Useful channels and tools for laying the foundation of your reputation

Index

1. The question that naturally comes to mind

2. Not all channels do the same job

3. What Does the Research Say About Traditional and Digital Media?

4. The Difference Between Visibility and External Credibility

5. Two case studies: What they tell us about channel selection

6. What Do Those Who Shape a Company’s Communications Gain From It?

A question that naturally comes to mind

In the first article of this series on research “The New Reputation Economy” In the study we conducted with AstraRicerche, we focused on what's happening before the negotiations: the moment when a potential customer or partner gathers information about a company, forms an opinion, and decides whether it’s worth pursuing further. A quiet, almost invisible moment that the data we analyzed has made measurable: nearly 70% of the companies surveyed consider ruling out a supplier based on its reputation, even before initiating a conversation.

A question naturally arises: So where is that reputation built? Which channels really make a difference when someone is looking for information about a company they don’t know yet? The answer isn’t as obvious as it seems, because not all channels work the same way—even when they’re used correctly and strategically.

Not all channels do the same thing

The channels that organizations prioritize are almost always the ones over which they exercise the greatest control: the corporate website is updated according to the organization’s priorities, social media follows an internally determined schedule, and the newsletter is sent out when and how the company decides. These are useful tools; managing them is essential, and no serious communication strategy can afford to ignore them.

However, building a presence through these tools and establishing credibility with those who don’t yet know us are two distinct goals, and confusing them is one of the most common mistakes in B2B communication planning.

Proprietary channels are built around the company’s own voice, and this affiliation creates a cognitive filter that leads the reader to adjust the weight they assign to what they read—because they know they’re looking at a “showcase” curated by those who have a direct interest in being seen in a certain light. This places them in the category of institutional communication: reliable regarding what the company does and how it describes itself, but structurally limited in its ability to convey credibility to audiences who do not yet have their own reasons to trust it.

Editorial coverage in independent media, on the other hand, operates according to a different logic because the assessment of a piece of content’s relevance is made by a third party with no direct interest in the outcome. When an industry publication chooses to publish an interview, to cite a company as an example, or to feature it as a source on a specific topic, it is making an editorial selection that the reader recognizes as such, thereby lowering the level of skepticism that normally accompanies any message coming directly from the entity in question.

Our research quantifies this effect in the Italian context: 62% of the marketing and communications managers surveyed acknowledge that a well-established presence on authoritative media outlets builds trust among business partners more quickly. This finding specifically applies to those who are not yet directly familiar with the company—precisely the audience that proprietary channels have the most difficulty reaching.

What the Research Says About Traditional and Digital Media

The study examined the perceived effectiveness of various channels—both traditional and digital—and the results offer some interesting insights into where Italian companies are focusing their attention and where there is still room for growth.

Among traditional media, online portals and publications lead the way, with 63% of respondents considering them very or fairly effective. They are followed closely by international media (61%) and specialized trade publications (60%). This last figure raises an important point: the specialized press is the channel that builds vertical credibility with B2B customers—that is, with those decision-makers who, before making a business decision, look for signs of expertise and authority within their field, not just general visibility. A company that appears consistently in its industry’s publications is sending a clear signal: that it is recognized as a key player by those whose job it is to report on that sector.

When it comes to digital media, websites and social media remain the channels perceived as most effective, but the data show significant growth in newsletters (55%) and podcasts (45%) as credible proprietary editorial channels. Companies that invest in high-quality editorial content, distributed through channels that the public actively chooses to follow, build a form of authority over time that social media posts rarely manage to generate. On this topic, the Disclosers blog has already explored the issue in depth in an article dedicated to owned media and building credibility over time.

The Difference Between Visibility and External Credibility

When we combine the research data with what we have learned from our direct experience, a distinction becomes clear.

Owned channels build a presence and, therefore, familiarity among those who already know the company; they ensure consistency over time and serve as a stable point of reference for those who want to learn more after hearing about the brand elsewhere. They are necessary, but their reach is inherently limited to the audience that already has a reason to seek us out.

