Category: AI-assisted summary

This category contains posts where the content was generated primarily using A.I. but reviewed and edited by Jesper Andersen.

  • The Future of Internal Communication by Institute of Internal Communication

    The Future of Internal Communication by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The white paper argues that internal communication is becoming a strategic function in the future of work, as organisations face continuous disruption, AI adoption, hybrid work, trust erosion and shifting employee expectations.

    It is best described as a secondary-analysis white paper, drawing on prior IoIC reports, published books, external research and trend analysis rather than a clearly defined primary study; the methodology is therefore broad but not tightly specified in the report.

    A single primary datapoint is mentioned late in the paper: in March 2025, IoIC surveyed more than 300 internal communicators, but the overall report does not present one unified sample frame or clearly bounded geographic fieldwork; its perspective is broadly international, with several references to global trends and the Global North.

    Length: 33 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource/the-future-of-internal-communication-whitepaper.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the white paper about the future of internal communication?

    The core argument is that internal communication is no longer a support function mainly concerned with distributing information. The paper argues that it is becoming a strategic capability that helps organisations survive and adapt in a turbulent, fast-changing world. It presents internal communication as the function that enables people to feel informed, connected and purposeful, and therefore as a key driver of organisational performance, resilience and transformation.

    The report frames today’s environment as one of overlapping crises: geopolitical instability, AI disruption, cyber-risk, misinformation, climate pressures, labour market instability and declining trust. In that setting, “business as usual” is treated as over. The paper’s position is that organisations now need wholesale reinvention, and that reinvention cannot succeed without strong internal communication. Communication, in this view, is not just messaging; it is the mechanism through which organisations create alignment, build trust, support change and sustain human connection.

    A major shift in the paper is from communication as content production to communication as relationship infrastructure. The report suggests that, as AI takes over more routine and formulaic tasks, the distinct value of internal communicators will lie increasingly in fostering dialogue, connection, cohesion, listening and sensemaking across the organisation.

    2. Which forces and trends does the report say are reshaping work and creating this opportunity?

    The report says the workplace has changed “seismically” in recent years. It highlights hybrid and remote working, the rise of AI and other technologies, a new generation entering the workforce with different expectations, worsening mental health pressures, ageing populations, shrinking labour markets, activism, and broader geopolitical and economic turbulence. Together, these changes put heavy pressure on organisations to adapt and make workplace performance a much more urgent concern.

    On page 10, the paper groups the drivers into a set of meta-trends: Industry 5.0 and digital adoption, next-generation talent ecosystems, geopolitics, a reskilling emergency, the climate emergency, new organising frameworks, shifting attitudes to work and the need for more inclusive workplaces. The report stresses that these trends are complex, emergent and often hard to measure in neat ways. That matters because it means leaders cannot rely on stable, linear planning models.

    The white paper then narrows its strategic focus to four overarching themes: technology, sustainability, people and employment. It argues that each of these creates an opening for internal communication because each one requires extensive internal dialogue, adaptation and behavioural change. The successful integration of these trends into everyday organisational life, the paper says, depends on rebuilding human connection at work.

    The report also takes a sceptical view of simplistic techno-solutionism. It argues that many leaders are overly attracted to efficiency narratives, especially around generative AI, while underestimating the importance of critical thinking, trust, ethics and human judgement. That concern strengthens the paper’s case that internal communication has a larger future role, not a smaller one.

    3. How does the report build the business case for internal communication?

    The business case rests on one central proposition: large-scale organisational adaptation fails when communication is poor. The paper argues that modern organisations need ongoing change, not one-off transformation, and that continuous change requires continuous, thoughtful and empathic internal communication. In other words, communication is presented as mission-critical because it helps organisations actually implement strategy rather than merely announce it.

    The report then applies that case across four areas.

    In technology, it argues that AI adoption needs cultural change, leadership role-modelling, transparent narratives and knowledge-sharing.

    In sustainability, it says communication can use storytelling to build engagement, align people with strategic goals and strengthen commitment to sustainability and ED&I.

    In people, it links communication with engagement, colleague experience, active listening and more transparent leadership.

    In employment, it highlights the need to connect a more varied workforce, manage Gen Z expectations, and support continuous learning as skills demands change.

