The circular economy of Australia’s soft plastics recycling system
You’ve probably heard of REDcycle by now – the initiative started by a passionate mum, providing Australian’s with the opportunity to recycle their soft plastics. Its operation helped reduce the amount of landfill in Australia and its sudden halt in operation sent the community into a frenzy.
The pause in the popular REDcycle program presented an opportunity to rethink the model for soft plastics recycling in Australia and find end markets for recycled package content. It also prompted Australians to rethink the way they consume products, rather than just the way they recycle them.
Social media conversations show Australians continue to encourage retailers and large corporations to use their influential power to create impactful change. These conversations are heightened where regression (or progression) is made towards sustainability.
Soft plastic recycling to the kerb
As Australians become more conscience about their soft plastic usage, it raises the question of whether the collapse of the REDcycle program was a blessing in disguise or more of a curse on sustainability?
From the end of October 2022 to the end of March 2023, Australians have consistently felt negative sentiment towards REDcycle’s collapse with spikes when key announcements were made by the organisation. Overall, close to 45% of Aussies felt negatively compared to 18.5% positive.
Source: Pulsar TRAC. Sentiment across online and social media between 29 October 2022 – 23 March 2023
A Twitter user sharing their frustration about soft plastic recycling.
The collection of coverage
As people learned the news about REDcycle, there was heightened concern about how soft plastics were going to be recycled. With over 12,000 mainstream media items about REDcycle or soft plastic recycling, it supports the idea that Australia’s broken plastic recycling system is distressing for many and more needs to be done.
The halt in operation brought on more concern for the environment and ignited feelings of anger and distrust after thousands of tonnes of plastic had been stockpiled instead of being recycled.
Source: Isentia, REDcycle coverage across broadcast, print. Source Pulsar Trends, Twitter coverage. Source: Google Trends, search coverage ( 1 October 2022 – 20 March 2023)
Media coverage across different channels (social media, search, broadcast and print) shows spikes of coverage on the same days (9 November, 7 February, 27 February) but at varying levels;
9 November – REDcycle announced it would pause its operations indefinitely. This shock announcement caused an influx of conversations on social media platforms which then caused people to search ‘where to recycle soft plastics’.
7 February – additional stockpiles of plastic were discovered in warehouses. People felt disappointed and let down by REDcycle.
23 February – supermarket giants announced they would take responsibility for the 12,400 tonnes of soft plastic stored by REDcycle in warehouses around the country, ahead of REDcycle declaring their insolvency. This announcement gained more chatter across social media in comparison to other channels.
Conversations on Twitter represent social media as the preferred option for users in comparison to broadcast, print and search.
Closing the loop
As political leaders have the power to influence their supporters on sustainability development, sustainability advocates are pushing Australian leaders to accelerate plastic waste regulations.
Conversations on Reddit rapidly grew on 9 November – the day the REDcycle program paused. Overall sentiment was anger and sadness with many expressing their feelings of disappointment after learning their donated soft plastics were not ending up where promised. Others felt frustrated or angry towards large organisations who were not holding up their end of the deal, especially after taking the time to correctly separate their recyclable waste.
At 40%, political enthusiasts far outweigh any other active community on social media and forums. Their ‘passion’ for Australia can be overshadowed, as they share their beliefs towards the government – ranging from incompetence to over governing. Generation Z are true digital natives and make up 22% of active online communities. This cohort is motivated to make more sustainable choices, if it means it will benefit the environment for the long term.
Active communities on social media and forums discussing REDcycle and soft plastic recycling. (October 2022 – March 2023)
The REDcycle program illustrated the complexity of soft plastics recycling and the need to build robust systems to close the loop on this common household waste. For years there have been stockpiling issues, dumping, toxic fires and lax regulations, making it challenging to operate.
Australia’s largest supermarkets continue to work towards reducing unnecessary plastics in their stores, and support the development of circular economies through the use of recycled material.
