PR News
<span id="hs_cos_wrapper_name" class="hs_cos_wrapper hs_cos_wrapper_meta_field hs_cos_wrapper_type_text" style="" data-hs-cos-general-type="meta_field" data-hs-cos-type="text" >Relationships and trust as the foundation of reputation</span>

Relationships and trust as the foundation of reputation

In the world of PR and communications, reputation is rarely built by a single campaign, statement, or moment of visibility. It is usually influenced by the network of people surrounding an organisation and by how those relationships are nurtured over time.

To find out more about what effective relationship building looks like in practice, Telum Media spoke to senior agency PR and communications practitioners across APAC and the Middle East to gather their insights. They shared how communicators can move beyond transactional engagement, identify relationships that matter most, strengthen media connections, and earn the trust required to become valued advisors in challenging circumstances.

It all starts small

Strong relationships and trust with stakeholders start at an individual level, rather than with an institutional rank. Instead of thinking about the organisation they represent or their job title, understanding the individual's priorities, how they prefer to communicate, and their current pressures is a lot more fruitful.

Ericka Anickas, Consultant at Northbourne Advisory, said that strong relationships are built through very small interactions over time.

"It might be responding quickly when someone needs information, making a useful introduction, sharing context even when there is no immediate benefit to you, or simply remembering a previous conversation and following up. None of those things are complicated, but consistency matters.”

Although micro relationships may seem insignificant, they impact how an organisation and its representatives are perceived.

Yvonne Koh, Managing Director at Saeloun Asia, explained that she approaches micro relationships as building blocks, laid down layer upon layer until something sturdier takes shape, and views it through the lens of genuine curiosity rather than as a transactional ask.

“These one-to-one relationships matter because trust needs to be earned, and it is built on each individual interaction, and then compounds. A journalist who has found you reliable once will take your next call. A colleague who felt respected during a difficult situation will lend help the next time you are going through a difficult time,” she said.

Diana Footitt, CEO of Artemis Associates, agreed and shared how every interaction doesn't just have to be transactional.

“The strongest relationships often develop through unexpected conversations, shared experiences, and small acts of support overtime. We stay in touch even when we are not asking for anything. Organisational trust is ultimately built one conversation at a time."

When relationships matter most

The strongest professional relationships become most visible during periods of change, crisis, and uncertainty, but by then, the groundwork should have already been laid.

Jenna Fearnley, Founder of VIPERA, stressed the importance of PR and communications professionals building those relationships early, warning: “You can't suddenly create warmth, credibility, or goodwill in the middle of a crisis.”

Ericka agreed, noting that when circumstances change quickly, communicators rarely have the luxury of building trust from scratch and instead have to rely on the credibility that has already been established.

Jenna added that while media relationships are important in these situations, they are just one part of the equation, with trusted client relationships equally important.

“The clients I value most are the ones who can be honest with me when it is messy, and who trust me to work through it with them, protect what can be protected and tell them when something needs to be handled differently.

“You need people who know how you work, know you won’t panic or sugar-coat it, and know you will be there until it is dealt with.”

Yvonne echoed the sentiment, saying: "The infrastructure only holds when you've built it well before the stress test arrives.

“Having peers you trust enough to be honest with, and can count on to have grounded opinions, is an asset you don’t appreciate until you need it.”

 

Good media relations in practice

It's no secret that credibility between communications professionals and journalists is built by making a genuine effort to understand their beat and consistently making their job easier. But that can sometimes be overlooked when communicators are juggling campaign after campaign, often several at once.

Journalists face similar pressures. Trust can quickly be eroded when their time is disregarded through poorly targeted, vague or generic pitches, overselling a spokesperson or story, or going silent when they need you simply because there is nothing immediate to gain.

Jenna suggested the ‘silver-platter theory’ as a way to support journalists who are increasingly under-resourced and working to tight deadlines.

“Give them the story clearly, explain why it is relevant now, provide the data or evidence behind it, the right talent, strong images or vision where possible, and make the spokesperson available. Anticipate the questions they’re likely to ask and have the answers ready. It’s about respect,” she said.

Something that Diana says to keep in mind is that lasting credibility with journalists is based on relevance, honesty, and respect for their judgment.

"Our team takes the time to understand what constitutes a story for them and the pressures they are under. If we do not know something, we say so. If something is not really a story, we do not pretend that it is."

She also emphasised the importance of building long-term trust, saying: "We would never trade a relationship built over 20 years for one piece of coverage with a client."

Ericka added that building strong media relationships also means not treating every interaction as a pitch.

“Some of my longest media relationships have lasted because there is an exchange of knowledge and context, rather than a constant expectation of coverage,” she said.

Yvonne echoed the point, saying that some of the most useful conversations with journalists didn't need to result in any coverage at all.

