The buying question
Brand exposure begins with a defined audience and a business question. A recurring claim matters when it connects to a stakeholder, product, service or decision the team owns. Use this shortlist to evaluate that connection, then test the evidence and operating work behind the briefing.
Use our narrative intelligence platform comparison to examine the wider product routes, then carry the task-specific requirements below into a common pilot.
Platforms to evaluate
| Platform | Evaluation angle | Task-specific demo question |
|---|---|---|
| 01Minos ↗ | Evaluate a connected path from monitored claims to risk review and a scoped investigation. | Carry one relevant claim into a source-linked recommendation and a named next owner. |
| 02PeakMetrics ↗ | Examine emerging story development through a communications-oriented brief. | Show the observed sequence, relevant amplifiers and the reason for prioritization. |
| 03Blackbird.AI ↗ | Inspect narrative risk alongside networks and associated actors. | Trace the narrative and relationship findings to original observations. |
| 04Alethea ↗ | Evaluate warning and incident support around organizational exposure. | Separate routine warning from the investigated finding and proposed incident services. |
| 05Graphika ↗ | Explore the communities and influence relationships carrying a story. | Define the meaning of network connections and explain which audience matters. |
Inspect the official source records for these product descriptions and confirm the proposed configuration. Compare the delivered evidence and operating work against the same task.
Define whose perception matters
List the stakeholder groups relevant to the decision: customers, partners, employees, investors or another defined community. A broad conversation total does not show which of those groups has encountered a claim. Ask what evidence supports the audience assessment and what remains inferred.
Write the monitored subjects and the variants that matter, including product names and ambiguous terms. Include examples of routine criticism and legitimate reporting so the team can evaluate relevance without classifying every unfavorable statement as a threat.
Test one claim across the full workflow
Use a known public issue with a small reference set. Include the original assertion, a quotation that challenges it, a related report and an irrelevant match. Ask the provider to collect the material where available, explain the grouping and produce the briefing a communications lead would receive.
Has a recurring service-quality claim reached a priority customer community, and what evidence would change our next communication?
The fictional question defines a decision without assuming that the claim is false or coordinated. Test those stronger interpretations separately if the evidence makes them relevant.
Agree the communications handoff
A useful output identifies the claim, relevant audience, observed development, uncertainty and next reviewer. Ask who prepares the brief, how the underlying records are shared and what internal work remains. Scope vendor analysts and internal communications ownership explicitly.
For a US-based team, include business-hour review and any after-hours escalation requirement. A rapidly updating feed is useful only when the relevant person receives enough context to decide what to do.
Evaluate the proposed delivery, then the price
Compare the same source mix, reporting cadence, languages, historical period and analyst involvement. Request a current USD proposal that identifies setup, recurring monitoring and additional investigation. Note any product or service used in the demonstration that the proposal excludes.
Use the workbench to prepare a shortlist and the pilot scorecard to record demonstrated results. The purchase decision should identify the capability gained, remaining gaps and the owner who will review the operating process after onboarding.
Questions for the brief
Can narrative intelligence replace our crisis communications team?
It can support the team with collection, analysis and a source-linked assessment. The organization still needs decision ownership, factual verification and an authorized communications process. Scope any additional analyst or incident support explicitly.
How do we assess value if a crisis does not occur during the pilot?
Use a known historical issue to test interpretation and evidence delivery, alongside live examples for collection and handoff. Assess whether the outputs answer a defined question and reduce unresolved work for the intended reader.
Our brand receives constant criticism. How should the brief avoid overwhelming the team?
Define relevant audiences, issue categories and review triggers. Include ordinary criticism and irrelevant examples in the test, and record the reviewer effort required to separate routine monitoring from developments that need attention.