand over your voice, judgement or identity. The same applies to imagery. If you are creating images with AI, treat it as a collaboration rather than giving the system an idea and simply running with whatever it gives back. AI-generated imagery carries assumptions and bias, so we must question what is produced and make conscious choices about what we use.

For me, maintaining credibility and authenticity means being yourself and not allowing AI to suffocate your identity. That will become harder to do as digital twins, synthetic voices and other tools make it easier for organisations to use it as a mask. The real challenge is not so much maintaining credibility. It is about maintaining humanity, empathy, kindness and a genuine wish to connect with others beyond the AI-intermediated space.

Q4. Globally, it would be interesting to learn how each country’s culture is reflected in the messaging as filtered by LLMs.

Different AI systems can reflect, distort or flatten cultural context in several ways and one of the biggest concerns is the continental drift between the major model providers. Many of the systems most widely used are strongly shaped by US language, culture, law, commercial assumptions and social norms. At the same time, Chinese models are being developed within a very different political, linguistic and cultural environment – much better at APAC languages for example. So the question is twofold: whether an AI system is “accurate” and “accurate according to whom, trained on what, governed by which assumptions and optimised for which worldview”?

Training data matters enormously. In the early days of the general release of generative AI, we saw certain words and phrases appear everywhere. “Delve” is one example, and “dive into” is another. These were signals of the linguistic patterns embedded in the data, the training process and the reinforcement layers shaping outputs. When those patterns are repeated at scale, they begin to influence the way people write, speak and frame ideas. Over time, that blunts understanding, with distinctive voices, local idioms and cultural ways of knowing pushed towards a generic machine-mediated style.

There is important work being done by Māori researchers and others on the cultural impact of AI, particularly in relation to language and data sovereignty, indigenous knowledge and the right of communities to determine how their knowledge is represented, protected and used. The research is still developing but the concern is real. AI systems can absorb, repackage and reproduce cultural knowledge without context, consent or accountability. They can also misread or flatten concepts that do not translate neatly into dominant languages or Western knowledge structures.

That is why the homogenisation of culture and language is something we need to understand and contest. In many ways, AI becomes a form of digital colonisation. Knowledge is scraped, curated, classified and reproduced by systems that may have no meaningful relationship with the people, histories or communities from which that knowledge came. In some instances, it risks rewriting history, or at least a narrowing of it, where contested, local or marginalised perspectives are buried beneath the most available, most optimised or most dominant version of events.

So, different AI systems may distort cultural context by privileging dominant languages, simplifying complex meanings, mistranslating concepts, omitting local histories or reproducing the worldview of their developers and training environments. They may flatten culture by making everything sound the same. And that presents a real danger, not only for communication professionals but for society more broadly, because shared understanding, cultural memory and social cohesion all depend on our ability to recognise difference, preserve nuance and respect the knowledge that communities hold for themselves.

Q5. Where can we find Catherine’s upcoming sessions on misinformation and AI?

The Managing Information Disorder session will stream live on 2nd July. Please register here.

In case you can’t make it, you can always signup and access the live recording. As part of the session, you will also receive the Information Disorder Framework and the practical tools that accompany it, designed to help you recognise and respond to misinformation, disinformation, mal-information, narrative attacks, deepfakes and other risks in the current information environment.

If you would like to know more about AI, the AI in Public Relations – What’s New, What’s Next and What Now? session is also available. It is designed to help you get up to speed with the latest developments, understand what they mean for public relations practice and identify what you need to do next.

You can also access some of the resources Catherine mentioned during the webinar, including the Chaos Compendium, which is freely available. It exists to help you think through what is happening now, prepare your organisation for the months ahead and take practical steps to manage the risks, issues and pressures already coming into view.