Supermarket chains have moved quickly to find an alternative solution, teaming up with the National Plastics Recycling Scheme (NPRS) with financing from the Federal Government and top food and grocery producers to establish the Roadmap to Restart Taskforce.
23 February 2023, supermarket giants announced the return of soft plastics recycling by late 2023, despite the lack of recyclers. This announcement generated 6 x the amount of ‘supermarket’ Twitter mentions compared to 1 Nov 2022.
Source: Pulsar TRENDS. Supermarkets and soft plastic recycling conversations on Twitter.
Although it’s a promising development, announcements like these are what drive the conversations and force change. This rings true as sustainability advocates push for more substantial action to address soft plastic waste in Australia.
Large organisations are being challenged to rethink how they package their products and how they can be more sustainable, what about the government?
A RED hot go
Minister for Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, has been vocal in her response to the soft plastics recycling crisis. Initially, the program’s failure was met with calls for urgent action with Ms Plibersek weighing in on the news, saying it was “really concerning” and put the pressure on major supermarkets to come up with an alternative recycling program.
Although it is acknowledged that the government plays a role, it has been made clear the responsibility also lies with manufacturers and packagers.
We’ve set a goal of making packaging 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.
Australia needs to be better at recycling. That takes both industry and government action – and I’m ready to crackdown on those not doing enough.https://t.co/8vqoB0C9cI
Today, Coles and Woolies have outlined a path forward to resume soft plastics collection. I’ll be honest, this isn’t an easy task. pic.twitter.com/SjATWm1YMB
State and Federal Ministers are actively sharing their opinions and policies online in an effort to make change faster and positively influence their audience. Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews and the Victorian Government are leading the way, banning the selling and supply of single-use plastics in the state.
Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have jointly invested considerable funds into developing local capabilities to recover the challenging recycling stream and have committed to turning around Australia’s lack of progress on its recycling targets, setting new targets for 2025.
Source: Pulsar TRAC. Influential federal and state leaders driving conversations about recycling and soft plastic usage.
Adding another interesting layer of insights on social media from our sister company Pulsar, is that reddit is playing a major role in disseminating sentiment surrounding the REDcycle program. The below chart shows the most recurring keywords grouped by channel. The larger the tile, the more times the topic has appeared in that channel. Conversations involving scientists were notable and finding a solution to plastic pollution was a key narrative.
Top keywords by channel. (October 2022 – March 2023)
Trust was also a recurring keyword across all channels, indicating trust needs to be rebuilt. is something that needs to be rebuilt. Australians have begun to lose faith in the recycling industry as there is a lack of transparency into how much actually gets recycled.
The introduction of a new taskforce – the Road to Restart – will work towards rebuilding the public trust in soft plastic recycling. The taskforce also endeavours to ensure supermarkets and the packaging sector will get it right on their own accord.
The way forward
Conversations through online forums show Australians deeply care about sustainability, stating that ‘unless it can be recycled, it shouldn’t be produced.’
Social media platforms are especially fueled by sustainability advocates who need to share a broader awareness of recycling initiatives and earn potential audiences – conversations are widespread and emotions are elevated. Whereas broadcast and print channels are sharing the facts and the need to know information, directing audiences to use the information they have and to search where they can take their soft plastics. In addition to sustainability advocates, everyday Australians are learning how to pivot, seeking out support and ideas from fellow supporters on Twitter and other social media platforms.
If organisations can work together and policymakers can set clear legislative frameworks, it’s possible to implement necessary changes in both manufacturer and consumer behaviour to create a thriving circular plastics economy.
The pause of REDcycle is certainly on its way to being a good thing for the environment.
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.
In leadership meetings across the industry, a single question has become unavoidable: "What is our AI strategy?" Behind this question is often the unspoken hope for an "AI Easy Button": a mythical, one-click solution to our most complex measurement challenges. As someone who spends a large portion of my time designing these new frameworks, I'm infinitely more excited about the blueprints and the foundations than what colour the house is painted.