    The top-takeaways page distils this into a practical case: internal communication helps create cohesion across diverse employment types, build trust around AI, promote learning, connect colleagues with strategy, showcase sustainability, amplify ED&I, and equip leaders to be more transparent and authentic. These are not framed as optional enhancements but as factors that influence whether organisations can remain resilient and effective.

    What is notable here is that the paper does not reduce value to one narrow ROI measure. Instead, it builds a broader performance argument: communication improves trust, motivation, clarity, alignment, engagement, collaboration and adaptability. The report treats those as core organisational assets in a volatile environment.

    4. What new opportunities and roles does the paper envision for internal communicators?

    The report argues that AI will shift internal communication away from routine content creation and channel management and towards higher-value human work. It says the real opportunity is to use language and conversation to strengthen interpersonal relationships, build connection and create community. It even describes the future discipline as more “embodied”, meaning more focused on human relationships and organisational cohesion.

    The paper identifies a broad set of new opportunities: showcasing communication as foundational to collaboration, creating clarity and strategic alignment, curating human connection, cultivating community, harnessing colleague voice, breaking down silos, creating thinking spaces, coaching leaders and managers, enhancing colleague experience, embedding behaviour change, facilitating conversation and leveraging activism. These opportunities all revolve around making communication a live organisational capability rather than a broadcast function.

    It then proposes nine possible future-facing roles for the profession:

    • Chief Trust Officer
    • Leadership Communication Coach
    • Head of Business Strategy Communication
    • Digital Transformation and Change Communication Manager
    • Data Analyst
    • Head of Colleague, Candidate and Talent Ecosystem Experience
    • Head of Listening
    • Head of Culture and Community
    • Head of Sustainability Communication.

    These are presented as specialist additions that may emerge alongside existing internal communication work rather than replacing it outright.

    Taken together, these roles show the paper’s underlying belief that internal communication will expand into trust, strategy, change, culture, listening, experience and sustainability. The profession’s future, in the report’s view, depends on moving closer to the centre of organisational adaptation.

    5. What skills, assumptions and implications does the report highlight for the profession’s future?

    The paper says internal communicators will need significant upskilling. It highlights business acumen, digital/data/AI literacy, influencing, active listening, coaching, psychology and behavioural science, cultural intelligence, ethical communication, sensemaking, scenario planning and systems thinking. This is a much broader capability set than traditional communication production skills.

    A key assumption running through the report is that human-to-human communication will become more valuable, not less, as workplaces become more digitised. The paper assumes that AI may handle more structured content tasks, but cannot replace the distinctly human capabilities needed to build trust, foster psychological safety, interpret nuance, coach leaders, resolve ambiguity and maintain community. That assumption shapes the whole argument.

    Another important assumption is normative: the report clearly favours humane, inclusive, ethical and people-centred organisations over purely efficiency-driven ones. It is not a neutral trend map. It argues that organisations should prioritise trust, connection, belonging and sustainability, and that internal communication should advocate for those principles. That gives the report a clear perspective and purpose: it is not merely describing the future, but trying to shape it.

    The implication is quite stark. If organisations continue to treat communication as secondary, they risk poorer cohesion, weaker trust, less effective change, more disengagement and lower resilience. If, by contrast, they invest in internal communication as a strategic function, the paper suggests they will be better placed to navigate uncertainty, integrate AI responsibly, sustain collaboration and build stronger organisations over time. The closing message is effectively that now is not the time to deprioritise communication at work.

  • Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 by Reuters

    Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 by Reuters

    About the paper

    The report examines the strategic pressures, technology shifts, and business-model changes likely to shape journalism in 2026, with a strong focus on generative AI, platform dependency, creators, video, and misinformation.

    It is a mixed-methods industry trends report drawing primarily on a closed survey of 280 senior news leaders from 51 countries and territories, supplemented by background interviews, industry examples, and third-party data such as Chartbeat analytics; the survey is global in scope but not a representative sample of the wider industry.

    Length: 47 pages

    More information / download:
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2026

    Core Insights

    1. Why does the report argue that journalism faces a particularly acute strategic squeeze in 2026?

    The report’s central argument is that journalism is being squeezed simultaneously by technological disruption and cultural-platform disruption. On one side, generative AI is changing how people access information, especially through search engines turning into answer engines and AI tools surfacing information directly in chat interfaces rather than sending traffic to publishers. On the other side, creators and influencers are pulling attention towards more personality-led, platform-native content that often feels more direct, relevant, or entertaining than traditional institutional journalism.