Quality over quantity

With communications functions becoming leaner and stakeholder expectations growing, there comes a point where, realistically, communicators cannot build relationships with everyone. This creates the challenge of exercising judgment about which relationships to invest in, rather than building a large network that may be unsustainable.

A smaller network does not necessarily mean a weaker one. Instead, the more useful measure may be whether a relationship is strong enough to allow for candid engagement.

“I’d rather have five stakeholders who trust us enough to take a difficult call, than 50 who only know us by name but are not familiar with how we actually work,” Yvonne said.

Diana also shared the same thoughts: "We take the time to understand what drives people, how they think and what they care about, not simply what their job title says they do.

"That approach is central to how we have built our firm. Artemis is highly specialised, and we work closely with a relatively small number of clients, often over many years."

For Ericka, investing in worthwhile relationships means considering both relevance and influence, including who can affect an organisation’s objectives and offer valuable insight and expertise. She warned though, that a stakeholder's value shouldn't be determined by hierarchy alone.

“Sometimes a specialist journalist, an internal subject-matter expert, or someone deeply connected to a particular community can be more influential in a specific situation than the person with the most senior title,” she said.

For Jenna, prioritising the right relationships comes down to asking: Who understands us? Who can help us understand what’s really happening? Where is there risk if we're not connected?

“Sometimes that will be a senior leader. Sometimes it’s the person in the business who hears complaints first, knows what customers are frustrated about, or has noticed that a change is not landing the way leadership expected. Sometimes it is a journalist who has built deep knowledge in a sector and can see the bigger issue behind the announcement. Sometimes it’s a community voice who may not have the biggest platform but has real trust locally,” she said.

What it means to be a trusted advisor

According to Ericka, curiosity in stakeholder engagement means understanding: Why that person matters, what is happening around them, and how that relationship connects to the organisation’s wider objectives.

This needs to be matched with careful listening, paying attention to both what stakeholders are saying and what they're not.

Diana agreed, saying: "Trusted advisors listen carefully, follow through on what they promise, and remain in contact when there is no immediate request to make. They share insight, make thoughtful introductions, and help others without calculating the immediate return."

She also highlighted other qualities of trusted advisors: “They help absorb some of the pressure their clients are under, bring clarity, and help their clients make good decisions without adding ego or drama.”

Being a trusted advisor also requires the confidence to be candid and honest. This means being prepared to raise unwelcome information, challenge a weak message or announcement, or tell leaders when stakeholder sentiment is worse than they realise.

“Early in my career, I learned that the moment you hold back bad news to preserve superficial harmony is often the moment you start losing credibility with a leader or client,” Yvonne said.

Candour and honesty shouldn’t be confused with confrontation for its own sake, but rather as useful counsel grounded in judgement.

“I think the biggest difference is whether you’re there to be liked or there to be useful,” said Jenna.

Previous story

BBG Intelligence: Data centres face growing trust challenge

You might also enjoy

BBG
Research

BBG Intelligence: Data centres face growing trust challenge

A new BBG Intelligence whitepaper has highlighted the growing public trust challenge facing data centre development as demand for AI infrastructure accelerates across the region.

The August 2026 paper, Not in my backyard, examines how data centres have moved from a relatively low-profile infrastructure category to a focus of public debate. It says the sector is now being discussed through a wider set of issues, including artificial intelligence, energy security, water use, employment, local amenity, land use, housing, privacy, foreign investment, economic sovereignty, and transparency.

According to the paper, data centres are being asked to earn public trust before they are widely understood. It says they have also become a proxy debate for artificial intelligence, energy policy, foreign investment and economic sovereignty.

Data centres are now more than an infrastructure issue

BBG Intelligence says data centres are now a regular presence in local, state, and national news, with communities mobilising to oppose construction, governments considering investment opportunities, and developers racing to secure land, power, and planning approvals.

The report says this is not isolated to one market. It points to debate across Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia.

While data centres are physical assets, the paper says they now represent a wider set of questions about who benefits from the digital economy, who pays for it, and who gets to decide what is built and where.

Public understanding is lagging behind development

The paper says one of the major challenges is that many people still have limited understanding of data centres and how they connect to daily life.

Unlike banks, supermarkets, airlines, or utilities, most people are not direct customers of a data centre. BBG Intelligence says this creates a different starting point for trust, because data centres are trying to build confidence while many people are still working out what they are, why they are needed, and what role they play in communities.

The paper also says data centres are linked with broader public anxieties around AI, copyright, data sovereignty, foreign ownership, water use, power demand, and the future of work. In that environment, misunderstanding can quickly become opposition, particularly when the impacts feel local and the benefits feel distant.

Regional examples show familiar questions

BBG Intelligence says Australia is not alone in facing these issues. As governments across Southeast Asia look to attract investment in AI and digital infrastructure, the report says similar questions are emerging across markets.

