How social media conversation influences the market
An analysis of the finance industry post-GameStop
There’s no doubt the GameStop saga caused quite a stir within the finance industry and beyond. From a communications perspective, I’d like to reflect on the reputation of the finance industry and what’s changed as a result of the incident. I’d also like to explore the sentiment towards different financial institutions.
It’s important to delineate between investment banks, hedge funds (including HFTs and other obscure finance organisations) and commercial banks. For all the flak that commercial banks get, on the whole, individual banks are pretty good at communicating with consumers, maintaining their reputation and avoiding healthy skepticism turning into outright criticism.
The sentiment around GameStop
Both professionally and personally I am compelled to regularly read the comments under breaking news articles shared on social media, and no matter what the cause or issues, I cannot recall a single story’s response being so absolutely one-sided.
When Isentia did an analysis of social media conversation relating to the GameStop saga, it found 88% of comments expressed an opinion about the topic supported the insurgent Wall Street Bets group. Approximately 50% of comments expressed a clear statement that hedge funds were losing at their own game and deserved no sympathy. The positively gleeful schadenfreude at the losses sustained by the hedge funds unified groups that in any other contexts would be building strawmen to attack each other in a never-ending battle of replies. Commenters in support of Wall St Bets floated conspiracy theories of the Democratic Party’s and Joe Biden’s personal involvement, while others called for the beginning of a socialist revolution. Robinhood closing positions and restricting trading in GME united such disparate voices as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump Jr., a potential dinner party for the ages that was cut short by AOC reminding Cruz of his role in the January 6th Capitol storming.
This reaction shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Recent real-life examples, like the GFC have built up doubt in financial institutions like hedge funds and investment banks, and cultural representations of these organisations tend to be negative.
Opinions of Wall Street
Looking at Hollywood films about investment bankers and hedge funds, we see a list of negative depictions; The Big Short, Wall Street: Greed is Good, Wolf of Wall Street, Margin Call and American Psycho. Indeed, it’s hard to find a positive depiction of Wall Street and high finance with the possible exception of the Pursuit of Happyness.
Opinions of ‘Wall Street’ in the 2017 US YouGov survey, found that 77% of people believed that “most people on Wall Street would be willing to harm consumers if they believed they could make a lot of money and get away with it”, 72% believed Wall St financiers were more greedy and selfish than regular people. By contrast, in 2018, only 66% of 18-24 year olds and 76% of 25-34 year olds said they have always believed the earth was round. Put another way, you would possibly have more success on social media, arguing for a theory of a flat earth, than you would for the idea that there are ethics on Wall Street.
But none of this is new, those surveys are years old, people still talk about the open wounds of the GFC in 2008 and American Psycho was released in 2000. It may have ebbed and flowed at times, but movements like Occupy Wall Street didn’t feel like a response a single moment, but looked to address long-standing grievances. People have long been cynical about hedge funds and investment banks, and it doesn’t appear much has been done by the industry to improve the situation. Thought pieces on public relations and branding express exasperation with the financial services sector, generally acknowledging early in the text; ‘we know you don’t like it but here’s why you need it’, much like a dentist explaining flossing.
And who could blame hedge funds and investment banks for being ignorant in the modern world of communications? They are non-consumer facing businesses. They don’t have issues like other non-consumer-facing businesses (mining companies) that regularly seek community and environmental project approvals and face a highly organised and powerful climate change movement. They also don’t have an easy story to tell. The mining sector’s blue-collar jobs and regional economies have a more convincing message than providing liquidity to financial markets and diversifying risk.
The power of social media conversation
So if the reputation hasn’t changed why would we suddenly talk about it from a communications perspective? Because the consequences have changed. The power of social media conversation and accessible trading platforms has meant that suddenly the poor reputation of these firms not only makes them a target for activist financial consequences, but also an entirely unsympathetic one (again, 88% of commenters on social media supported the actions of Wall Street Bets, and celebrated hedge fund losses). The question of regulating future market distortions such as GameStop is made politically complicated by this sentiment.
The other thing that’s changed; the messaging is clearer. People often distrusted Wall Street, but the usual attacks of income inequality and regulation tend to be murky and complicated. The frequent usage of the word democratisation is probably the most interesting development in the entire GameStop saga from a communication perspective.
What about regulation?
Anyone who has studied or read about behavioural economics and knows about experiments in the Dictator Game will readily understand there is an innate drive towards fairness in our dealings with others, and perceptions of unfairness encourage us to punish the perpetrators, even if it’s to our own detriment. Thus, generating a clear narrative of unfairness is a powerful tool to generate support for a cause. The traditional attacks of income inequality are often the flagship of anti-Wall Street or anti-finance messaging and are often blurred enough to create a reasonable level of debate. Even if everyone agrees that regulation isn’t working, surveys in the US show deep divides between whether people believe the problem is about not enough regulation, not adequate enforcement of existing regulation, or if it’s the wrong type of regulation. This disagreement makes it difficult to build a clear policy of reform.
