For PR and comms teams, leveraging media monitoring and insights means not just keeping up with the headlines but uncovering opportunities to expand relevance. By analysing patterns in media coverage—such as emotional tone, channel performance, spokesperson impact, peak coverage moments, and narrative themes—you can gain a detailed understanding of what shapes strategy.
Global perspectives on journalism: Insights into regional attitudes & challenges
Our recent State of Journalism Audiences study reveals nuanced regional attitudes towards journalism. While positivity is waning globally, comparing insights across regions highlights key differences. Many believe traditional journalism is “dying” or “dead,” but perspectives vary: in the UK and US, journalism is seen as essential despite its struggles, while in Australia and New Zealand, its critical role is emphasised. This international perspective not only underscores shared challenges but also reveals how regional contexts shape audience expectations, offering valuable insights for addressing these critiques and rebuilding trust.
Supermarkets in the news: How media & social platforms shape public discourse
2024 was the year supermarkets faced mounting public and political scrutiny. Consumer frustration over practices like shrinkflation and skimpflation—where products shrink in size or quality without price reductions—sparked widespread outrage, with social media ablaze over examples like $13 jars of Vegemite. Calls for shrinkflation labelling grew, while rising theft reports led supermarkets to consider body cameras for staff, further fuelling debate.
Public pressure intensified when Greens MP for Prahran, Sam Hibbins, called for grocery price regulation during an ABC interview, following a parliamentary inquiry into supermarket practices in late 2023. Meanwhile, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s call for a boycott of brands not selling Australia Day merchandise drew criticism, as many argued he was ignoring urgent issues like food affordability.
Media coverage amplified key narratives—from criticism of political inaction to the PM’s assurances and the Woolworths CEO’s controversial walkout—while social media sustained public interest. These events highlighted the need for communicators to craft clear messaging, leverage key moments, engage with social platforms, and use media monitoring to foster transparency and adapt strategies in response to evolving public discourse.
Do people realise it is 'not selling ADDITIONAL' Australia day merchandise.
Talk about typical over reaction to absolutely nothing.
I try not to shop at Woolies due to their price gouging … but the LNP don't care about affording food.
Driving Change: How Audiences and Brands Shape the Sustainability Narrative
Viewing sustainability through an audience mindset lens, reveals how they take action and perceive brand impact on their lives. In Australia, social media discussions reflect a growing, solutions-oriented approach to climate change and sustainability, with conversations steadily increasing over the years. These discussions often place responsibility on brands, as well as PR and marketing professionals, to drive meaningful change.
While audiences acknowledge some factors are beyond their control, they empower themselves by taking actions that align with their values, reinforcing a sense of agency in addressing these challenges. Actions like composting, upcycling, second-hand shopping are just a few examples people are sharing online about how they are taking action.
A product, brand, or service can be shaped by narratives beyond its control, driven by audience discussions and media coverage. For example, the BNPL narrative this year was influenced by the cost of living crisis, with audiences using BNPL for essentials and discussing its impact on spending habits. While media covered this before it peaked online, audience discussions grew afterward, normalising such behaviours over calls for government regulation. This was of particular media interest when the Australian government announced there would be delays to regulate BNPL services due to being under-resourced and competing issues like the PwC tax leaks issue. This highlights the need for communications professionals to track the full trajectory of narratives, using audience and media data to refine strategies and align messages with evolving public discourse.
Mapping Influence: Identifying gaps in the energy debate narrative
Analysing influencers and key voices on a topic can help refine message targeting and uncover potential blind spots in a brand’s communications. In the case of the energy debate, news outlets dominate in volume and engagement, which is expected given the 24/7 news cycle. However, political figures like Malcolm Turnbull lead in engagement, followed by journalists, while commentators—who often hold significant influence—are the most listened to. This reflects how media professionals can hold society to account, but it also highlights a potential gap where other voices, such as those with a direct stake in energy policy, might be underrepresented. By mapping the influence of key voices, we can better understand why the narrative may lean more towards political and media perspectives rather than those of industry leaders or experts.
Understanding audience perceptions is crucial for ensuring effective communication. In today’s media landscape, rebuilding trust and aligning with audience expectations are essential. By analysing sentiment, tracking narrative trends, and leveraging influencer impact, communicators can proactively shape conversations and strengthen audience connections.
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.
Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters.
In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for customer sales. CRM systems, built for structured pipelines and linear user journeys, have long been the default for managing contact databases. They work well for sales and customer service functions. But for communications professionals managing journalists, political offices, internal leaders and external advocates, these tools often fall short.
Stakeholder relationships don’t follow a straight line. They change depending on context, shaped by policy shifts, public sentiment, media narratives or crisis response. A stakeholder may be supportive one week and critical the next. They often hold more than one role, and their influence doesn’t fit neatly into a funnel or metric.
