It’s the primary vehicle for delivering to the myriad journalists scanning both the digital and paper world for tidbits of information they can sculpt into newsworthy articles.
A media release that stands out from the crowd is much more likely to gain traction and, if you have accurate media tracking tools in place, can reveal a lot about your target demographic and its awareness of your brand. Of course nailing the perfect media release is no easy feat, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
While a good writer will gradually hone their skills over years of practising their craft, there are a few things you can do to instantly improve the quality – and open rates – of your releases. Boost your chances of exposure and consequent brand recognition by avoiding these seven deadly sins of media release writing:
Conciseness is the hallmark of any good media release writer, and this extends to your headlines, too. While your headline should convey an idea of what the media release contains, making it too long turns audiences off and discourages them from reading on. Copyblogger reported that 80 per cent of people may read a headline, but only 20 per cent will read the rest.
Keep your headlines, short, snappy and creative. Incorporating meaty or surprising statistics into the headline will improve your press releases’ chances of getting opened, as it immediately indicates what the rest of the text will be about.
Journalists are busy people and don’t have time to spend dissecting lengthy discussions on the latest and greatest developments at your organisation, regardless of how well it’s written. A reader should be able to get the gist of your media release within the first paragraph or two at most.
Media monitoring analytics may be able to reveal successful patterns in your media release structures, allowing you to cut the filler, condense your writing and get to the crux of the issue as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence and convoluted media releases are unlikely to ever see the light of the day.
Media releases are a balancing act between news and promotion, though many PR managers are guilty of leaning too heavily towards the latter. A media release is not an opportunity to sell a product or service and the language you use should reflect this.
Steer well away from salesy sentencing and avoid hyping up your organisation too much. Instead, present the facts in an objective and impartial manner, discuss the role your organisation played in the topic at hand, and let readers form their own opinion.
Media releases feature a distinct style of language and structure and each one you write should be treated as an opportunity to teach consumers about your organisation. Even with deadlines looming over you, avoid copying text from internal documents and including it in your media releases.
Similar to how you would tailor a resume to get a specific job, media releases should be crafted to target a specific magazine, newspaper or website. Write each one from scratch and create unique content that will really hit the mark with your chosen demographic.
Exclamation marks, most commonly associated with anger (wrath) or loudness, are one of the most ill-used punctuation marks in media releases. You may be excited about developments within your organisation, but using exclamation marks (or worse, multiple exclamation marks) to highlight your point makes the media release look spammy, overly promotional and untrustworthy.
Limit your use of this punctuation mark. Unless someone in your media release feels particularly strongly about a certain subject, it’s unlikely that you’ll need one whatsoever.
It can be frustrating to see another media release gain serious traction in your market, especially when you feel as though yours are just as well crafted. However, do not begin mimicking the media releases of other organisations in hopes of achieving similar success.
Be confident in your skills to create a winning media release and feel free to experiment with structures that are a little bit different. As noted in the slothful sin, a media release should be unique in style and content, and copying another’s will not reap sustainable results in the long run.
You’re proud of your company and you want the world to know about every little development that takes place behind its doors – we understand. However, remember that media releases essentially help journalists report on the news. If it’s not timely, local, new, extreme, unusual or high-impact, you may need to reconsider how newsworthy your media release really is.
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.
This month, we chat to Shirish Kulkarni, Director of Monnow Media about effective storytelling. He shares his research about why the way we tell stories needs to change to make news more engaging, inclusive and informative.
Isentia’s Insights Director, Ngaire Crawford also shares some of the trends we’re seeing across social and traditional media, and how we’re seeing the notion of ‘effective’ storytelling change for our clients.
3:41 - Mainstream media is talking about:
5:12 - Across social media, there is a lot of division:
6:12 - On Google Trends, people across Australia and New Zealand are looking for search terms:
7:06 - In terms of storytelling, it’s important to understand the context in which you are communicating. The things to consider:
9:37 - The narratives to watch at the moment:
10:26 - Over the past year I’ve conducted research on how we can better tell news stories, and my findings can be applied across the communications industry. We are all storytellers in one way or another.
11:00 - We’re hardwired for stories, at an anthropological and neuroscientific level, stories help orientate us within the world. They are a virtual reality simulator helping us practice for real life.
11:53 - Typically, news stories do the opposite of traditional storytelling (i.e have a beginning and an end to the story). Instead, we (journalists) use the inverted pyramid structure where the top line is the conclusion and then filters down to the least interesting or least important information.
12:39 - The concept of the inverted pyramid structure dates back to the days of the telegraph, the original newswire. It was expensive, unreliable and it made sense to put the most important information at the beginning, just in case you lost the end of it. Although we don’t use the technology of the telegraph anymore, we still use the habits formed by that technology which continue to define journalism and communications.
