The board asks a question a clip count can't answer
Not 'how many mentions' but 'are we winning the argument, and what changed'. Volume reporting cannot answer that, and everyone in the room knows it.
SolutionsCorporate Communications
Answer the board's question, not the one a clip count answers.
Leadership coverage, investor-facing narrative, share price context and a crisis brief that separates what is known from what isn't. The reporting a board actually interrogates, with methodology attached to every figure.
PeopleExecutives as tracked subjects
Share priceAgainst peers, in context
Known vs notEvery crisis brief
What this actually looks like today.
Leadership coverage isn't tracked at all
The CEO's profile piece, the CFO's comment on results, the founder's podcast. All reputation-bearing, none of it in the monitoring set.
Crisis arrives as a rumour, not a brief
Something is happening, nobody can say precisely what is confirmed, and the first meeting is spent establishing facts instead of deciding.
A board doesn't want the number. It wants to know what changed, why, and what you did about it, with the methodology attached.
A story about your CFO lands at 7pm, the night before the numbers.
The window between 'something is happening' and 'we have a position' is where corporate reputation is actually won or lost.
1 / 6
- 19:04
The piece publishes
A business daily runs a critical profile naming your CFO ahead of results. Your CFO is a tracked subject, so it registers as leadership coverage, not a generic mention.
- +6 min
Read and scored
Negative, tier-one credibility, matched to the executive and to the governance topic you already track.
- +15 min
Velocity check
Social picks it up. Volume is measured against your real baseline, so the severity reflects what is genuinely happening rather than a flat threshold.
- +18 min
Known versus not yet known
Confirmed: the piece, the syndication, the social pickup. Not confirmed: whether other outlets have the same sourcing. Stated separately, so the 8pm call starts from facts.
- +25 min
A holding position, drafted
Built from the brief and your approved key messages, ready for legal and the CEO rather than written from scratch at 9pm.
- Next morning
Price in context
Share price plotted against peers across the same window, so the board can see movement alongside coverage without anyone claiming one caused the other.
Built for this job specifically.
Executive tracking
Founders, the C-suite and spokespeople followed as their own subjects, feeding the same narrative and crisis systems as the brand.
Briefs that separate fact from noise
Known and not-yet-known kept visibly apart, drawn from the real stories and posts behind the alert.
Share price context
For listed companies, price against peers across the coverage window, plotted honestly rather than causally.
Narrative at category scale
What the market argues about, not only what names you, so a shift reaches you before it reaches your brand.
Evidence-led escalation
Severity that rises when a second signal agrees, so the 2am call is reserved for something real.
Methodology attached
Every figure carries its window and how it was measured, because a board's first instinct is to test the number.
The screen you'd open first.
Illustrative numbers. Your workspace runs on your brand's real data from day one.
People
Leadership · last 30 days
Tracked executives
- Founder & CEO34 stories
- CFO11 stories
- Category spokesperson7 stories
Leadership sentimentWeighted
+6 ptsvs last month
Share price vs peersIndexed, 90 days
Which parts of the platform do the work here.
Everything is included. These are the ones this job leans on most, in order.
01Crisis DetectionSpikes measured against your brand's real history, severity that escalates only when a second signal agrees, and a brief that states plainly what is known and what isn't yet.02Market IntelligenceNarrative tracking for your brand, every tracked competitor and the category itself, plus the executives your reputation rides on and the share-price context around all of it.03Press Intelligence5,000+ sources across India and internationally, swept every 2 hours, read natively in 40+ languages including 12 Indian ones.04Content StudioStatements, rebuttals, pitches and the corrective content that reshapes what AI reads about you, drafted from the live data behind the alert instead of a blank page, in the language the story broke in.05ReportsWeekly, monthly or on-demand PDFs across any date range, covering every channel, with the same reliability rules that apply on screen.06AI ReputationDaily tracking of the real questions your buyers ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews: how you're described, whether the claims are true, and whether you get recommended or a competitor does.
With and without Brillaince.
Without BrillainceWith Brillaince
The board questionA clip count and a sentiment pieWhat changed, why, and the methodology
LeadershipNot trackedExecutives as their own subjects
CrisisA rumour and a scrambleA brief separating known from unknown
Share priceIn a different systemPlotted against peers and the coverage window
What this deliberately doesn't do
Every monitoring tool's page is wall-to-wall claims. Here is where the honest line sits.
- We plot correlation, never causationPrice movement sits beside the coverage window. Claiming a story moved the price isn't knowable, and a board will catch anyone who tries.
- We flag thin data rather than smoothing itA percentage built on too few rows is labelled unreliable, including in the board pack. That is the point of it being defensible.
About corporate communications.
Can we track individual executives?
Yes. Founders, C-suite and spokespeople are tracked as their own subjects, with their own coverage, sentiment and narrative, feeding the same crisis system as the brand.
Does share price tracking imply causation?
No, deliberately. Price is plotted against peers over the same window as the coverage so you can reason about it. We never assert a story caused a move.
How fast does a crisis brief appear?
The brief is written as the alert opens, from the real rows behind it, so it exists before the first internal call rather than after it.
Is this defensible in front of a board?
That's what it's designed for. Every figure carries its window, its methodology and its reliability, and thin data is labelled thin rather than rounded into confidence.