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 New Zealand General Election across Online News, TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums. This edition covers conversations and coverage from 1st – 8th October, highlighting what’s shaping the election conversation.
National announced a five-point welfare policy: random drug testing for JobSeeker recipients (with sanctions for repeat failures), reduced payments for long-term beneficiaries, and a doubled stand-down period for repeatedly leaving jobs without good reason. Labour and the Greens called it "punching down" and "cruel"; ACT proposed going even further; Luxon defended it as "fairness" for taxpayers.
The single largest media cluster this week (183 of 600 sampled items) was generic "campaigning intensifies as election day nears" coverage. This welfare policy, while smaller by volume (29 items), is a genuine flashpoint: a specific, controversial announcement that sharply divided every major party and will likely keep generating reaction into next week.
4,360 media items · 17,277 social items · share of each channel's own conversation, so the two bars are directly comparable
The Greens get more than twice the relative attention on social media as in the news. On social, the Greens are 20.8% of party conversation; in the news, they're 10.3%.
Health is a top-four issue on social but not in the news this week - Infrastructure takes its place in media's top four instead. Social conversation is tilting toward the health system while media coverage stays on economy, cost of living and infrastructure announcements.
Share of conversation measures attention and mentions only - it is not polling and should not be read as an indication of electoral success.
Luxon and Hipkins remain close at the top as the campaign enters its final stretch. Peters follows, still driven by coalition speculation. Seymour moves up to fourth on the back of ACT's economic-reform push (including floating a higher superannuation age), overtaking Swarbrick, whose fifth-place mentions continue to track the Greens' polling strength.
Each major party's most prominent specific policy, and how social conversation reacted to it
Volume and sentiment above are based on social media data only.
If you want to find out more about how Isentia can help you understand the NZ media landscape, please reach out to us here.
" ["post_title"]=> string(71) "NZ Election 2026: Welfare, Greens and the policies driving conversation" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(152) "What’s shaping New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation? Explore the key policies, parties and issues driving media and social discussion this week." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(69) "nz-election-2026-welfare-greens-and-the-policies-driving-conversation" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 12:06:35" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 12:06:35" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50341" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }What’s shaping New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation? Explore the key policies, parties and issues driving media and social discussion this week.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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 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 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'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 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.
Although LLMs behave similarly across sectors, the questions users ask differ fundamentally.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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" }Get in touch or request a demo.