Don’t be deceived by the tip of the iceberg
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
" ["post_title"]=> string(65) "How R U OK? harness Isentia Insights for their campaign strategy" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(35) "how-r-u-ok-harness-isentia-insights" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2024-09-09 02:45:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2024-09-09 02:45:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=27946" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Challenge 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 […]
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.
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%.
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
5. Campbell Reid, Senior Journalist, News Corp - 32 mentions
Dominating the discussions, politicians generated negative sentiment around “press freedom”.
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" }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.
A weekly tracker tracing the stories, figures and policies driving media and social coverage in the 2026 Victoria State Election across Online News, TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, Blogs and Forums. This edition covers conversations and coverage from 26th October - 2nd November 2026, highlighting what’s shaping the election conversation.
Media = news coverage of the Victorian state election (TV, radio, newspaper, magazine, online news). Social = public posts across X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, Forums and Blogs — everyone posting, not just media outlets. The two are counted separately and summed, with no overlap between them.
The week began with a long-running political standoff over the election debate format finally breaking. Opposition Leader Jess Wilson had spent weeks demanding a one-on-one contest with Premier Ben Carroll, framing it as a straightforward choice between the two major parties. Carroll, however, had pushed for a 'three-way contest' that included One Nation's Warren Pickering, a move some commentators saw as an attempt to split the conservative vote. The deadlock ended on Tuesday when Wilson reversed her position, agreeing to a four-way 'People's Forum' hosted by News24 and the Herald Sun, but only on the condition the Greens' Ellen Sandell was also included. Wilson then told media that Carroll was 'hiding' and needed other leaders as 'comfort blankets'. The final agreement, confirmed on Wednesday, will see all four leaders face questions from undecided voters in a single event next week.
The debate format is part of a wider contest over how the campaign is framed. Wilson's initial position would have presented the election as a choice between government and opposition. Carroll's push to include Pickering was seen by some as an attempt to draw support away from Wilson on the right. By agreeing to a four-way format on the condition that the Greens were included, Wilson presented Carroll as avoiding a direct contest and herself as open to a broader discussion. Wilson's 'comfort blankets' line became the week's most repeated soundbite.
The story dominated political coverage from Monday through Thursday, generating over 220 articles. It was largely a story about campaign process rather than policy. Headlines like 'Snags and snipes: Leaders sizzle over debate' focused on the personal friction between the leaders, while sustained coverage also followed each change in the negotiations.
How the same issues and parties are landing in the news versus in public conversation
One Nation is punching above its media weight online, drawing a bigger share of social conversation than news coverage. Campaign & Election Process is a bigger talking point in public conversation than it is in the news.
Combined share of media + social mentions this week — attention, not polling
Shares add up to 100% of the six parties shown. Share of conversation measures how much each party was mentioned across media and social this week, not polling, voter intention or electoral support.
Ranked by combined media + social mentions · share of mentions among the five candidates shown
Mentions measure attention, not popularity, approval or electoral prospects.
Top themes this week, media + social combined · share of mentions among the four themes shown
The specific stories driving each theme above, as a share of that theme's own coverage
Each party's top issues in social conversation this week
This week's most-covered costed pledges, media + social combined
Media type and social platform split this week
Top outlets: 3AW, News24, ABC Radio Melbourne
Most active accounts: JackLit10200548, Commoncents21, Dedicatedlyfirm
What communicators should keep an eye on next week
If you want to find out more about how Isentia can help you understand the Victoria state election media landscape, please reach out to us here.
" ["post_title"]=> string(91) "Victoria State Election 2026: Debate Deal, One Nation Strong Online, Campaign Process Leads" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(155) "What shaped the Victorian election 2026 conversation, 26 Oct–2 Nov: a four-way debate deal, One Nation strong on social and campaign process in the lead." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(47) "victoria-election-four-way-debate-media-tracker" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-11-05 06:07:29" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-11-05 06:07:29" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50940" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }What shaped the Victorian election 2026 conversation, 26 Oct–2 Nov: a four-way debate deal, One Nation strong on social and campaign process in the lead.