For the first time in my career, we have the tools to stop using proxies and start building what we've always wanted: true, at-scale, sophisticated measurement.The real opportunity isn't in automation, which lets the AI decide; it's in the architecture and design of systems for the AI to follow. For decades, I’ve been frustrated by proxies. I’ve watched organisations use metrics like Impressions and Share of Voice as proxies for impact and influence. Too many people have been measuring the loudness of their voice, not whether anyone was actually listening.
Much of the history of communications measurement has been a story of 'good enough' data. And in some cases, data that wasn't even good at all (*cough* AVEs).
Why a blueprint still needs an architect
But before we can harness the potential of AI, we have to be honest about the technology and tools we're working with. As anyone who's ever used a "smart" tool knows, they can be... well, confidently wrong.
The new challenge isn't just "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The new challenge is that the AI has become a high-speed, frighteningly convincing echo chamber. When a machine delivers a flawed insight, it does so with the resolute certainty of a supercomputer, laundering that flaw into a "fact."As architects, our job is to audit the blueprints and stress-test the materials before we build the house. When my team and I test these models, we're not just looking for what they do right. We're methodically hunting for where they go wrong.
Where we continue to see a critical need for human intervention and expertise:
Context Blindness: AI is a brilliant pattern-matcher, but it has limited real-world context and struggles to identify the intent of what’s being analysed. It can miss the nuance of language, the authority of a source, or whether something is fact or speculation.
Language Bias: This is my personal favourite and takes a few forms. AI is trained on text, but it isn't (yet) trained on human subtext. This can look like missed nuance for slang used by younger audiences or emerging shifts in the meaning of language. Models are ultimately impacted and biased by their training data, so this can also mean larger systemic biases are amplified and not appropriately interrogated.
Viewpoint Collapse: While AI can sometimes get locked into a perspective based on its training, it can also collapse multiple, distinct viewpoints (like a speaker's sarcastic intent vs. the literal text) into a single, flat monolith. This drastically changes the outcomes of your analysis and ultimately the understanding of your audience.
This is the methodical, behind-the-scenes work that often goes unseen, and it is the crucial due diligence needed. It’s not as flashy as writing a press release faster, but it’s the only way to build a tool you can actually trust to make a strategic decision.
New tools, same bedrock principles
This testing isn't just about finding technical bugs or funny hallucinations. We’re testing these new AI models against the foundational, hard-won principles of communications measurement that our industry has spent years formalising.
AI is an incredibly powerful new tool, but it doesn't get a free pass. It still has to follow the rules of good measurement.
Measure outcomes, not just outputs: This has always been our goal. An AI-driven approach that only counts outputs (like mentions or sentiment) 1,000 times faster is still just a faster measure of noise. It doesn't tell you if a single mind was changed or a single action was taken.
Demand transparency: A metric is useless if you can't explain how it's calculated. This is my biggest critique of the current "plug-and-play" approach to AI. If a vendor provides a proprietary 'Reputation Score' of 7.2, and they can't (or won't) tell you the formula, it's not a metric. It's marketing.
Link activity to business objectives: This is the most important rule of all. The only reason to measure is to inform a strategic decision that ladders up to a business goal. A tool that just produces data, but no clear insight linked to your specific objectives, has failed.
When we stop seeing AI as a magic box and start seeing it as a powerful, scalable engine, one that we must build and steer based on these principles, then it becomes truly transformative.
The payoff: the tools are finally catching up to our ambition
A new frontier of opportunity is here. Such as the capability to move from being reactive to being predictive, and it takes careful design to get this right. Our traditional analysis has been brilliant at explaining what has just happened. Now, as architects of these new systems, we are building and testing AI models that can scan the horizon for the faint signals that precede a major narrative shift.
