Who Really Sets the Budget Agenda—Media or the Public?
Who’s shaping the conversation around the 2025 federal budget—traditional media or the public? News coverage has framed the budget through a global lens, linking economic policy to Donald Trump, NATO spending, and deregulation. But on social media, the focus is closer to home. Early discussions revolved around tax cuts and cost-of-living relief before shifting to Medicare funding, public service job cuts, and the real-world impact of budget decisions.
This divide reveals a growing disconnect between political narratives and public concerns. While news dissects party strategy and fiscal responsibility, online conversations highlight frustration over essential services and household finances. As the budget approaches, the real question is: Will media framing or public sentiment ultimately shape how Australians respond?
In January 2025, the Australian federal budget was shaped by how media coverage highlighted global influences, particularly Donald Trump’s calls for NATO defence spending increases, framing Australia’s defence and trade priorities. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute argues Australia must “do more, spend more, risk more” in response to global threats, shaping debates within the Coalition. However, social media discussions focus more on direct budget impacts, particularly tax cuts and cost-of-living concerns. News outlets like The Australian and Herald Sun cover the growing budget deficit and fiscal responsibility, but social media sees widespread criticism of tax cuts, seen as election tactics without addressing inflation and essential services.
Public discussion is more engaged in how the budget affects areas like cost of living pressures like healthcare and education, with Channel 7 Sunrise and Weekend Australian reporting on inflation and its link to energy security. Social media engagement on Trump’s influence is secondary to local concerns, such as “bracket creep” and rising bills, reflecting a shift away from global issues like NATO, which are less discussed compared to the deficit and inflation impacts. This shows how social media conversations are focused on tangible, personal consequences, contrasting with news coverage that intertwines global and domestic policy discussions.
In February 2025, federal budget coverage often referenced Donald Trump’s economic policies, with references to comparing the Business Council of Australia’s tax cut push to Trump’s pro-business, deregulation agenda. Commentary like Ross Gittins’ SMH piece, discusses reduced government spending and red tape to similar policies abroad. On social media, tax cuts dominated early discussions, with many arguing the opposition’s focus on cuts and deregulation echoed past policies that ignored inflation and wage stagnation. Labor’s staged approach—tackling inflation before tax relief and healthcare investment—was seen by some as pragmatic, while others dismissed it as political manoeuvring. Comparisons to Trump-era tax cuts emerged, with debate over whether similar policies would work in Australia.
As the conversation evolved, Medicare and healthcare funding took centre stage, drawing more attention than Trump or the budget deficit in news coverage. Viral posts criticised past Coalition cuts to Medicare, bulk billing, and aged care, warning of further reductions under Peter Dutton. Others pointed to his past role in Coalition health policies, questioning his commitment. Job cuts to public services were also a concern, with warnings of delayed Medicare processing and added pressure on frontline healthcare workers. While news coverage framed the budget around political strategy and fiscal policy, social media reflected shifting anxieties—first tax cuts, then healthcare access and economic fairness.
In March 2025, media coverage of the Australian federal budget has centred on the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs, with news outlets highlighting concerns over trade tensions and their effect on Australia’s economy.
On social media, the focus has shifted to domestic issues like tax cuts, the budget deficit, and cost-of-living relief. Reports from Crikey and ABC News on the budget deficit have sparked social media debates about the sustainability of the government’s financial strategy. While some defend Labor’s post-COVID measures, including a $1.8 billion energy rebate, others criticise the government’s handling of inflation and the deficit. Social media reactions are more focused on domestic policy choices than global trade concerns, often reflecting more critical and emotionally charged reactions to leadership and policy, contrasting with the neutral, policy-focused tone of traditional news. The coverage also shows how economic issues are framed differently, with media offering analysis and social platforms fostering more polarised debates, suggesting the growing influence of grassroots concerns in shaping political discourse.
The Australian and ABC News set the agenda for this year’s federal budget coverage, shaping how key issues are framed for the public. Some leading stories published by The Australian centres on Coalition divisions, portraying the budget as a test of Peter Dutton’s leadership amid concerns over a weak economic agenda. MPs warn that an overemphasis on public service cuts and a lack of compelling policies—particularly on cost-of-living relief like energy rebates—could undermine voter confidence. The coverage highlights the Coalition’s struggle to present a credible alternative to Labor while managing internal pressure to adopt bolder economic policies.
ABC News, meanwhile, leads with the direct impact of the budget on households, reporting on electricity price hikes and their uneven regional effects. It also broadens the discussion by linking fiscal policy to social outcomes, with one popular story focusing on the Productivity Commission’s report on rising Indigenous incarceration rates reinforcing the stakes of government spending choices. This contrast in coverage underscores how print media frames the budget as a political contest, while broadcast news tends to focus on its real-world consequences.
The high engagement across news outlets such as ABC, Australian Financial Review, Crikey, The Saturday Paper, The Sydney Morning Herald, and 9News highlights a clear audience focus: A widely shared ABC article highlights how the Albanese government plans to address rising costs with energy bill relief, resonating with audiences concerned about personal finances. Crikey’s commentary on the political clash between Labor and the Coalition, particularly over spending commitments, engages audiences with broader political implications. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald focuses on surprise revenue gains and potential energy relief, speaking to voters affected by rising electricity costs.
Audiences appear particularly engaged by news that ties political decisions directly to their personal and family financial realities—whether through energy cost relief, healthcare funding, or discussions around budget deficits. The framing of economic policies as part of an election strategy intensifies political rivalry, especially with stories positioning the Coalition’s fiscal responsibility as a counter to Labor’s spending.
https://t.co/Oup0A8nm9Z One that focuses on what Australia needs to do in such a world — spend more on defence, spend more on aid for our region, work more closely with like-minded democracies.
Social discussion reflects a positive outlook on the Labor budget, highlighting confidence in the government’s actions, particularly in disaster relief and economic recovery. Supporters see the budget as a chance to showcase progress, with a focus on strengthening the safety net and easing cost-of-living pressures. However, scepticism remains over wage growth, spending priorities, and whether rising defence costs align with immediate domestic needs. This tension underscores a broader divide in Australian perspectives—between those who view the budget as reinforcing long-term progress and those who question whether media narratives either overstate recovery or fail to scrutinise key trade-offs. The debate also signals a pushback against selective media framing, as Australians navigate between government messaging and critical scrutiny of economic challenges.
Yesterday he said he went to Canberra to meet with Services Australia about relief so it could be rolled out immediately. Why don't they listen?
— Kazza Boots 😷💉🪟🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ (@kazza264) March 8, 2025
Engagement with budget discussions on social media shows how politicians, journalists, and the public interact. Labor politicians use social media to promote the budget and counter opposition views, while political enthusiasts offer independent analysis. Journalists from outlets like Crikey and News.com.au provide investigative insights. Political influencers, with strong ideological leanings, generate engagement through hyperbolic framing, reinforcing confirmation bias. While politicians shape how the budget is understood, media outlets, despite smaller engagement, still play a crucial role in framing key updates, highlighting the fragmented nature of audience reception and the influence of partisan messaging.
The 2025 federal budget debate highlights the growing divide between media narratives and public concerns. While traditional outlets focus on political strategy and fiscal policy, social media engagement reveals a stronger emphasis on tax cuts, Medicare, and cost-of-living relief. This shift underscores the need for messaging that resonates with lived experiences.
As election season approaches, the question remains: Will political leaders adjust their approach to reflect public sentiment, or will the disconnect between media coverage and voter priorities continue to shape the debate?
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. […]