In Batam, Indonesia, the paper says at least 18 data centres are either operating or under development. It says concerns have grown around water security, with proposed data centre developments projected to require around 32 million litres of water per day. According to the paper, this would be equivalent to around 8.4 per cent of Batam’s current water supply, or enough to meet the daily needs of around 320,000 people.

In New Zealand, data centres have become part of a broader political and public debate about energy use, environmental impacts, and the role of data centres in a country facing electricity constraints and affordability concerns. The paper states that the Green Party called for a pause on consenting new AI-focused data centres until stronger regulatory safeguards were established.

The paper also notes how Malaysia has become one of Asia’s fastest-growing data centre markets, with Johor emerging as a major hub for AI and digital infrastructure. However, it says the pace of development has prompted concerns from community groups, environmental advocates, and politicians about water supplies, electricity networks, and local infrastructure.

BBG Intelligence says these examples show a common pattern: communities are not necessarily asking whether data centres should be built. They are asking who benefits, who bears the impacts, and what role they have in decisions that shape where they live.

 

The economic case is not enough

According to the report, the benefits of data centres are often described in abstract terms, including sovereign capability, digital resilience, cloud infrastructure, artificial intelligence, economic productivity, national competitiveness, and future industries.

However, it says the local impacts are more immediate. Communities can picture industrial buildings, traffic, generators, cooling systems, noise, construction disruption, and added pressure on power and water networks. What they cannot always see is the benefit flowing back to the communities being asked to host them.

The report cites Lane Cove in Sydney as one example. It says residents lodged 374 objections against one proposed data centre development, with only nine submissions in support. Concerns included noise, diesel back-up generators, water and power outages, construction disruption, and proximity to a local primary school.

The paper says this is where social licence can come unstuck. National economic benefits do not automatically translate into local acceptance if communities cannot see how value flows back to them.

Australian sentiment shows the scale of the trust challenge

The paper includes several figures on public sentiment in Australia and overseas.

83 per cent of Australians said they would not want to live near an AI data centre, while only 16 per cent believed their local community would see any meaningful benefit from a nearby AI data centre. It also says 86 per cent were concerned about AI-driven job losses.

The report states that 52 per cent of Australians did not trust large technology companies to be transparent about their water and power use, 80 per cent were worried about noise and air pollution, while 78 per cent were worried about strain on scarce water resources.

The paper revealed that 33.6 per cent of Australians could not identify any benefit from AI data centres.

Trust and transparency are now central issues

BBG Intelligence notes that data centres are emerging at a time when public trust is increasingly scarce.

According to them, communities are sceptical of corporate promises, particularly around environmental impacts, resource use, and local benefits, saying people are less willing to accept assurances at face value.

For data centres, the paper says this matters because many of the issues drawing public attention are not easily visible or understood. Power arrangements, water use, cooling technology, grid contribution, and ownership structures can all be difficult for the public to assess.

This creates a situation where concern can spread much faster than understanding.

Communications cannot compensate for decisions

The paper warns against treating social licence as only a communications problem.

BBG Intelligence says communications can explain decisions, but it cannot compensate for them. If communities are asked to absorb local impacts in exchange for broad promises of future benefit, messaging alone will not make that feel fair. It also says communications cannot make people feel genuinely involved if they are brought into the conversation after key decisions have already been made.

The challenge is not simply to communicate trust, but to earn it. Operators cannot assume understanding, goodwill, or that national economic value will automatically translate into local acceptance.

What communicators need to know

The paper is clear that social licence is easier to build into a project from the beginning than it is to recover once it has been lost. For communications professionals, the findings point to the need for earlier engagement, clearer explanation of local trade-offs, more visible community benefits, and stronger transparency around impacts such as power, water, ownership, and infrastructure pressure.

Communicators also need to be clear about the limits of messaging as communities increasingly expect evidence over assurances, agency in the process over empty consultation, and genuine change over polished messaging.

BBG Intelligence identifies six lessons for organisations:

  • Start before positions harden.

  • Explain the “why”, not just the “what”.

  • Make local benefits visible.

  • Treat transparency as an operating principle.

  • Design for acceptance, not just approval.

  • Assume scrutiny is permanent.

Lucy
Moves

Lucy Hughes Jones commences new role as Director of Media and Comms

Lucy Hughes Jones has been welcomed at the Australian Energy Council as Director of Media and Communications. She was previously at the Energy Corporation of NSW as its Director of Communications. Prior to this, Lucy worked in comms at other government departments and ministerial offices, following a career in journalism.

H&M
Moves

H&M names Marketing Director ANZ

H&M has promoted Laura Pietrantonio to the role of Marketing Director ANZ. She joined the team in 2023 as Head of PR and Communications ANZ. Prior to this, Laura held a number of senior comms roles within the retail and telco sectors.