Ngaire Crawford, Executive Director, AI Strategy

Ngaire Crawford is Executive Director for AI Strategy, with a mandate spanning both Isentia and Vuelio to ensure the Group’s AI strategy is coherent, credible and commercially effective. A driving force behind Isentia’s insights and measurement capability for a number of years, Ngaire is a well-respected voice across the communications measurement industry — with customers, at industry events, and in the broader conversation about the future of PR and communications. Her curious, thoughtful approach, deep expertise in measurement, and early adopter mindset with AI have helped shape much of what Isentia is building.

Q1. What are some of the top errors or mistakes you see communications leaders make in regards to AI?

If we assume people are already off the first rung and past treating AI as a workflow assistant for drafting and summarising, the more interesting mistakes tend to start after that.

The one I’d put first is assuming this is a more neutral information environment than it actually is. It’s a tempting thing to believe after years of algorithmic outrage, the idea that AI hands everyone a calmer, more balanced version of events is genuinely appealing. But I don’t think the echo chamber disappears with LLMs; it just gets dressed differently. Social platforms built echo chambers by amplifying whatever made you angry. LLMs have a gentler version of the same habit, they’re built to be helpful and agreeable, so if you ask a leading question you’ll often get an answer that politely validates your framing. And the more personalised they get, the more pronounced that becomes. So when you’re thinking about how your audiences are forming views through these tools, what matters isn’t just what the system “says” — it’s who’s doing the asking, how they’re asking, and what the system has already learned about them.

And then a more practical one: getting the order of operations wrong when you build out intelligence capability. The instinct to bring more of this in-house is understandable, but it often gets handed straight to a data or tech team, and however good the pipeline they build, you can end up with something impressive that produces information nobody quite knows how to act on. What’s signal versus noise for this organisation, what’s actually useful to a comms leader — are communications questions, not engineering ones. Sort those out first and the technology tends to slot in behind them; do it the other way round and you usually get the impressive-but-unusable version.

Q2. Would it be accurate to say content with an overt evidence base will “perform” better in an AI information environment?

The thing is, “perform” is doing two jobs. There’s visibility (does evidence-rich content get cited more?) and there’s reputation (when you do get cited, is the picture the system paints one you’d actually recognise?) They’re not the same question, and an evidence base does fairly different things for each.

On visibility, it’s, broadly yes. Well-sourced, clearly structured, quotable content does tend to get picked up more, there’s research pointing that way, though honestly it’s mostly from controlled studies and it moves around a lot depending on the topic and the platform. But what’s getting rewarded there is just clarity, good sourcing, consistency, authority. Which is less a shiny new lever and more the basics of communications.

Reputation is where “perform better” can start to lead you astray. Getting cited isn’t the same as being represented well. You can have a flawless evidence base, get pulled into an answer, and still find that answer describes you in a way you’d never have approved because the model’s also leaning on everything everyone else has said about you. You can definitely nudge your visibility, but how you’re represented is downstream of your whole information environment, and that’s a slower, longer term shift.

So yes, a real evidence base matters, but not because it’s a button you press to perform better. It matters because being genuinely worth referencing is what trusted sources cite, and it’s those sources, built up over time, that shape how these systems talk about you. What I’d be wary of is treating an “overt evidence base” as something you manufacture to game your way in.

The conversation continues

What comes through clearly in both Catherine’s and Ngaire’s responses is that AI is a shifting set of conditions that communications professionals need to understand, question and actively work within, not just hand over.

The organisations that will navigate this well are not necessarily those with the most sophisticated AI tools. They are the ones asking better questions earlier, about purpose, about accountability, about what it means to remain genuinely credible and human in an environment where both are increasingly easy to fake.

If you missed the webinar or want to revisit it, access the recording here. Watch this space — there’s more to come.

Share

Similar articles

object(WP_Post)#7708 (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.

object(WP_Post)#9095 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(49871) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-09-09 02:19:40" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-09-09 02:19:40" ["post_content"]=> string(17112) "

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. In Why 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. 

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

" ["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.

Ready to get started?

Get in touch or request a demo.

Contact us Request a demo