13:03 - We conducted research with 1300 participants and the results showed users prefer stories that work in a straightforward and linear structure, much like traditional stories. More information was picked up as it fits with how we are hard-wired to navigate the world.
13:28 - Journalists are failing because they are ignoring what users need from the news. In an attempt to reverse that, I came up with six key principles that should be at the forefront of our minds when telling our stories.
17:24 - Based on these principles, I created a number of prototypes and tested them with users. When compared with a BBC news article, users overwhelmingly preferred our prototype. They picked up more information in less time and found it easier to navigate. This proves there is a better way of telling stories, we just need to be prepared to think differently and put users at the centre of our thinking.
18:40 - How do you think the media coverage of COVID-19 applies to your research?
Media has a crucial role. The only justification to have journalism is to provide reliable and useful information. There’s a big thing about news being about entertainment and there’s a focus on the drama of news rather than the information of news. What do we need to know? We are users as well as the audience and this should be taken into consideration when wanting to drive engagement.
23:46 - Do you have any tips for making the linear narrative structure more effective especially through face to face presentations rather than emails?
What really worked for us was using a "narrative accordion". We had 5 questions, and the answers could be expanded and read based on the user's interest. It didn't matter whether the question was at the beginning or end as it was up to the interest of the user. Simplify what you’re saying, and question whether it’s useful to your users.
28:15 - What have you learned about younger generations and their behaviours?
People have an incorrect characterisation of young people and get their needs completely wrong. There is a perception you can’t make a video longer than two minutes for the younger generation because they have a short attention span and are unable to comprehend what is being said. This generation is the most emotionally and culturally intelligent generation we have ever had. Young people aren’t put off by complexity or depth, they are craving it. Don’t underestimate them.
If you would like to view other Webinar Isentia Conversations: Communicating through Change:
Isentia Conversations: with Katherine Newton at RU OK?
Isentia Conversations: with Bec Brown at The Comms Department
Isentia Conversations: with Rochelle Courtenay at Share the Dignity
Isentia Conversations: with Rachel Clements at Centre for Corporate Health
Isentia Conversations: with Helen McMurdo at MTV
Isentia Conversations: with Daniel Flynn at Thank You
Isentia Conversations: with Campbell Fuller at Insurance Council of Australia
Isentia Conversations: with Craig Dowling from Mercury
Isentia Conversations: with Stella Fuller from Bright Sunday
" ["post_title"]=> string(61) "Isentia Conversations with Shirish Kulkarni from Monnow Media" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(212) "We chat to Shirish Kulkarni, Director of Monnow Media about effective storytelling. He shares his research about why the way we tell stories needs to change to make news more engaging, inclusive and informative. " ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(61) "isentia-conversations-with-shirish-kulkarni-from-monnow-media" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(98) " https://www.isentia.com/latest-reads/isentia-conversations-with-stella-muller-from-bright-sunday/" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-07-29 22:58:53" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-07-29 22:58:53" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(31) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=8064" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }We chat to Shirish Kulkarni, Director of Monnow Media about effective storytelling. He shares his research about why the way we tell stories needs to change to make news more engaging, inclusive and informative.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been talking to experts about the best ways of working and communicating through a time of unprecedented change.
In this episode, we talk to Rachel Clements, the Director of Psychological Services at the Centre for Corporate Health. Rachel shares some practical tips on how organisations can mitigate psychosocial risks in a time of heightened anxiety - and some advice on maintaining your own mental fitness. Isentia’s Insights Director, Ngaire Crawford also shares some of the trends across social and traditional media.
3:30 - Over the past week, data from mainstream media suggests we’re starting to get a bit restless. Across Australia and New Zealand we’re talking about:
Google searches have largely been about restriction levels and what people are and aren’t allowed to do. People are starting to unpack misinformation and search about interesting theories such as 5G towers causing coronavirus.
5:08 - On social media, people continue to reach out and be creative with memes, but there is still an undercurrent of stress and uncertainty.
5.28 - People are starting to shift their mentality from ‘what i need to care about right now’ to ‘ what i need to start caring about in the future’.
People have specifically been worried about:
⇒ Bills/rent/mortgages - specific items that need to be paid.
⇒ Superannuation - the increasing worry is reflective of the long term view - when will this be over?
⇒ Mental Health - still a concern for people
⇒ Job losses - more so about individual bill payments and reduced personal income as opposed to job losses or business strategies.
