About the paper
The report examines how four forces—artificial intelligence, hybrid and remote work, the changing media landscape, and political polarization—are reshaping public relations, with a particular focus on generational differences across Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers.
It is based on original research using an online survey fielded from 9 January to 1 February 2025, with 1,077 respondents drawn through non-probability volunteer sampling from PR professionals and related communicators.
The data is international but weighted heavily towards the United States: 51% of respondents were from organisations operating in the U.S., with additional respondents from the rest of the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and 22% representing global companies.
Length: 44 pages
More information / download:
https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/center-public-relations/global-communication-report
Core Insights
1. What is the report’s central argument about the future of public relations?
The report’s core argument is that public relations is entering a period of profound disruption, and that the profession’s future will be determined by how well it responds to four simultaneous pressures: AI, hybrid work, media fragmentation and political polarization. The authors argue that these trends are not isolated; together they are redefining how communicators work, what skills matter, how organisations recruit, and what kinds of strategic choices PR professionals will have to make.
At a headline level, the profession remains notably optimistic. The report says 74% of respondents have a very or somewhat positive outlook for the future growth of public relations, despite mergers, layoffs and broader economic, political and technological upheaval. That optimism is broadly shared across generations, but the report questions whether the industry is genuinely prepared for what lies ahead or simply overly confident.
The deeper argument is that the biggest story is not just disruption itself, but the gap in how different generations interpret it. Younger practitioners are consistently more positive about AI, new media channels, flexible work and purpose-led expectations, while older professionals tend to be more cautious, more attached to traditional models and more concerned about misinformation, staffing reductions and social risk. The phrase “Mind the Gap” is therefore not just branding; it is the report’s organising thesis about the future of the profession.
2. How does the report say AI is changing public relations, and where are the main points of agreement and disagreement?
The report presents AI as the most important positive force shaping the future of PR, with 60% saying it will have a positive effect on the profession and 28% saying it will have a negative one. It also finds that communicators already use AI in practical, operational areas rather than in abstract or speculative ways. The most common current uses are social media, research and analytics, and press material development, while investor relations and public affairs lag well behind.
There is also a strong pragmatic streak in the findings. Respondents generally believe humans will remain essential to effective public relations, but their confidence varies sharply by generation. Boomers and Gen X are much more likely than Gen Z and Millennials to strongly agree that humans will remain central. At the same time, younger groups are more likely to believe AI will generate more content, reduce costs, reshape hiring and alter agency economics. In other words, younger professionals are not necessarily more idealistic about AI; they are often more commercially radical in what they think it will do.
The report also highlights a training paradox. Most respondents do not expect entry-level employees to be AI experts; a functional level of competence is seen as sufficient by the largest share. Yet there is little confidence in universities or PR agencies as the main providers of AI training. Instead, respondents look most strongly to specialised programmes. That implies an institutional gap: AI matters enormously, but the profession does not yet appear to believe its traditional training systems are fully equipped to prepare the next generation.
At the level of future impact, the report is mixed rather than triumphalist. Many expect AI to improve work quality and individual creativity, but substantial shares also expect reduced staffing and lower agency budgets. So the report does not portray AI as a simple productivity win. It presents it as a force that may simultaneously improve output, change business models and threaten traditional career structures, especially at entry level.
3. What does the report reveal about hybrid and remote work, and why does it matter for the profession?
The report shows that hybrid and remote work are no longer fringe preferences but central expectations within the profession. Respondents report an average of roughly two days per week in the office overall, and most expect the future to include either a minimum number of days on premises or some form of remote option. Only a relatively small minority expect to be in the office every day.
The significance of this is not just logistical. The report frames flexibility as a strategic issue affecting morale, recruitment, retention and culture. Strong majorities across all generations say flexible work schedules matter, and many believe hybrid working makes it easier to recruit top talent. At the same time, there is no consensus that remote work automatically improves productivity; support is much stronger for flexibility than for the idea that home working always produces better work. That distinction matters because it suggests the debate is no longer simply about efficiency. It is about what professionals now expect from work itself.
Generationally, younger respondents are more likely to see hybrid work as the future and more willing to trade salary for flexibility. The report points to a 25-point gap between Gen Z and Boomers on willingness to take a pay cut to work from home. It also finds that in-house professionals face tougher return-to-office pressures than agency staff, and that in-house respondents are more likely to say their organisations want employees back in the office full-time.