How do I navigate aged care in Australia? How easy are government services to deal with? How well supported are people with disabilities? These are big questions about life in Australia, and many people now put them to an AI tool before they visit a website, pick up the phone or speak to anyone. They rarely mention a government agency by name, yet the answer they get still shapes what they believe about the services behind it: whether the system works, who is responsible and whose information they can trust. That is reputation taking shape, in a conversation no communications team is part of.
To see how that plays out, we used Your Prompts, a new feature in Isentia's AI View, to track how leading AI models answer these questions. Here's what we found, whose information the models used, how each model goes about sourcing its answers, and what it all means for public-sector communicators.
Most AI visibility tracking starts with an organisation's name. Your Prompts lets you set your own questions, which gives public-sector teams a much wider view of their reputation. People rarely ask an AI tool about an agency by name; they ask for help with whatever problem is in front of them, whether that's getting a parent into aged care or working out what support is available for a carer. Or they ask something bigger, such as how well the country looks after older people.
We tracked six sets of questions across leading AI models, covering the things people deal with at different stages of life: finding their way around government services, getting older, living with disability and caring for someone, raising a family, staying healthy, and making ends meet. For this article we focused on three of them: access and navigation, aged care, and disability and carers. These are the moments when people depend most directly on the government, which means a wrong or incomplete answer can have real consequences for someone trying to get help, and can colour how they feel about the system as a whole.
We compared answers from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity and Google AI Overview, looking at what each model said, which sources it cited and which organisations it named. The questions were set up for tracking rather than drawn from a survey of what the public actually asks, and the findings reflect a single point in time, using the latest data from 27 October 2026. Even so, the patterns in how AI finds and presents information about public services were clear and consistent.
We asked this alongside a second question: how well government support reaches the people who need it. Most models landed on a similar view: digital services work well for simple tasks, while complex cases, phone contact and people in vulnerable situations are where things get harder. The more interesting part is where that view comes from. The models formed it largely through oversight bodies, with the national audit office's findings carrying particular weight.
Government's own voice only came through when a model cited official pages, as when one model described digital services as a major strength, using a government website as the source. In other words, when AI assesses how the government is performing, it largely takes the word of the ‘referees’. Owned content can earn you a line in the answer, but auditors, commissions and advocates write most of the scorecard. For reputation, that gives an audit finding a second life. Well after the news cycle moves on, it can still be part of the answer people get when they ask how the government is doing. That brings us back to a question we raised in our article on AI visibility for government agencies: is your organisation still seen as the main authority on its own services?
Almost every model named government services as the place to go for financial assessments, payments and in-person help, and the tone was neutral to positive. One model went as far as recommending that people complete a means assessment early so they don't end up paying more than they need to.
The catch is that the agencies people were being sent to were rarely the source of that information, which mostly came from other government portals and guides written by aged care providers and advocacy groups. In one answer, even an agency's own contact details were taken from a seniors' advocacy group's website. Being named in an answer, then, is quite different from being its source. It builds recognition, but someone else is setting people's expectations of what they'll find when they get there, and if that guide is out of date, it's the service they feel let down by.
Zoom out to the bigger question of how well Australia looks after older people, and the agencies that were the first port of call in the practical answers didn't appear at all. These answers were framed by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which concluded in 2021, with most models opening on its findings and some giving them more weight than the reforms that followed. This is the reputational point that's easiest to miss: the practical question tells people where to go, while the big question tells them what kind of system they're dealing with. As we covered in why content freshness matters for AI visibility, old stories have a habit of shaping AI answers long after the facts have moved on.
The models discussed income support payments without naming the agency that delivers them, focusing instead on the NDIS and the gaps in support. That said, not every absence is a problem. Some questions genuinely aren't about a particular organisation, so it makes sense for it to sit them out. The useful distinction for communicators is between a relevant absence, where the question simply isn't about you, and a missed opportunity, where your work is being discussed and you aren't getting the credit. Repeated across enough answers, a missed opportunity leaves people with a picture of support that doesn't include the people delivering it.