We can empower movement from broadcasting and the old spray and pray approach; to precision, deliberate engagement of stakeholders and audiences. This is another area where the craft of measurement design is essential. AI gives us the power to see the micro-communities and specific, high-authority voices that actually shape opinion. The work is in designing the models that can identify them accurately.
Finally, we can (at last!) move from quantifying to qualifying at scale. For me, this is the most exciting and complex challenge. For 20 years, I’ve had to choose: a large-scale quantitative study (which missed nuance) or a small-scale qualitative review (which couldn't be scaled). As architects, we can now design frameworks that don't just give a "positive" score but confirm that a specific strategic message landed, with the right audiences, and in the intended context.
That is the opportunity. It's not magic. It's the methodical, patient engineering we've been waiting for. It’s the difference between a "plug-and-play" gimmick and a truly strategic asset. The real payoff isn't just faster reporting, it’s about fundamentally upgrading behaviours and expectations of measurement. This isn't an overnight shift. As any research leader will tell you, a new methodology takes time, testing and refinement to get right.
The future we've been waiting for
For my entire career, we’ve been strategic thinkers working with tools that could only show us the past. We were forced to be historians, meticulously analysing what had already happened to predict future behaviour. The key to using this new, complex technology effectively is; strong communication, articulation and critical human thinking. The power of any AI is unlocked by the quality of the question you ask it. It's a system that rewards clear, precise, and strategic language.
This is a massive homefield advantage for communicators, who have spent their entire careers honing the exact skills required to be the architects of this new era. The AI we are using today is the worst it will ever be. It will only get better, faster, and more capable from here. This is what's so thrilling, and it's just the beginning. This new generation of AI driven approaches doesn't replace our intuition, it amplifies it. As communicators (and researchers!) this is the moment to level up. We get to be the explorers and the strategists who connect communications directly to business, policy and societal outcomes.
We're not just building better measurement and deeper insights; we're leading a more intelligent, more responsive and more impactful profession. What an incredibly exciting time to be in this industry.
Ready to be the architect of your own measurement strategy?
To learn how to build the right KPIs and tell a compelling story with your data, register for our live webinar:
Topic: Making Communications Count: Build your KPI confidence and storytelling"
Date & time: 12 November, 11am AEDT/ 2pm NZT
Hosted by: Ngaire Crawford, Director of Insights for ANZ, Isentia.
Australia’s upcoming social media ban for minors hasn’t been primarily driven organic debate. Instead, it’s unfolded through a deliberate, tightly paced sequence of government-led communications, each phase designed to build momentum, secure legitimacy, and keep control of the public narrative.
What we’re seeing in the media data isn’t a spontaneous rise in interest, but a pattern of spikes that line up neatly with major government moments. Each one serves a purpose in a broader narrative strategy, and each reveals something about where the public conversation is heading next.
The rollout of Australia’s social media ban has followed something of a three-act script. It really began on the world stage, with Prime Minister Albanese’s UN address framing the policy as a “world-first” and earning global praise that positioned Australia as a leader rather than a legislator under pressure, a narrative heavily amplified across bulletins nationwide. Momentum built when Denmark echoed the proposal, turning the story from an Australian policy into a global movement and giving journalists a reason to return to it without new domestic detail. Subsequently, the focus shifted home, with the launch of the government’s ad campaign. Coverage has moved from delivery to confirmation, from diplomacy to daily life, embedding the message of child safety through stories designed to connect emotionally with parents before the ban takes effect.
Media coverage of the social media ban is being driven by a hierarchy of voices. At the top are the political architects, Anthony Albanese and Anika Wells, who account for 68% of all quoted commentary. Their dominance reflects a message tightly controlled from the centre, with each public appearance designed to reinforce authority and focus the debate. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant follows as the enforcer, providing regulatory credibility and keeping the story alive through ongoing updates and meetings with tech companies.Around them, Emma Mason’s personal story gives the policy its emotional weight, while expert voices like Dr Jason Nagata and Mitch Prinstein lend scientific legitimacy. Counter-voices such as Patrick McGorry are present but faint, just 1% of total commentary. Together, these strands create a coordinated ecosystem where political leadership, regulation, expertise, and emotion work in unison to sustain a single, dominant narrative.