The broader implication is that hybrid work has become a competitive issue for employers. The report explicitly suggests that organisations insisting on rigid return-to-office policies may face an uphill battle in attracting and retaining talent. It also notes that 74% of mid-level or higher PR professionals would hire a talented candidate regardless of where they are located. That points to a profession increasingly comfortable with distributed talent, even if organisational policies have not fully caught up.
4. How does the report describe the changing media landscape, and what does it suggest this means for PR strategy and skills?
The report argues that PR is moving decisively away from legacy media dominance and towards a more fragmented, platform-led environment in which social media, podcasts, apps and influencers carry growing strategic weight. Social media is rated the most relevant channel for 2030, followed by podcasts and smartphone apps, while network television, print publications and cable news are seen as least relevant.
This shift has two important dimensions. First, it changes what communicators believe works. For marketing campaigns, viral activity on TikTok or Instagram is rated most effective overall, ahead of podcast interviews and morning television appearances. Second, it changes what skills matter. The report still places writing at the top of entry-level skill priorities, but it also shows growing importance for social content creation, research, analytics, influencer relations and paid media—especially among younger respondents.
Gen Z is the clear outlier throughout this section. Younger practitioners are more bullish on social media, podcasts, influencer promotion, paid advertising and even the continuing utility of press releases. The report interprets this as more than a preference difference. It suggests younger communicators understand how content circulates on the platforms they grew up with, and are therefore better positioned to navigate creator relationships, platform logic and searchability. Older professionals, by contrast, tend to place relatively more value on legacy outlets and are more sceptical of the newer channels.
But the report does not celebrate this transition uncritically. It identifies misinformation as the biggest concern arising from the changing media environment. Older generations are especially worried that declining legacy media will damage news accuracy, credibility and the public’s ability to distinguish fact from falsehood. Younger respondents are less alarmed, which the report interprets as partly reflecting their comfort with digital information environments. Still, the report warns that AI may make this harder for everyone, and even suggests PR agencies may need internal fact-checking capacity as a reputation safeguard.
5. What does the report say about political polarization, corporate purpose and the generational divide in values?
Political polarization emerges as the most negative of the four forces studied. It is the trend respondents are least likely to see as beneficial and one of the hardest for practitioners to navigate in day-to-day work. The report describes polarization not simply as disagreement, but as a structural feature of contemporary politics and media—something used to drive attention, fundraising and support, and something that creates uncertainty and reputational risk for organisations.
One of the report’s most striking findings is the collapse in support for companies addressing social issues not directly relevant to their business. The share answering “yes” to that proposition fell from 89% in 2023 to 85% in 2024 and then to 52% in 2025. The report presents this as evidence that corporate purpose has run into the hard realities of backlash, consumer anger and political conflict. It explicitly links this decline to polarization and to business leaders becoming more risk-averse after high-profile controversies.
Yet here too the generational divide is crucial. Younger communicators remain far more supportive of corporate purpose, inclusion initiatives and broader social commitments than older groups. The report shows that Gen Z places significantly greater importance on inclusion initiatives and on public policy issues such as abortion and immigration when considering whether to work for a company. It also finds that Gen Z is more optimistic that companies will continue to increase commitments to taking stands on social issues, purpose-driven campaigns and ESG-style initiatives, while older generations are more doubtful.
This produces one of the report’s most important implications: future recruitment and retention may hinge not only on salary and flexibility, but on organisational values. The report suggests companies retreating from inclusion or broader social commitments may face talent problems, especially with younger professionals. At the same time, it shows clear limits to idealism: many respondents across generations would refuse to work for certain sectors such as tobacco, firearms and gambling, with especially strong resistance among Gen Z towards environmentally harmful industries such as mining and oil.
Taken together, the report’s conclusion is that the future of PR will be shaped by whether older and younger professionals can work across these differences. The authors do not argue that the gaps must disappear. Rather, they argue that the profession must recognise them, understand them and avoid letting established assumptions block adaptation. That is the report’s final message: not that one generation is right and another is wrong, but that the future belongs to those willing to listen across the divide.