6:28 - Having context is incredibly important. As communicators, everyone wants to provide genuine and authentic information. It’s important to:
⇒ Understand who you’re communicating to and what they’re feeling.
⇒ Listen. Add additional sources into your information bubble. Look at what’s trending on Google, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok. Look at specific hashtags to get an understanding of what people are talking about and are interested in.
⇒ Seek feedback from audiences, but be aware that patience is starting to wane.
⇒ Keep curious, consider your own media consumption habits and who you are supporting and why.
⇒ Continue to watch what drives emotional responses online such as cancel culture and conspiracy theories, which are usually indicative of wider audience feelings and outrage.
⇒ Audiences and businesses are starting to get antsy about normality and what the future looks like - they want to know what will the new normal look like?
9:08 - Rachel tells us there are many psychosocial risks impacting people around the world in relation to COVID-19. In particular, people are experiencing an emotional journey and a wellbeing journey. She says you need to understand what's happening emotionally with people, so you can tailor communication according to the stage that they’re in.
10:00 - To understand the psychosocial risks for COVID-19, a framework has been developed that outlines its 3 stages.
Stage 1 - we were (and some of us still are) operating in flight or fight, operating in panic, fear and anxiety and not taking in much information. We were just trying to survive.
We were adjusting to working from home, adjusting to new technology and having to do pivots within our business. There was a need to look at the media and be drawn into the fear contaigum.
People in this stage don’t take in much information, so we have to be careful with how tailored messages were communicated.
There are many people still in this stage, but there is a shift of people moving into stage 2.
11:15 - Stage 2 - is thought to be more psychologically challenging than stage 1. This is because there is a realisation social isolation and social distancing is our reality and its duration is unknown. Things are unpredictable and this can be mentally tough for people.
11:47 - At the moment, there’s an increase in disengagement, an increase in dissatisfaction, anger, irritability, frustration and languishing - which is akin to depression. If people are sitting in the stage of languishing, they are suddenly feeling unmotivated and not satisfied, a languishing mindset can start to take a toll on their mental wellbeing.
People are starting to transition into ‘i’m tired’, ‘i’m sick of this’ and begin to break the rules or behave in a way that is opposite to what they are asked to do.
12:22 - Stage 3 - People start to adjust to the new normal and have a bit of optimism for the future. People begin to become creative again and feel a sense of hope.
It’s important to understand the different stages in order to communicate. The success of your communication is based on the stage of a person’s emotional journey and their readiness to take in information.
13:10 - There are some psychosocial risk factors currently seen in our workplace environments:
⇒ Pre-existing mental health conditions. Those who were already in an anxious or depressive state, who’ve been forced into social isolation and self distancing, puts them at risk of exacerbation. Drugs and alcohol are being used as a coping mechanism to deal with the increased fear and anxiety people are feeling.
⇒ Pre-existing circumstances within our lives such as relationship break-ups, issues with children, financial stressors, don’t stop and people’s capacity and ability to deal with these external stressors have eroded.
⇒ Family dynamics - although our situations have changed, our expectations have not. There are increased feelings of failure, guilt and burn-out as we try to keep up with family life and work life. The inability to change our mindset and expectations to our current circumstance are leading to excessive stress.
⇒ Family and domestic violence - there are increased levels of hostility and an increase in domestic violence during social isolation.
17:19 - Employment risks have also increased, some of these include:
⇒ Financial pressure caused by the economic downturn. People are concerned about their job security and their financial position.
⇒ Workload challenges. People are trying to balance their personal life, professional life and their associated workloads.
⇒ Loss of direction from social isolation. It can also make people feel demotivated and we need to ensure our teams are kept motivated to prevent languishing and dissatisfaction.
18:45 - During these times, people are struggling with their wellbeing. Trends are already being noticed, these include:
⇒ Heightened levels of anxiety
⇒ Exacerbation of pre-existing mental health conditions
⇒ Presentation of new mental health conditions
⇒ Increase in social withdrawal
⇒ Increase in drug and alcohol use as a coping mechanism
⇒ Increase in incidences of intolerance, aggression and conflict. Humans don’t like to be contained and this is why there is an increase in these behaviours.
⇒ Increase in incidences of domestic violence
⇒ Increase levels of suicidality
21:05 - Wellbeing needs to be on the radar and there has never been a better time for organisations to communicate and discuss strategies to prevent people’s wellbeing diminishing. These include:
⇒ Equip HR and leaders to lead remotely and equip all employees to work remotely
⇒ Identify unique workplace psychosocial stressors - is someone in the team going through a stressful time personally? Is a family member unwell or is someone experiencing a mental health issue?