Earned media coverage on third-party platforms builds credibility with those who don’t yet have a reason to trust a company. It is therefore the channel that makes a difference during the initial assessment—when a potential customer searches for a company’s name for the first time and decides within a few minutes whether it’s worth looking into further or moving on to the next result. Those who lack an external editorial presence at that moment are at a disadvantage compared to those who do, regardless of how well-designed their website is.

A communication strategy that focuses solely on owned channels neglects the factor that has the greatest impact on that transition, leaving the field open to competitors who are actively engaged there. On this point, the blog post “The Media Pitch in 2026: What Has Changed (and What Hasn’t)” It offers a detailed analysis of how to craft a story pitch that has a real chance of being accepted by an editorial staff, based on what journalists say they are looking for and what turns them off.

Two Case Studies: What They Tell Us About Channel Selection

Two case studies of companies with which we have developed PR strategies give us the opportunity to explore this dynamic from different perspectives, and in both cases, the choice of channels was just as crucial as the quality of the content.

  • The Case UNGUESS This project involves a tech company specializing in crowdtesting, founded at the Politecnico di Milano. The industry is competitive, technically complex to communicate, and the target audience is almost exclusively B2B: companies seeking solutions to test software, improve the user experience, and ensure digital accessibility. Over five years of collaboration, the strategy has focused on a consistent and thematically coherent editorial presence: user research, software quality, digital security, and accessibility. Rather than relying on a single channel, the approach has involved a cross-platform presence across tech, business, and general-interest publications selected based on their relevance to the target audience. The result—over 587 publications, with more than 125 appearing in Tier 1 publications—has led UNGUESS to become, over time, the go-to source for journalists seeking to understand how crowdtesting works or how Italian companies address the issue of digital quality. That positioning isn’t built with a single article; it’s established over time through a consistent editorial presence that the public learns to recognize.
  • The Case Serenis This presents a different challenge: how to build credibility in a field—mental health—where trust depends very directly on the quality of the sources that choose to be associated with your name. An online medical center cannot afford generic or opportunistic communication, because the audience it needs to reach—people who are considering a course of treatment—is particularly sensitive to signs of authority and rigor. The strategy prioritized a solid editorial approach, gradually building a presence that has resulted in over 1,500 publications.

The two cases stem from very different sectors and contexts, but what they share is the logic behind how their editorial presence was built: not optimized for volume, but for thematic consistency and the quality of the contexts in which they appear. In both cases, that consistency over time has produced an effect that extends beyond any single publication: it has established a level of brand recognition that works in the company’s favor during the initial evaluation phase, even before anyone from the sales team steps in.

What Do Those Who Develop a Company's Communication Strategy Gain From It?

Reflecting on the distinction between visibility and external credibility has practical implications for how a communication strategy is developed, particularly for those working in B2B contexts where decision-making cycles are long and the number of stakeholders involved in selecting a supplier is high.

The first implication concerns the allocation of time and resources. Building an external editorial presence requires a different kind of investment: not just financial, but also in expertise, relationships with newsrooms, and the ability to develop a narrative concept that holds value for the journalist and their audience—not just for the company. It’s a slower and less controllable process, which is why it’s often put off. The problem is that its effects, when they do materialize, are also the hardest for latecomers to replicate quickly.

The second implication concerns consistency over time. A single article in a reputable publication does not change the perception of a company. A consistent editorial presence—built over time around topics aligned with the company’s positioning and area of expertise—does, because every time a potential stakeholder encounters a company’s name in a credible context, that encounter leaves an impression that builds up over time. When the time comes for evaluation, that accumulation will already be at work, even before the company has a chance to introduce itself directly.

The Complete Study “The New Reputation Economy” It is available for free download. The next article in this series will explore the topic of reputation measurement and governance: how Italian companies currently measure the reputation they build, and why the data they collect rarely influences the decisions that matter.

Read also: Corporate Reputation: What Happens Before Negotiations Begin