About the paper
The paper is a mixed-methods industry report on the state and direction of the global PR agency sector, covering growth, AI, talent, ethics, measurement, client demands, and workplace issues.
The core dataset is an online survey of 268 PR professionals across eight regions, supplemented by a focus group of senior leaders from PROI Worldwide agencies in a dozen countries and a short excerpt from the Global Women in PR Annual Index; the report states fieldwork for the global survey took place between August and September 2020, which is unusual for a 2023–2024 edition and should be treated as stated rather than clarified.
Length: 67 pages
More information / download:
https://iccopr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ICCO-report-2023-interactive.pdf
Core Insights
1. What is the report’s central argument about the current state of the global PR industry?
The report’s main argument is that the global PR industry remains fundamentally optimistic and growth-oriented, but that this optimism sits alongside real structural pressure. The industry believes it can grow, invest, and adapt, yet it is doing so in a context marked by economic uncertainty, fee pressure, talent strain, misinformation, and changing client expectations.
That duality runs through the whole report. On one side, 96% of organisations say they expect to grow over the next five years, and the average optimism score for PR market growth is 7.0. On the other side, the two biggest near-term challenges are general economic conditions and clients unwilling to commit sufficient funds, both cited by 42% of respondents. The report therefore does not paint a triumphalist picture. It presents PR as a sector that is resilient and ambitious, but also under pressure to prove value, modernise its skills, and defend margins.
The tone is especially revealing: the report repeatedly suggests that PR is moving into a more strategic and consequential role, but that this role is not guaranteed. It has to be earned through better consulting capability, stronger measurement, technological adaptation, and more credible ethical conduct. In that sense, the report is not just describing industry conditions. It is urging the profession to mature.
2. Why does AI occupy such a dominant place in the report, and what does that suggest about the future of PR work?
AI dominates the report because it is treated as the clearest symbol of the industry’s current transition. The report frames AI not as a niche tool or isolated trend, but as the defining force reshaping future relevance, future skills, and future operating models. 86% of respondents rank AI among the top three most relevant technologies for the future of their business, 59% say they have already integrated AI tools into everyday processes, and 96% believe AI will have a significant impact on the PR industry.
What is especially important is that the report links AI to three different kinds of change. First, it links AI to efficiency: the top expected application of new technology is “operating more efficiently” at 55%. Second, it links AI to content and workflow change: multimedia content creation rises sharply as an area likely to be affected. Third, it links AI to capability change: “mastery of AI tools” becomes the single most important future skill set, ahead of strategic consulting.
That suggests the future of PR work will be shaped by a tension between automation and strategic value. Routine production, analysis, and content tasks are likely to become faster and more scalable. But the report does not imply that technology replaces strategic judgement. In fact, strategic consulting remains near the top of growth areas and skill priorities. So the deeper implication is that PR professionals will need to combine technical fluency with higher-order advisory work. AI raises the floor for efficiency, but also raises the bar for strategic differentiation.
3. What does the report identify as the main growth opportunities for PR agencies, and what do those opportunities have in common?
The main growth opportunities cluster around three themes: strategic value, sustainability-related work, and technology-linked demand. In expected growth areas, strategic consulting ranks first at 47%, followed by corporate reputation at 40% and purpose/CSR at 38%. In expected sectors of growth, IT and technology leads at 49%, followed by financial and professional services at 40% and healthcare at 39%. In expected areas of investment, ESG comes first at 49%.
These opportunities have a common logic: they are all areas where PR moves beyond tactical publicity and towards business-critical advisory work. Strategic consulting implies deeper involvement in organisational decision-making. Corporate reputation and purpose work imply longer-term, stakeholder-based value creation. ESG and sustainability work imply communication at the intersection of business performance, legitimacy, and public expectation. Even technology-sector growth is not presented as mere sectoral luck; it reflects where complexity, innovation, and narrative demand are highest.
The report also makes clear that clients’ priority issues reinforce this trend. Sustainability and environment is by far the top social issue clients are likely to prioritise, at 69%. That means agencies are likely to grow where they can help organisations explain, justify, and operationalise their role in society, not just where they can generate coverage.
So the big picture is that the strongest opportunities lie in areas where PR can claim strategic relevance to business outcomes, legitimacy, and adaptation to major external pressures.
4. What are the report’s biggest warnings or criticisms of the industry itself?
The report’s sharpest criticism is that the industry still too often fails to measure what matters. Measurement and analytics are clearly seen as important, and AMEC usage is growing, but outdated and invalid practices still remain. Most notably, 34% say AVE is a likely client request, even though the report explicitly describes AVE as a discredited and invalid metric. It argues that this creates a disconnect between clients’ stated objectives, such as improving reputation, increasing sales, and building brand purpose, and the weaker metrics often used in practice.
That criticism is about more than metrics. It is really about professional credibility. The report suggests that if PR continues to rely on activity measures, media clippings, or flawed proxies, it risks looking busy rather than valuable. The language is unusually direct: there are “no excuses” for failing to demonstrate impact properly.
A second warning concerns ethics. The report shows significant concern about misinformation and about the lack of consequences for unethical behaviour. It also shows uneven commitment to codes of conduct across regions. The message is that PR cannot claim a serious advisory role while tolerating weak ethical enforcement.
A third criticism concerns talent and inclusion. The report notes progress in DEI policy and mental health support, but it also shows a gap between having policies and actually reflecting the diversity of the public served. That is a subtle but important critique: formal commitments are not the same as substantive change.
Taken together, the report’s warnings are aimed inward. They suggest the industry’s external opportunity depends on internal discipline.
5. What broader conclusion does the report reach about what PR agencies must do next to remain credible and competitive?
The broader conclusion is that PR agencies must become more strategically useful, more technologically capable, and more professionally accountable at the same time. The report does not suggest that one of these is enough on its own. Growth will not come simply from adopting AI, or from talking about ESG, or from improving wellbeing policies in isolation. The argument is that future success depends on integrating these elements into a stronger model of agency value.
That means, first, agencies must improve the quality of their counsel. Strategic consulting, corporate reputation, ESG, and purpose all rank highly because clients increasingly need advisors, not only executors. Second, agencies must upgrade skills, especially around AI, analytics, and advisory work. Third, they must strengthen the way they prove outcomes, because measurement is central both to reporting and to budget justification. Fourth, they must deal more seriously with ethics, misinformation, and trust. And fifth, they must look after their people, because retention, motivation, and development are major vulnerabilities.
The report’s final implication is that PR’s future is not mainly about media relations becoming digital or content becoming faster. It is about whether agencies can position themselves as credible partners in navigating uncertainty. Economic volatility, climate pressure, AI disruption, and trust erosion all make communication more central to organisational success. But they also make superficial PR less defensible. The path ahead, as the report sees it, is open, but only for agencies that can match optimism with capability.
One caveat worth noting from the report itself: the methodology is not fully transparent in every respect. The survey sample and regions are stated, and the report includes a separate PROI focus group contribution, but the reported survey fieldwork date appears inconsistent with the edition year. That does not invalidate the report, but it does mean the methodological framing should be treated with some caution.