    The report frames this as an existential challenge because it affects both economics and legitimacy. Economically, publishers fear a major drop in referral traffic from search and social platforms. Culturally and politically, journalism is also under pressure from declining trust, direct-to-audience communication by politicians and celebrities, and continued attacks on news media as biased or fake. The report suggests that journalism is no longer just competing with rival publishers, but with AI intermediaries, platform algorithms, and creator ecosystems that change how audiences discover and value information.

    This squeeze is reflected in industry sentiment. Only 38% of surveyed leaders say they are confident about journalism’s prospects in the year ahead, which the report says is 22 percentage points lower than in 2022. At the same time, 53% remain confident about their own organisation’s prospects. That contrast matters: the report suggests many executives believe their own brand may survive or adapt, even while the broader health of journalism as a public institution deteriorates.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that AI and platform shifts are already reshaping access to news and publisher traffic?

    One of the report’s most concrete findings is that publishers expect search traffic to decline by 43% on average over the next three years. That expectation is linked to Google AI Overviews, AI mode, and the wider shift from search engines that send users outward to answer engines that satisfy users inside the interface. The report also notes that around a fifth of respondents expect a loss of more than 75% of their company’s search traffic.

    The report backs this up with Chartbeat data. Across a network of more than 2,500 sites, Google Search referrals were down 33% globally year-on-year between November 2024 and November 2025, and down 38% in the United States. Google Discover traffic was also down. By contrast, Facebook and X showed modest year-on-year increases in that specific comparison period, but the longer trend remains negative: over roughly the last two and a half years, Facebook referrals fell by 43% and X referrals by 46%. The point is not that one channel is collapsing overnight, but that publishers are losing stability across several external traffic sources at once.

    The report also shows that AI referral growth is real but still tiny in commercial terms. ChatGPT referrals to publishers are rising quickly, yet they remain a tiny fraction of overall traffic. The report says Google delivers 500 times as many referrals as ChatGPT from search alone, and 1,300 times as many if Google Discover is included. So the immediate issue is not that AI platforms already replace traditional traffic at scale, but that they may erode old discovery systems much faster than they create meaningful new value for publishers.

    This is why the report highlights publisher ambivalence towards AI platforms. Publishers are weighing lawsuits, licensing deals, visibility strategies, and new optimisation practices such as AEO and GEO. The implication is that access to audiences is becoming less about classic SEO and more about negotiating with, supplying, or optimising for AI-mediated distribution systems.

    3. How does the report think publishers will respond editorially and strategically to these pressures?

    The clearest editorial response in the report is a shift towards distinctiveness. Survey respondents say journalism should focus more on original reporting, contextual analysis, community-building, human stories, fact-checking, and opinion or commentary. These are all framed as forms of journalism that are harder for AI systems to commoditise or summarise into generic output. Conversely, publishers expect to pull back from service journalism, evergreen content, and general news, because those formats are more easily absorbed by chatbots and aggregators.

    The report also points to a format shift. Publishers increasingly see video and audio as strategic priorities in response to AI. Seventy-nine per cent say it is important to invest more in video, and 71% say the same for audio. Text is still important, but the report suggests its economic and competitive position is weakening because AI can cheaply generate, remix, and summarise text-based content. Video and audio are seen as more defensible, more engaging, and more suited to platform discovery.

    Distribution strategy is changing too. For 2026, publishers plan to put more effort into YouTube, AI platforms, TikTok, Instagram, and LinkedIn, while reducing effort on X, Facebook, and old-style Google Search optimisation. This reflects a move away from legacy social and search habits towards video-heavy environments and AI interfaces. It also reflects the report’s broader argument that publishers need to meet audiences where attention is moving, even if that means adjusting tone, format, and production logic.

    The report adds an important nuance: not all publishers will pursue the same path. Some will double down on distinctiveness and direct audience relationships, while others will lean further into automation and scale. The report describes a possible “barbell effect”, with highly distinctive human journalism at one end and highly automated low-cost publishing at the other, leaving mid-market undifferentiated outlets especially vulnerable.