Democratisation, however, feels like it is a more powerful and clearer message. Propelled into the limelight most clearly by the actions of Robinhood, it asks a question of fairness that is far harder to obscure or dispute. We can argue whether or not the game is rigged, but no one can deny it’s unfair if you’re not allowed to play.
What’s next for investment banks and hedge funds?
As a communications professional I am interested in the development of the narrative of democratisation and accessibility, and how those who support regulation in the post-GameStop era find ways to attack this sentiment. I am also interested to see how investment banks and hedge funds respond. They’re clearly starting with a difficult story to tell. While none of this has been a problem before, they now need to find a way to communicate with the wider public, particularly young people. They also need to shift a narrative that has existed for decades if not longer. In this partisan era one might avoid consequences from the antipathy of either progressives or conservatives, but the concentrated and focused antipathy of both, united by a simple and powerful message, is something to be concerned about.
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.
This report aims provides insight into the Banking Industry in Vietnam. We look into people's preferences into their customer experience; using either traditional or digital banks, we deep dive into the topics driving social conversations about the banking industry, and the top mentioned brands related to the banking industry in Vietnam.
We have explored the latest trends and unpacked the current situation faced by the digital banking industry in Vietnam.
With social media platforms becoming central to political engagement, figures like Abbie Chatfield, Friendlyjordies, and The Juice Media are amplifying progressive causes and challenging traditional political narratives. But how significant is their impact? Are they genuinely influencing the election conversation, or is their influence more about their ability to capture attention and drive engagement? This evolving trend raises important questions about the role of influencers in modern elections and how they are reshaping the way political messages are communicated to younger, digital-savvy voters.
As the 2025 Australian federal election nears, influencer involvement has gained attention, with social media leading the charge while news coverage initially lagged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are tapping influencers to connect with younger voters—Albanese engages with Abbie Chatfield’s audience through values-driven storytelling, while Dutton targets young men with Sam Fricker's relatable podcasts. This reflects a broader shift from traditional media to platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Journalists are increasingly covering these influencer-driven moments, often focusing on the viral spread and political fallout. For instance, a viral February 13 video from an Israeli influencer accusing two NSW nurses of hateful comments dominated Australia’s news cycle, prompting swift political reactions. Coverage generally focuses on political responses, not the influencers themselves. This trend was also seen with Greens Leader Adam Bandt’s DJ event in Melbourne, where media noted his attempt to engage younger voters. The Australian Electoral Commission cleared Chatfield’s posts featuring Albanese and Bandt, highlighting the growing regulation of influencer political content. This focus towards viral moments over policy discussions raises questions about the impact on undecided voters and the evolving role of journalists in political engagement.
Influencers like Abbie Chatfield, The Juice Media, and Friendlyjordies are becoming central to the election rhetoric ahead of the 2025 Australian federal election. Chatfield, who faced scrutiny from the AEC, used her platform to rally support for the Greens, positioning herself against what she described as a Liberal media strategy to discredit influencers. Her posts, particularly defending her political involvement, have garnered strong support, with hashtags like #abbieisinnocent and #freeabbie dominating her comment sections. In contrast, some critics dismiss her political role, questioning her credibility. The Juice Media, known for its sarcastic takes on government policy, continues to challenge political narratives with irreverent content, resonating with younger, disillusioned voters. However, their approach also faces backlash from those who see it as too cynical or divisive. Similarly, Friendlyjordies critiques both major parties, particularly Labor’s stance on progressive issues, while encouraging followers to unite against corporate greed. His platform sparks heated debates, igniting both support and criticism.
Overall, these influencers are becoming polarising figures, amplifying political engagement while intensifying the ideological divide on social media, ultimately shaping the growing influence of social media figures in the election discourse.
Chatfield, a vocal supporter of progressive causes like Palestinian liberation and women's rights, has gained a strong following but faces criticism for oversimplifying political issues and for her perceived naivety, especially regarding preferential voting. Ferguson, who critiques colonialism and supports Palestinian liberation, is praised by supporters but criticised for lacking depth in her activism, with some accusing her of ignoring intersectionality. Friendlyjordies, known for satirical commentary, is admired for calling out political corruption, but his critics accuse him of bias towards Labor and oversimplifying complex issues. The Juice Media, using sarcasm to critique government policies, resonates with disillusioned young voters but alienates others who find their approach too cynical. These influencers contribute to a growing divide in Australian politics, mobilising progressive movements while deepening ideological rifts, as their content both challenges traditional politics and fuels polarisation.