⇒ Maintain connectivity - seeing someone's eyes can be beneficial for feeling connected
⇒ Maintain a balance between work and other commitments whilst working remotely
⇒ Develop and maintain a ‘new business as usual’ - find new routines and effective ways to work. People respond well to routine.
⇒ Supportive and visible leadership
⇒ Recognise early warning signs of poor mental health
⇒ Manage anxiety and maintain resilience
⇒ Have R U OK? Conversations
⇒ Promote employment assistance programs and virtual onsite support
If you would like to view other Webinar Isentia Conversations: Communicating through Change:
Isentia Conversations: with Katherine Newton at RU OK?
Isentia Conversations: with Bec Brown at The Comms Department
Isentia Conversations: with Rochelle Courtenay at Share the Dignity
" ["post_title"]=> string(79) "Isentia Conversations with Rachel Clements from the Centre for Corporate Health" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(411) "In this episode, we talk to Rachel Clements, the Director of Psychological Services at the Centre for Corporate Health. Rachel shares some practical tips on how organisations can mitigate psychosocial risks in a time of heightened anxiety - and some advice on maintaining your own mental fitness. Isentia’s Insights Director, Ngaire Crawford also shares some of the trends across social and traditional media." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(79) "isentia-conversations-with-rachel-clements-from-the-centre-for-corporate-health" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(385) "https://www.isentia.com/latest-reads/isentia-conversations-with-katherine-newton-at-ruok/ https://www.isentia.com/latest-reads/isentia-conversations-with-bec-brown-from-the-comms-department/ https://www.isentia.com/latest-reads/isentia-conversations-with-rochelle-courtenay-from-share-the-dignity/ https://www.isentia.com/latest-reads/isentia-conversations-with-helen-mcmurdo-from-mtv/" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-05-07 00:34:43" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-05-07 00:34:43" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(31) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=7023" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }In this episode, we talk to Rachel Clements, the Director of Psychological Services at the Centre for Corporate Health. Rachel shares some practical tips on how organisations can mitigate psychosocial risks in a time of heightened anxiety – and some advice on maintaining your own mental fitness. Isentia’s Insights Director, Ngaire Crawford also shares some of the trends across social and traditional media.
Following our webinar on 5 May, our panelists respond to the questions we didn’t get to on the day.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
" ["post_title"]=> string(44) "Inside the AI Shift: Your Questions Answered" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(189) "Panelists from Isentia's "Inside the AI Shift" webinar address some of the audiences' unanswered questions on maintaining credibility, AI leadership and evidence-based content performance. " ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(43) "inside-the-ai-shift-your-questions-answered" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-06-09 02:26:47" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-06-09 02:26:47" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=48129" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Panelists from Isentia’s “Inside the AI Shift” webinar address some of the audiences’ unanswered questions on maintaining credibility, AI leadership and evidence-based content performance.
There is a new frontier where public perception is shaped: Large Language Models. Right now, LLMs are answering critical questions about your organisation. What are they saying? And more importantly, which sources are shaping those answers?
To navigate this landscape, public relations professionals don't need generic tools, but rather technology that speaks their language, and addresses the realities of a changed media and informational landscape.
That is why we're unveiling Lumina AI View, the latest addition to our intelligent suite of AI tools from Isentia. Trained specifically on the workflows and challenges of modern PR & communications, Lumina AI View helps you understand exactly what AI knows about you, and how it learned it.
AI View tracks your citation strength and source quality alongside those of your competitors, giving you a clear view of where you hold authority and where you have gaps.
Lumina AI View maps your AI reputation from the ground up, allowing you to:
Lumina AI View is built on the principle that insights get stronger with repeated measurement. To help you maintain a clear view of your reputation, our proprietary scoring system provides regular updates that show you:
Whether you run it weekly, on-demand, or whenever you need a check-in, patterns will emerge, trends will become clear, and you will build a baseline that makes any sudden narrative changes both comprehensible and the prerequisite to action.
Lumina AI View is part of Lumina AI, a comprehensive suite of AI tools built specifically for communicators. Our Lumina suite evolves traditional media monitoring into narrative intelligence, enabling you to truly understand how perceptions form, evolve, and impact your reputation.
Get in touch to register your interest and see what Lumina AI View can do for you.
" ["post_title"]=> string(66) "Introducing Lumina AI View: AI Visibility Built for PR & Comms" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(158) "Lumina AI View, the latest in Isentia's AI suite, is trained on PR & comms workflows to help you understand what AI knows about you — and how it learned it." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(59) "introducing-lumina-ai-view-ai-visibility-built-for-pr-comms" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-06-04 04:13:37" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-06-04 04:13:37" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47963" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Get in touch or request a demo.