    4. What does the report say about the growing influence of creators, video culture, and personality-led journalism?

    The report treats the creator wave as one of the defining shifts in the media environment. It argues that platform changes have turbo-charged creator economics by favouring viral, personality-led, video-first content over traditional link-sharing and institutional distribution. Publishers are worried primarily about creators taking time and attention away from publisher content: 70% are somewhat or very concerned about that. A smaller, but still significant, 39% are concerned about losing talent to the creator ecosystem.

    Importantly, the report does not present creators purely as a threat. It suggests they have become a model for authenticity, voice, and audience connection, even if much creator content is more opinion-led and partisan than traditional journalism. That duality matters: creators are competitors, but also proof that audiences respond to content that feels human, recognisable, and direct. Publishers, the report suggests, are learning from this without fully embracing its norms.

    That is why 76% of surveyed publishers say they will try to get journalists to behave a bit more like creators in 2026. Half plan to partner with creators for distribution, 31% say they may hire creators, and 28% are considering creator studios or joint ventures. Examples in the report include Wired building writers into platform personalities, CNN Creators, SPIL in the Netherlands, and various creator partnerships or branded ventures at the Independent, Vox Media, and the Washington Post.

    But the report also flags risks. Making journalists more personality-led may create conflicts around editorial standards, reputation, and independence. It may also help staff build their own followings and then leave. More fundamentally, moving too far towards creator logic may undermine some of the things audiences still value in institutional journalism, such as fairness, verification, and a consistent editorial voice. So the report sees creator influence as both necessary stimulus and strategic tension.

    5. What broader conclusions does the report draw about the future of journalism, newsroom AI, and sustainable business models?

    The report’s conclusion is neither apocalyptic nor reassuring. It argues that journalism is still in transition: old models are fading, new ones are emerging, and the eventual settlement is unclear. It suggests the industry will probably get smaller overall, with some audience attention permanently shifting elsewhere, but it rejects the idea that journalism becomes irrelevant. Reliable reporting, human stories, analysis, and trust still matter, especially in a media environment polluted by AI slop, misinformation, and manipulative content.

    On newsroom AI, the report is pragmatic rather than evangelical. AI use is spreading across back-end automation, coding, product development, commercial applications, newsgathering, and content creation with human oversight. Yet the impact so far is mostly described as promising or limited rather than transformational. Only 13% describe newsroom AI initiatives as transformational, while 44% say promising and 42% say limited. Likewise, AI has not yet translated into major labour savings for most organisations: 67% report no job cuts, 16% say they cut only a small number, and 9% say they have actually added jobs.

    On business models, subscriptions and membership remain the main priority, followed by display and native advertising, with events also important. The most notable emerging revenue area is platform payment for content, including AI-related licensing or revenue sharing, though the report makes clear that most publishers expect this to be, at best, a minor contribution rather than a transformative income stream. It also identifies structural barriers to innovation, especially lack of resources, skill shortages, siloed organisations, and weak strategic alignment.

    The final implication is that survival will depend less on chasing every trend and more on strategic clarity. The publishers most likely to thrive, according to the report, are those with a clear sense of their audience, their role, and the value they can create. That means being human where it matters, adaptable where necessary, and organised enough internally to experiment with new formats, products, and business models without losing editorial purpose.

  • FGS Global Radar 2026 – A Rewired World by FGS

    FGS Global Radar 2026 – A Rewired World by FGS

    About the paper

    The report argues that 2026 will be shaped by a “rewired” world marked by geopolitical fragmentation, deep public pessimism, widening gaps between elites and citizens, accelerating AI adoption, and increasingly atomised influence systems.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on 175 in-depth interviews with senior leaders and policy experts across business, politics, academia and media, combined with nationally representative polling of roughly 20,000 people across the US, Canada, the EU member states, the UK and Japan; public results are averaged across markets with equal weighting by country or bloc.

    The report is explicit about scale and broad geography, but does not clearly specify fieldwork dates or detailed polling procedures beyond that summary.

    Length: 56 pages

    More information / download:
    https://fgsglobal.com/radar

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the state of the world in 2026?

    The core argument is that the world is no longer merely volatile or uncertain; it has been fundamentally “rewired”. The report says the post-war rules-based order is fragmenting, international institutions are weakening, and politics is increasingly driven by strong leaders, national interest and spheres of influence rather than shared values or multilateral norms. It presents this as the defining context for 2026, with the US and China setting the pace and the rest of the world being forced to adapt.