The next layer of coverage reveals how the story’s momentum is being sustained, not just by government messaging, but by the constellation of organisations caught in its orbit. Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat remain the gravitational centre of the conversation, collectively shaping more than a thousand mentions each. They are the policy’s focal point and the media’s shorthand for what’s at stake.
Stories about ministerial meetings, enforcement challenges, and pleas for exemptions ensure these brands stay in the headlines, but on government terms, framed as subjects of regulation rather than equal participants in debate. This has also surfaced one of the key underlying questions: Will the ban actually work? There is a significant narrative thread focused on the practical challenges of enforcement, with YouTube widely quoted in the media as saying the ban is "'extremely difficult' to enforce".
With the media also reporting that the government will rely on "artificial intelligence (AI) and behavioural data to reliably infer age" rather than hard age verification, the public is left asking: If tech giants say it's unenforceable and teens are already finding ways around it, what will this law actually achieve?
The eSafety Commission anchors the enforcement narrative, while the European Commission’s support sustains the “world-first” framing abroad. As the scope of the ban widens, platforms like Roblox, Discord and Reddit have been pulled into focus, signalling how the policy, and its coverage, keeps expanding. This has forced the core question into the open: What is a "social media platform" in 2025?
Although the government’s narrative still dominates, a set of counter-stories is emerging, focusing on the policy’s real-world consequences. Central to these stories are concerns about young people losing access to vital online connections, particularly among regional or marginalised communities. Advocates for the LGBTIQA+ community and youth mental health experts like Professor Pat McGorry argue that the ban could isolate teenagers who rely on online spaces for support, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Other reporting has questioned the reliability of AI-based age verification, the volume of data collected, and the risk that well-intended rules might backfire, creating unintended consequences that contradict the policy’s goal of child safety. These counter-narratives remain smaller in scale than the dominant political messaging, but they cut through because they frame the debate around everyday impacts rather than top-down authority.
A particularly visible strand of coverage centres on the unclear definition of “social media” in the legislation. While the public typically thinks of platforms like Instagram and TikTok, the law’s wording has forced a broader debate that draws in platforms such as Roblox, Discord, and Steam. The eSafety Commissioner’s proactive enforcement measures have highlighted these regulatory ambiguities, prompting media to question whether platforms with different primary purposes should be included and whether the policy might trade one harm for another. Discord drew attention following a poorly timed data breach, which the public and media linked to potential ID theft risks. These reports show how regulators and secondary players can keep the conversation alive, highlighting risks, opening new angles, and forming alliances that complicate the policy debate. A notable example is YouTube’s effort to argue it should not be classified as a social media platform, citing the platform’s role in launching careers like Australian artist Troye Sivan as part of a broader cultural and creative ecosystem.
Together, these stories illustrate that while the government controls the main narrative, emerging counter-voices are beginning to shape the media conversation in ways that emphasise practical and social realities.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(58) "Australia’s social media ban played out in the headlines"
["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(54) "australia-social-media-ban-played-out-in-the-headlines"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2025-10-29 21:25:40"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2025-10-29 21:25:40"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=42980"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Australia’s social media ban played out in the headlines
Australia’s upcoming social media ban for minors hasn’t been primarily driven organic debate. Instead, it’s unfolded through a deliberate, tightly paced sequence of government-led communications, each phase designed to build momentum, secure legitimacy, and keep control of the public narrative. What we’re seeing in the media data isn’t a spontaneous rise in interest, but a […]
The global landscape of Muslim travel has fundamentally changed in the post-pandemic era. We are no longer talking about a niche market but about a dynamic, rapidly expanding demographic reshaping global tourism. We recently worked on a co-branded report with Have Halal, Will Travel (HHWT), which included an analysis of 1.4 million data points on mainstream and social media sources in the APAC region from 1st November 2024 - 31st August 2025 to a significant shift in modern travel. Asia has emerged as the new epicentre for travel conversations, surpassing the Middle East. As countries seek to attract this market for economic growth, especially amid declining tourism from other regions, the space has become crowded. For brands and destinations looking to capitalise on the right audiences, superficial efforts are no longer enough. Being authentic is the crucial currency in this new world.