Questions about caring for someone played out differently. Every model gave almost the same answer and pointed people to the same national carer support service. When official information is clear and consistent across agencies, peak bodies and support services, AI repeats it faithfully. There was one notable exception, where a model explained the government's carer payments using a blog from a private company that sells personal medical alarms. The information was mostly accurate, but it shows how far an explanation can travel from its original source. The good news is that consistency across your wider network really does pay off: when the organisations around you describe your services the way you do, AI is more likely to get them right, and that shared story becomes part of your reputation.
Across all three categories, each model showed clear habits in the sources it reached for. We can see what each one cites, even if we can't see exactly how it decides, and the patterns are consistent enough to act on. In practice, your reputation can look different depending on the tool someone uses. These habits also build on what we found when we looked at how different LLMs represent your organisation.
| Model | Where it gets its information | Example from our research | What it means for communicators |
| ChatGPT | Official statistics, audit reports and formal reviews. It pairs almost every claim with a figure or finding, much like a policy analyst writing a briefing note. | When asked whether government support reaches people in need, it built its answer around the national audit office’s findings. It was also the model most likely to cite the website of the agency delivering a service. | Oversight reports shape how ChatGPT judges your performance, while your own pages shape how it describes what you do. |
| Claude | The widest mix of sources, including advocacy groups, provider guides and commentary alongside government material. It tends to explain the reasons behind an issue and present more than one side. | When describing the Royal Commission’s “national disgrace” finding, it relied mostly on second-hand accounts of the report, such as Wikipedia and a private aged care provider’s website. | The organisations that retell your story effectively become your spokespeople. |
| Gemini | University research and international bodies such as the OECD, drawn from Google’s broad index of academic platforms, video and international sources. | On aged care, it drew on an overseas policy institute’s summary of Australia’s new aged care legislation. | Published research and evaluations carry real weight, as do secondary sources describing your work, wherever in the world they are published. |
| Perplexity | The most recently updated pages, quoted closely. It is built around live search with visible citations, so it favours recent, easy-to-access pages. | On access to services, it quoted a government corporate plan published only weeks earlier. | This is where keeping your own content current pays off fastest. |
| Google AI Overview | A small number of sources, summarised briefly, because it is designed to give a quick answer at the top of search results. | On disability support, it relied mainly on the scheme’s own website and summarised criticism in general terms, without naming who made it. | The few sources it chooses carry a lot of weight, so clear, well-structured official pages give you the best chance of being one of them. |
Put together, the same question can produce an audit-style answer, an advocacy-informed analysis, a research summary or a current snapshot, depending on which tool someone happens to open. Two people asking the same question can come away with quite different impressions of the same service. There's no single AI view of an organisation to manage, because each model has its own sources and each needs a slightly different approach.
Look at any one of these answers and it can seem like a visibility issue. Put them together and it's a reputation issue. For public-sector organisations, reputation has always been about more than what's said about you by name. It rests on whether people believe the system works, know where to turn and trust what they're told, and those impressions are now forming in AI answers, one question at a time.
Across these questions, four things shaped the impression an answer left:
None of this shows up if you only ask AI about your organisation by name. You see it when you ask the questions your audience is asking. And it matters, because AI is now one of the main places where people go for information about the things that matter to them.
Government organisations can't control what AI says, but they can do a lot to influence the information it draws on, and with it the reputation that forms around them. Five practical steps came out of this research.
AI is already answering big questions about life in Australia, whether or not the public-sector organisations involved are part of the conversation. This research shows that an organisation can be mentioned often and still have surprisingly little say in how its services are described or how its performance is judged, with other organisations doing much of the explaining and each AI model weighing those voices differently.
For communicators, the job is to understand that wider network of sources and make sure accurate, current information runs through all of it. It's worth asking what AI says about your organisation. It's just as worthwhile asking what AI says when nobody mentions you, and whose information it's using to say it. That's where much of your reputation is now taking shape.
Want to see what AI tells people about the questions that matter to your audience? Get in touch about AI View.
" ["post_title"]=> string(63) "How do LLMs represent public services to the public they serve?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(150) "Learn how AI cites government organisations, whose sources shape its answers on public services, and what public-sector communicators can do about it." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(62) "how-do-llms-represent-public-services-to-the-public-they-serve" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-11-04 04:47:03" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-11-04 04:47:03" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50662" ["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.