    The report also argues that this rewiring is not only geopolitical. It is economic, technological and communicative. Economically, it sees a K-shaped pattern in which gains accrue unevenly, especially to high-income groups and tech-related sectors. Technologically, AI is portrayed as a major driver of practical business change, labour-market disruption and geopolitical competition. Communicatively, influence is becoming atomised, with mainstream media and traditional institutions losing authority while fragmented digital networks and AI-mediated information systems gain power.

    For leaders, the implication is that older assumptions about stability, consensus and institutional mediation are no longer dependable. The report’s message is that success in 2026 will depend on combining long-term strategic clarity with the agility to respond to constant disruption.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that public pessimism and distrust have reached a critical level?

    One of the report’s strongest findings is the depth and breadth of public pessimism across the 27 countries it polled. It says that in all 27 countries, substantial majorities believe the political system is failing ordinary people and needs fundamental reform, that public institutions are wasteful and badly run, that national identity is disappearing, that democracy is weakening, and that life will be harder for the next generation. It adds that 73% say their country feels divided. Denmark is singled out as the only country where one of these pessimistic propositions is not supported by a majority, which underscores how widespread the mood is elsewhere.

    The report interprets this as more than routine dissatisfaction. It explicitly says this level of pessimism is not normal and may not be sustainable. It describes a widening gap between elites and the broader public, especially in Europe, Japan and Canada, where confidence in governments and institutions is said to be collapsing. It also notes that even people who dislike Donald Trump may still admire his disruptive capacity to act, because many citizens feel conventional institutions no longer deliver results.

    Distrust also extends to information systems. In the stakeholder section, the report says only Denmark and Finland have more people trusting than mistrusting mainstream news media, while 61% overall believe mainstream media have their own agenda and cannot be trusted to report fairly. Politicians are described as the least trusted information source in every country surveyed. That finding strengthens the report’s wider claim that legitimacy is eroding across both politics and media.

    3. Which major divides does the report identify, and why do they matter?

    The report argues that 2026 will be defined by multiple reinforcing divides rather than one single cleavage. The first is the divide between elite and public opinion. Experts tend to see trade-offs as unavoidable on issues such as taxation, AI governance and business incentives, while the public often believes there are simple solutions if only better leaders were in charge. That gap matters because it creates fertile ground for populism and makes it harder for governments to build support for difficult but realistic policies.

    A second divide is between old and young. The report says both generations feel resources are skewed unfairly towards the other, while many experts fear that wealth transfer through inheritance will make success depend more on family assets than enterprise. At the same time, polling suggests younger generations are somewhat more optimistic than older ones in the short term, even though the public overall thinks life will be harder for the next generation. This divide matters because it combines economic frustration with perceptions of intergenerational unfairness.

    A third divide is between the engaged and the disengaged. Younger adults are less likely to follow politics and more likely to think voting makes no difference. The report says disengaged people are more likely to distrust others, believe globalisation has gone too far, downplay climate change and believe conspiracy theories. This matters because democratic systems depend on participation and basic confidence in shared reality.

    A fourth divide is between the global north and south, especially on climate and development. Experts argue that climate impacts are increasingly tangible in the global south, while economic pressure and populism in the north are pushing climate lower down the agenda. Yet publics in the surveyed democracies broadly oppose sending money overseas for climate or development support. This matters because climate disruption and migration pressures are likely to intensify just as willingness for cross-border solidarity weakens.

    4. How does the report portray the outlook for geopolitics, the economy, AI and climate in 2026?

    On geopolitics, the report expects 2026 to be shaped by strong leaders and weaker institutions. It presents the US and China as the two dominant powers, with more grey-zone conflict, strategic rivalry in trade and technology, and the rest of the world struggling to align. It says public pessimism is high about both US-China relations and the chances of peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. Europe is portrayed as pivotal but vulnerable: admired for stability, yet anxious about its competitiveness, growth and geopolitical relevance.

    On the economy, the report describes “a tale of two economies”. Experts are split between cautious optimists, who think the global economy will muddle through, and pessimists, who believe it is structurally fragile and overdue for correction. The report highlights over-leverage in the West, inflationary pressure, and heavy concentration of value in the “Magnificent 7” tech stocks. At the public level, affordability dominates: inflation and cost of living appear as the most important issue in several major markets, and many people believe growth mainly benefits those already well off.