Key issues like defence, the cost of living, and education are dominating political discourse and social media conversations. Global events, including Trump’s influence on international relations and trade, have sparked strong reactions, with Albanese facing backlash over Australia’s stance on Gaza and its defence ties with Israel. Meanwhile, Dutton’s comments on Ambassador Kevin Rudd and allegations of election interference have stirred tensions. On social media, debates over defence—highlighted by Indonesia’s denial of Russia’s military presence near Darwin—and cost of living concerns are intensifying. Education remains a key point of contrast, with Albanese’s Free TAFE policy gaining support while Dutton faces criticism for prioritising fossil fuel subsidies. Influencers are driving much of this engagement, but their role in amplifying already polarised narratives raises questions about whether they are truly reflecting voters’ concerns or deepening divides as the election approaches.
These conversations play out against a landscape in which social and news media have different - but overlapping - priorities. They’re driving debates on everything from education and nuclear energy to Trump-style politics and renewable energy. With the 2025 federal election on the horizon, stories sparked by creators — whether through critique, leaks, or commentary — are becoming part of the political media mix. It’s a shift that’s unfolding in real time, and one that’s reshaping how narratives break, spread, and gain momentum. But as these voices grow louder, one thing is clear: Are they truly amplifying the concerns of everyday Australians, or are they pushing further divides in a landscape already ripe with fragmentation?
The rise of influencers in the 2025 Australian federal election landscape
With social media platforms becoming central to political engagement, figures like Abbie Chatfield, Friendlyjordies, and The Juice Media are amplifying progressive causes and challenging traditional political narratives. But how significant is their impact? Are they genuinely influencing the election conversation, or is their influence more about their ability to capture attention and drive engagement? This […]
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify how large the global narrative on podcasts and their influence on audiences is in the last 6 months, using data from X.
We subsequently narrowed the focus of this global trend to Singapore and analysed on Pulsar TRAC more than 7k mentions across platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, podcasts, Online News, blogs and forums to understand where the discourse is coming from, which channels are capturing the podcasters’ content and how audiences are responding to this content.
Mentions of podcasts in news and social media are growing
Social media is where the larger chunk of podcast conversation is taking place, specifically those episodes that feature a political figure, journalist or those that include healthcare-related discussions. The audiences that engage with these videos, majority being on YouTube, search for political credibility that resonates with them. Young Singaporeans watching these podcasts expect to see leaders who don’t just uphold the image of being a politician, but also someone who is grounded and trustworthy.
Youth and politicians' lives dominate podcast narratives
The audiences that consume these podcasts the most are young Singaporeans looking to participate in the conversation as much as they can. These audiences are being more proactive than ever.
With younger voters consuming media differently, these appearances are efforts by political candidates to connect with the public. Lawrence Wong, Josephine Teo, Indranee Rajah, and Desmond Tan, have used podcasts to communicate directly with the public – sidestepping traditional media filters.
Top podcasters on election-related content
When we focus on who the most mentioned podcasters around election content are, the Straits Times’ podcasts, the Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT emerge on top. These podcasts have figured that the most discourse happens around content that’s either educational or controversial around elections. The public is actively responding to political content shared via podcasts, particularly those by The Straits Times and independent shows like Yah Lah BUT.
Satire and irony are key strategies to make politics palatable, especially for younger, digital-native audiences. The Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT are blending serious topics like the GE2025, party agendas, healthcare, and opposition voices with humour that make them almost meme-worthy. Posts such as “PAP really said: ‘Trust me, bro’” TikTok clips show that these are genuinely made for content to go viral while retaining serious undertones too.
What’s interesting to note is that The Common Folks, with content in Malay and Indonesian, is tapping into a cross-border Southeast Asian audience and has some of the highest engagement on its content. Local slang, cultural jokes, and casual festive content like Raya greetings and songkok jokes have generated thousands of views, at times outperforming English-language political pods. This suggests a large, under-acknowledged appetite for vernacular podcast content that has a blend of humour and relatability.
Podcasts are no longer just background noise – they’re becoming one of the most relevant ways Singaporeans engage with politics. With high engagement on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, a wide spread of topics from youth issues to party politics, and growing presence in both mainstream and social media, podcasters are carving out a key role in shaping the GE 2025 conversation.
What is making podcasts stand out ahead of the Singapore GE2025?
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify […]
As the federal election campaign reaches its midpoint, patterns in media coverage and public attention are beginning to shift. Early social engagement was driven by cost-of-living pressures, energy policy, and political point-scoring, but has waned following the first leaders debate, despite this forum providing leaders the opportunity to set the agenda and strategies of the major parties. So how has coverage focus evolved since the first debate and are audiences still engaging with the campaign or switching off?