Prashant Saxena, VP of Revenue and Insights, for the SEA region presented this report at the Have Halal, Will Travel Deep Dive session on "Brave New World" that saw PR & Comms and marketing folks from airlines, hotels and tourism boards interested to understand what the latest travel insights are and why Muslim travel is surging. We interacted with the attendees at our booth to introduce them to our media monitoring and audience intelligence capabilities.
Walking the talk: building culturally inclusive infrastructure
Destinations and brands are "walking the talk" by moving beyond marketing campaigns to tangible, on-the-ground investment. Nations are actively developing Muslim-friendly infrastructure, including airlines, hotels, and payment platforms, to cater to this influx of travelers. This does not mean providing only basic services, but rather aiming to be as culturally inclusive as possible by embedding Muslim-friendly considerations into the travel experience. This is also in part exacerbated by the decline in Chinese travellers to Southeast Asia, which has led to nations in this region attracting Muslim tourists and looking at them as the best option, seeing how much of a muslim crowd there already is domestically.
For example, Vietnam is building a comprehensive Halal tourism ecosystem with the goal of establishing Muslim-friendly zones in its capital by 2030. Similarly, the Philippines has rolled out halal-accredited establishments and essential services like healthcare and finance , while Australia is mainstreaming halal food alongside other ethical/lifestyle choices like 'vegan' and 'gluten-free'. This changes the narrative, showing a deep commitment that resonates far more powerfully than a simple welcome.
Owning the narrative by navigating traveller concerns
The necessity is for brands and tourism destinations to take control of the story, even when there are issues. The opportunity is immense, but travellers are acutely aware of challenges. Conversations around rising costs and scams have dominated online discussions, particularly in Southeast Asia. Countries like Malaysia and Turkey have seen negative sentiment due to issues with halal certification and travel scams, which erode trust at a foundational level. In Indonesia, some even link inflation to the regulatory burdens of halal certification on small businesses.
The best way for brands and tourism groups to address these concerns is to clearly explain what they are doing to fix them. Admitting there are problems shows responsibility and helps build trust by proving they listen to travelers. Technology, like apps for faith-based services, is helpful, but it is not enough on its own. They must be backed by transparent action on the ground.
The authenticity playbook: a strategic guide to aid authentic communication
Brands need to understand that in an increasingly digital world, audiences are highly alert to signals of what feels "real". The report introduces an "authenticity playbook" that outlines key cues that shape whether audiences trust and engage with content. The analysis shows that social media posts with more authenticity cues or signals have higher engagement rates.
To make the most of this, brands should create strategies that are both efficient and focus on the human qualities people care about. Communication from brands or leaders should include:
Cultural anchoring: Brands should do more than just make small gestures. They can offer useful guides for halal food, point out easy-to-find prayer spaces, and highlight truly inclusive experiences. For example, AirAsia understands its audience and operates many flights between countries with large Muslim populations. The airline makes its message clear through special deals, collaborations with influencers, and partnerships with online travel agencies to offer the best packages, while also promoting halal food and Muslim-friendly services.
Endorsement and validation: Brands should work with trusted Muslim travel influencers and, even more importantly, encourage regular travelers to share their stories and reviews. This kind of social proof is much more believable than traditional ads.
Consistent voice: Brands need to maintain a reliable, familiar tone across all communication channels. Being consistent shows they are stable and committed, which helps build a strong brand image over time.