    On AI, the report says the debate has shifted from whether AI will matter to how it will be implemented and with what consequences. Experts expect significant business evolution rather than total revolution, including agentic AI, more conversational models, greater robotisation and practical implementation across functions such as customer service, HR, finance and software development. But both experts and publics are concerned about employment effects: 70% of the public believe AI will destroy more jobs than it creates, and large majorities support stronger regulation and higher taxation of AI companies.

    On energy and sustainability, the report argues that current systems are not fit for purpose. Experts think infrastructure, regulation and planning are too slow to support either economic competitiveness or climate goals. Public concern about climate change remains high, but so do concerns about affordability. The report finds that most people support progress towards carbon neutrality at a slower pace to limit financial pain, rather than pushing ahead as fast as possible regardless of price increases.

    5. What perspective does the report take on leadership, and what are its main practical implications?

    The report clearly adopts a leadership-oriented perspective. It is written for decision-makers in business and politics, and its practical conclusion is that leadership in 2026 requires more than technical competence. Leaders need to understand fragmented realities, operate amid contested legitimacy, and make strategy resilient to volatility rather than built for stability. The report explicitly recommends building a “reality function” to interpret fractured environments, rebuilding strategy around volatility, treating affordability and fairness as non-negotiable constraints, and handling AI as both a capability issue and a social contract issue.

    Its assumptions are also visible. The report assumes that institutional weakening, pessimism and fragmentation are durable enough to shape business strategy directly. It assumes that political backlash, distrust and perceived unfairness will increasingly constrain what organisations can do. It also assumes that influence is no longer governed by a stable hierarchy of media, parties and institutions, but by a messy system of competing networks, platforms and AI-shaped information flows.

    The final practical message is that leaders must combine strategy, agility, authenticity and storytelling. Strategy matters because organisations need a stable destination. Agility matters because the route will keep changing. Authenticity matters because legitimacy is constantly contested. Storytelling matters because fragmented audiences do not absorb complexity easily, and leaders have to repeat and clarify their message in a crowded, distrustful environment. In that sense, the report is not just a diagnosis of 2026; it is also a guide to the leadership style it believes that environment now demands.

  • Inside PR 2026: Trends, challenges and what’s next by Cision

    Inside PR 2026: Trends, challenges and what’s next by Cision

    About the paper

    The report examines how PR professionals see the industry’s challenges, priorities, opportunities, skills and AI use heading into 2026.

    It is an original survey-based report drawing on responses from 561 industry professionals collected in September and October 2025 across the U.S. and UK; respondents came from different job levels and organisational settings, including agencies, in-house teams, nonprofits and the public sector.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though the report is based on a self-selected survey distributed through Cision’s customer/subscriber database, newsletters and social channels.

    Length: 40 pages

    More information/download:
    https://www.cision.com/resources/guides-and-reports/2026-inside-pr-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What does the report say are the biggest pressures reshaping PR right now and into 2026?

    The report’s core argument is that PR is being reshaped by a mix of external disruption and internal constraint. Right now, the top challenges are the changing media landscape, cited by 60% of respondents, and resource pressures, cited by 58%, with AI and automation close behind at 50%. That means the profession is being squeezed from several directions at once: media roles are blurring, budgets are tight, and teams are expected to adapt quickly to new technologies.

    Looking specifically ahead to 2026, resource pressures become the single biggest anticipated challenge, selected by 34% of respondents, followed by the changing media landscape at 21% and AI and automation at 18%. So the report suggests that, while media disruption remains highly important, many PR teams believe the more immediate pain point will be practical capacity: doing more with less, with leaner teams and tighter budgets.

    The report also shows that these pressures are experienced differently depending on role and organisational type. Executives are more focused on the media landscape, while managers are more likely to name resource pressures. Agency teams are more likely to emphasise external disruption, especially the changing media landscape and AI, whereas in-house teams are more likely to highlight internal operational strain, especially resource pressures and demands for data-driven strategy. That distinction matters because it shows there is no single PR reality; the sector is fragmented by business model and seniority.

    2. How does the report portray the gap between PR’s ambitions and its operational reality?

    A major theme in the report is that PR teams may think they are agile, but many structural factors prevent them from acting with real speed. Overall, 57% of respondents describe their teams as “very” or “extremely agile”, which sounds positive at first glance. But the report immediately complicates that picture by showing that executives rate their teams as “extremely agile” at roughly twice the rate of other colleagues. In other words, leadership appears more optimistic than those closer to day-to-day execution.