Social media engagement ahead of the federal election has been sharp and personal. It focused less on policy and more on identity and representation. From debates on topics such as immigration to housing stress and culture, social media has driven a values-first narrative. But while early attention was strong, both media coverage and social engagement have started to wane in the weeks since the campaign launched. The first leaders debate briefly reignited attention—trust, identity, and media—but coverage patterns suggest a shift away from daily blow-by-blow reporting towards broader social and cultural tensions.
As the federal election campaign nears its halfway mark, last week’s media highlights show a contest still struggling to cut through. Key moments included the first leader’s debate, the Treasurers Debate, the energy showdown at the National Press Club, and Senator Jacinta Price’s Perth appearance with Peter Dutton, which drew attention for its MAGA-style rhetoric. The first leaders debate was billed as a chance to reset the race—but for many viewers, it reinforced existing divides. Media attention around the debate momentarily lifted visibility for all major parties—but the spike was short-lived. The only party that has seen continued increases in social media engagement is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party’s sustained rise in social media engagement may be linked to its digital-first strategy, including an AI-generated campaign ad spruiking a fuel excise cut and a meme-style diss track targeting Anthony Albanese—tactics designed to capture online attention and drive shareability.
The Liberals also pitched a $1200 tax cut, Labor attacked their WFH backflip, and the Greens pushed housing and tax reform. Meanwhile, Dutton warned of a Labor-Greens-Teal alliance. Coverage suggests public engagement is driven more by polarising moments and political theatre than detailed policy.
When the election campaign officially kicked off, cost-of-living pressures dominated the news agenda. Fresh off the back of the federal budget, it’s no surprise that affordable healthcare, lower gas and energy prices, and tax cuts were the key messages party leaders wanted to land with voters. But coverage quickly pivoted. In the past week, foreign diplomacy—particularly how each leader would manage Donald Trump—has surged in prominence. While Trump’s role in tariff threats has made headlines, his influence on the broader election narrative goes beyond trade. Media reporting has increasingly centred on Albanese and Dutton’s capacity to navigate a potential Trump presidency, with ideological alignment, national security, and economic fallout all in play. The first leaders’ debate was expected to refocus the campaign on domestic issues. However, it briefly touched on international concerns, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addressing the potential economic impact of Trump's proposed tariffs. Albanese described these tariffs as an "act of economic self-harm" that would dampen global growth, highlighting the intertwining of foreign policy with domestic economic concerns. This suggests that sustained attention is more likely when domestic issues are reframed through the lens of foreign diplomacy, and national identity.
In the social media landscape, Trump was a flashpoint in election-related conversation. His influence—real or perceived—was quickly linked to the Liberal Party, with MAGA-style rhetoric and Trumpian policy cues gaining traction online. These narratives tend to escalate on platforms where ideological alignment and cultural grievance amplify engagement. But it wasn’t all imported culture wars—the federal budget, and the Liberal Party’s fuel excise rebuttal, also drove significant social chatter. In recent weeks, comparisons between major party messaging and Trump-era policy—from international student caps and nuclear energy to debates about school curricula—have continued to dominate discussion.
The first leaders’ debate briefly touched on foreign policy, with Albanese warning Trump’s tariffs could hurt global growth, while Dutton framed it as a test of strong leadership. Domestically, Dutton’s renewed push for nuclear power reignited social media debate—drawing comparisons to Trump-era policies and fuelling discussion about Australia’s energy future. At the same time on social media, promises like HECS cuts, free TAFE, and more funding for public schools sparked genuine engagement, especially among younger voters and education workers, showing that practical, future-focused policies can still cut through. Compared to the start of the campaign, where cost-of-living dominated as a top-line concern, the conversation has expanded: audiences are now weighing both hip-pocket issues and the national values shaping Australia’s future.
While the debate itself tended to be overshadowed by frustrations about access and media control, a few political undercurrents still surfaced. Anthony Albanese drew some positive mentions, but reactions were far from policy-focused. The Liberal Party’s early claim of victory became a point of humour, with several users likening it to Trump-style misinformation tactics. Disillusionment with the major parties ran deep, with repeated calls to “break the donor-fuelled duopoly” and shift support toward independents or smaller parties. Still, these reactions seem more like a symptom of broader voter cynicism than a sign of energised political engagement, reflecting broader themes around the declining trust.
The leaders' debate didn’t reset the race—it refracted it, spotlighting how media coverage is now shaped less by policy detail and more by polarising symbols and cultural cues. As election day nears, the contest for attention is revealing just as much about media strategy and voter fatigue as it is about party platforms.
Did the leaders debate reignite voter interest or just stoke the culture wars?
As the federal election campaign reaches its midpoint, patterns in media coverage and public attention are beginning to shift. Early social engagement was driven by cost-of-living pressures, energy policy, and political point-scoring, but has waned following the first leaders debate, despite this forum providing leaders the opportunity to set the agenda and strategies of the […]