The Muslim travel market is evolving with sophistication and purpose. Travellers today are looking for more than just halal food options. They are seeking digital detox retreats inspired by Islamic values, regenerative tourism that supports local communities, and safe spaces for solo female travelers. For destinations and brands, the path forward requires an authentic and strategic commitment. The ones that master the art of genuine connection and consistently "walk the talk" will not only capture a share of this thriving market but will also earn its most valuable asset: trust.
Interested in learning how Isentia can help? Fill in your details below to get access to our latest co-branded report on "Muslim Travel Pulse: evolving audience perception on Muslim food, travel and trade" and read more about our cues designed to measure brand authenticity.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(84) "Muslim travel in the modern era: how brands cater to serve cultures more inclusively"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(134) "Learn the major cues or signals that help PR leaders and brands measure authenticity, to deal with reputation risks and rebuild trust."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(90) "muslim-travel-in-the-modern-era-how-brands-are-catering-to-serve-cultures-more-inclusively"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2025-11-06 04:12:01"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2025-11-06 04:12:01"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=42751"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Muslim travel in the modern era: how brands cater to serve cultures more inclusively
Learn the major cues or signals that help PR leaders and brands measure authenticity, to deal with reputation risks and rebuild trust.
Many organisations know stakeholder engagement matters, but turning that knowledge into an approach that consistently works is another story. At the recent webinar How to Master Your Stakeholder Strategy, leaders from Meridian Energy, the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, and Isentia shared lessons from the field on what meaningful engagement really looks like.
Know who your stakeholders are
Stakeholders aren’t just on the periphery. As Mandy Griffiths from the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing explained, they are “the people who really have a great influence on whether the things that you’re working on or decisions you’re making are successful or not.” Internal stakeholders can be just as critical as external ones, especially in large organisations. Choosing terminology that reflects value and honesty helps too: her team prefers “critical friends” because it signals both importance and the possibility of differing views.
Build trust with evidence
Phil Clarke from Meridian Energy described how evidence can guide engagement strategies. By surveying 500 stakeholders mid-way through a two-year project, his team gained clear insights into what drives trust. This evidence-led approach, he says, “gives teams effectively a cheat sheet for what they need to do to build trust among their stakeholders.” Starting with data rather than assumptions helps teams focus their efforts where it matters most.
Learn through listening
Complex situations, like the pandemic, show why humility and iterative learning are essential. Mandy recalled that asking communities directly about their needs often revealed challenges her team hadn’t anticipated. “So many times we went in thinking we knew what the biggest pain points were, and it turned out to be something else entirely,” she said. Taking the time to listen ensures effort is spent on the right priorities.
Measure, adapt, and personalise
Measurement underpins high-performing strategies. Ngaire Crawford from Isentia stressed that “late teams don’t guess, they measure,” from establishing baselines to tracking engagement and adapting based on what the data shows. Effective strategies also go beyond simple demographics, grouping stakeholders by motivations, concerns, influence networks, and communication preferences. Closing the feedback loop is crucial: “Stakeholders who feel heard are the ones that are most likely to become advocates,” Ngaire explained.
Key takeaways
Treat stakeholders as central, not peripheral.
Use evidence to understand trust and guide decisions.
Listen first, act later, assumptions can mislead.
Measure and adapt continuously.
Personalise engagement based on motivations, not just demographics.
The common thread from the webinar: engagement works best when it’s informed, iterative, and genuinely centred on the people involved.
Watch the full webinar here, or contact our team to see how Isentia’s SRM solutions can help you achieve your stakeholder goals.
Building stakeholder strategies that work in the real world
Many organisations know stakeholder engagement matters, but turning that knowledge into an approach that consistently works is another story. At the recent webinar How to Master Your Stakeholder Strategy, leaders from Meridian Energy, the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, and Isentia shared lessons from the field on what meaningful engagement really looks like. […]