    The underlying barriers are fairly concrete. Sixty-three percent cite team size and structure as an obstacle to agility, and 53% point to slow executive decision-making. The report uses this to argue that agility is not just a cultural aspiration; it depends on organisational design, approval processes and access to timely information. That is an important analytical point, because it reframes agility from a vague buzzword into an operational issue.

    Again, agency and in-house teams diverge. Agency respondents are more likely to see team size and structure as the main barrier, while in-house teams are especially hindered by lack of real-time data. Agency respondents are also much more likely to cite skill diversity and access to the right tools and technology as obstacles. The implication is that PR’s effectiveness increasingly depends on whether organisations remove friction from the system rather than simply asking teams to work faster.

    3. What priorities and opportunities are PR teams focusing on for 2026, and what does that reveal about the direction of the profession?

    The report shows a profession trying to balance traditional communications goals with growing pressure to prove business value. Brand awareness remains the dominant priority, named by 73% of respondents as a top priority and by 36% as the single top priority. But driving sales and revenue through PR is also highly prominent, named by 55% as a top priority and 26% as the single top priority. PR measurement and ROI follows at 50%.

    That combination reveals an important shift. Brand building is still central, but the report suggests that communicators are under stronger pressure to connect PR activity to measurable commercial outcomes. Executives are more concerned than others with driving sales and revenue, while agencies also lean more heavily towards revenue and ROI than in-house teams, which remain more focused on brand awareness. The report interprets this as a possible misalignment between leadership expectations and how practitioners define PR’s core value.

    On the opportunity side, AI and automation lead clearly at 48%, followed by strengthening journalist and creator relationships at 39%, closer alignment with marketing and business strategy at 32%, and data and analytics to demonstrate ROI at 31%. This is one of the report’s most revealing sections, because it shows the future of PR being defined by two simultaneous moves: more technology and more integration with business strategy, without abandoning relationship-building. The direction of travel is not simply “more AI”; it is a more hybrid model where technology supports efficiency and insight, while human connection and strategic alignment remain essential.

    4. Which tools and skills does the report identify as most important, and what does that suggest about what successful PR work will look like?

    The toolset that respondents value most is led by media monitoring and analysis, cited by 60%, followed by content creation tools at 49% and media database or relationship management tools at 44%. Analytics and reporting dashboards and press release distribution both sit at 33%. This indicates that successful PR work is increasingly built on a mix of intelligence gathering, content production and relationship infrastructure.

    The organisational split is telling here as well. Agency teams place much higher value on media database and relationship management tools, while in-house teams place more emphasis on content creation. That makes sense within the report’s logic: agencies need broad contact networks across multiple clients and sectors, while in-house teams are more focused on brand storytelling and owned content.

    On skills, storytelling and content creation come first at 59%, followed by media relations at 44%, strategic planning at 34%, and AI integration at 33%. ROI measurement is lower down at 21%, which is striking given how much the report emphasises pressure to prove impact. That suggests the field still sees core communicative craft as more central than technical evaluation skill, even as accountability expectations rise.

    Overall, the report presents the ideal PR professional of 2026 as someone who combines creative and relational strengths with strategic and analytical capability. The future winner is not just a storyteller, and not just a data person, but someone who can connect narratives to business outcomes while using new tools intelligently.

    5. What does the report conclude about AI’s role in PR, and what broader conclusion does it draw about the future of the profession?

    AI is presented as both a pressure point and a major opportunity. The report says 40% of respondents use AI-powered media monitoring tools and 31% use AI features in analytics and reporting dashboards. When it comes to stand-alone generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude, use is already widespread: 73% use them for brainstorming ideas, 68% for writing or refining press releases, pitches or other content, 55% for research, 36% for drafting or scheduling social posts, and 31% for analysing data or generating reports. Only 8% say they do not use generative AI tools.

    That makes AI a mainstream workflow reality rather than an emerging experiment. But the report is careful not to frame this as a fully automated future. Its repeated position is that human creativity, storytelling and relationships remain indispensable. AI is valuable for efficiency, insight and scale, but it does not replace the human dimensions that make PR effective.