Managing these relationships requires more than contact management. It requires context. The ability to see not just who you spoke to, but why, and what happened next. Communications teams need shared visibility across issues and departments. As reporting expectations grow, that information must be searchable, secure and aligned with wider organisational goals.
What’s often missing is infrastructure. Without the right systems, strategic relationship management becomes fragmented or reactive. Sometimes it becomes invisible altogether.
This is where Stakeholder Relationship Management (SRM) enters the conversation. Not as a new acronym, but as a different way of thinking about influence.
At Isentia, we’ve seen how a purpose-built SRM platform can help communications teams navigate complexity more confidently. Ours offers a secure, centralised space to log and track every interaction, whether it’s a media enquiry, a ministerial meeting, or a community update, and link it to your team’s broader communications activity.
The aim isn’t to automate relationships. It’s to make them easier to manage, measure and maintain. It’s about creating internal coordination before the external message goes out.
Because in today’s communications environment, stakeholder engagement is not just a support function. It is a strategic capability.
Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters. In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for […]
This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives.
1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it
At the start of the campaign, traditional media focused on familiar priorities. The Labor government’s May budget led with cost-of-living relief, fuel excise changes and increased rental support. The Liberals responded with proposals for nuclear energy and a plan to cut 40,000 public service jobs. While these issues framed the early weeks, they were quickly overtaken in online discussions by stories with more cultural weight.
On social media, a video comparing Peter Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely, while Anthony Albanese’s “delulu with no solulu” moment during a Happy Hour podcast interview was picked up by national outlets and widely shared on social platforms. Personality often generated more interest than policy.
2. Messaging strategy went beyond the platforms
Both major parties tried to engage younger voters where they spend their time. Albanese’s appearance on podcasts and his interviews with influencers like Abbie Chatfield reflected a values-driven approach. Dutton’s appearance on Sam Fricker’s podcast targeted young men through a more casual, conversational format.
Mainstream media covered these appearances but often through the lens of political tactics rather than substance. When Abbie Chatfield’s pro-Greens posts attracted AEC scrutiny in early April, the story became more about influencer regulation than her political message.
3. Polarisation dominated public debate
The second leaders’ debate on 10 April marked a turning point, with stark contrasts on energy, education and immigration. Dutton's focus on crime and border control drew backlash, while Albanese was seen as calm but cautious. Instead of clarifying party differences, the debate intensified existing divides.
Online commentary quickly split along ideological lines. Audiences did not just debate the leaders’ points but used the debate to reinforce partisan views, highlighting how polarised public discourse has become.
4. Influencers reshaped election storytelling
Influencers became central to election storytelling. Abbie Chatfield faced strong support and criticism after posting about the Greens and questioning the Liberal Party’s media strategy. The Juice Media released satirical videos targeting defence and energy policies, resonating with disillusioned younger audiences.
Even incidents unrelated to official campaigns became flashpoints. In February, a video from an Israeli influencer alleging antisemitic comments by NSW nurses went viral, triggering political statements and shifting media attention to broader issues of hate speech and accountability online.
5. Culture wars outpaced policy in the final stretch
As the election neared, cultural tensions gained traction. On 12 April, media attention turned to Peter Dutton after reports emerged that his Labor opponent Ali France was leading in Dickson. Around the same time local authorities dismantled a tent encampment in the area while Dutton was campaigning in Perth. This raised questions about leadership and visibility on local issues.
Across social and news media, themes like Gaza, curriculum debates and identity politics took centre stage. Slogans such as “Get Australia back on track” were interpreted as echoes of US political rhetoric. Jacinta Price and Clive Palmer were both linked to similar messaging, fuelling memes and commentary about the Americanisation of Australian politics.
Rather than rallying around shared policy concerns, audiences engaged with content that reflected deeper anxieties about national identity and international influence.
What stood out the most wasn’t necessarily the policy itself, but the moments, memes, and messages that tapped into cultural tensions. The freedom for media and social media users to connect with and amplify these narratives created an arena where some politicians struggled to engage effectively. While some stuck to party lines without fully understanding the patterns driving media and social discourse, others embraced the shift, adapting to the rhetoric that was emerging online. The lesson is clear: in today’s media environment, ignoring what people are saying or the patterns of conversation isn’t an option.
Media and social highlights from the election campaign 2025
This was not an election won or lost on policy alone. While political parties released detailed plans around cost-of-living relief, energy, healthcare and education, the battle for attention played out across a different terrain. One shaped by identity, digital influencers and polarised media narratives. 1. Policy set the agenda, but didn’t hold it At the […]