    The broader conclusion is that PR is moving into a more demanding, more hybrid era. The profession must adapt to unstable media dynamics, economic pressure and growing performance expectations, while also absorbing AI into everyday practice. The teams most likely to succeed, according to the report, will be those that align strategy and execution, remove structural barriers to agility, strengthen storytelling and data capabilities, and combine machine efficiency with human authenticity. In that sense, the report’s ultimate message is not that PR is being reinvented from scratch, but that its traditional strengths now have to operate inside a far more data-driven, resource-constrained and technology-enabled environment.

  • Corporate Affairs Trends for 2026 by FleishmanHillard

    Corporate Affairs Trends for 2026 by FleishmanHillard

    About the paper

    This is a forecast-style corporate affairs report for 2026 from FleishmanHillard, centred on three linked forces shaping the field: fragmentation, declining trust, and a more confrontational geopolitical environment.

    Methodologically, it is best described as a mixed-methods thought-leadership report grounded in the author’s original analysis, observation, discussions with colleagues, contacts and clients, and selective use of external datasets; there is no single disclosed sample, respondent count, or fieldwork design, and the geographic scope is broad but not clearly delimited, drawing on examples from markets including the UK, US, Germany and Japan.

    Length: 32 pages

    More information / download:
    https://fleishmanhillard.co.uk/2025/12/corporate-affairs-trends-for-2026/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the corporate affairs landscape in 2026?

    The core argument is that corporate affairs is becoming harder because the environment is simultaneously more fragmented, less trusting, and more geopolitically adversarial. The report says three forces stand out for 2026: fragmentation, decline of trust, and an increasingly confrontational geopolitical landscape. Rather than treating these as separate developments, it presents them as mutually reinforcing pressures that reshape how communicators reach audiences, build credibility and advise leadership.

    The report also makes clear that AI is not a standalone trend in this edition because its effects are now embedded across all the others. In other words, AI is treated as a horizontal force altering research, measurement, publishing, direct engagement and execution, but not replacing the need for human judgement in areas such as geopolitical assessment.

    Taken together, the report argues that the traditional model of corporate affairs, built around broad-reach media, relatively stable trust assumptions and a more predictable global environment, is no longer sufficient. The emerging model requires more precision, more segmentation, more direct publishing capability and greater sophistication in dealing with political risk and stakeholder complexity.

    2. Why does the report say that “everything gets smaller,” and what does that mean in practice?

    “Everything gets smaller” is the report’s shorthand for accelerating fragmentation. Drawing on Nicco Mele’s The End of Big, it argues that media, audiences, brands and institutions are all under pressure from digital atomisation, polarisation and weakening institutional authority. In practical terms, this means audiences are harder to reach at scale, general-interest channels are less dominant, and niche publishers, creators and platforms matter more than before.

    The report says audiences are moving towards specialist, high-value and trusted outlets, including titles such as the FT, Economist and Wall Street Journal, alongside podcasts and subscription platforms such as Substack. On page 13, it also points to the visual evidence that major news sites are seeing steep traffic declines while Substack shows growth, reinforcing the idea that the mass-media centre is weakening.

    A second part of this trend is economic: digital publishing is under pressure. The report argues that advertisers are likely to favour retail media networks and more directly attributable formats over traditional display advertising, while referral traffic from Google is declining as more users get information through AI-driven systems. That combination threatens publishers’ business models and may shrink the overall supply of quality journalism and analysis.

    For corporate affairs leaders, the implication is strategic rather than merely descriptive. The report says they will need to widen relationship-building beyond the “usual suspects”, understand audience channel preferences in greater depth, include niche publishers and influential Substack writers in plans, and adjust measurement frameworks to prioritise relevant reach and business-linked outcomes over broad reputational proxies.

    3. How does the report redefine trust, and why does it argue that “absolute trust” is ending?

    The report argues that trust can no longer be treated as a stable, universal measure of reputation. For years, communicators often used trust as a broad proxy for reputational strength, but the report says that assumption is breaking down because trust is now polarised and audience-relative rather than generalised.

    Its key evidence is that broad trust in institutions and news sources is weakening, while audiences increasingly trust the sources that align with their existing worldview. The report cites the Reuters Institute’s 2025 Digital News Report and notes that in 53 of the 54 countries surveyed there is a gap between trust in news generally and trust in “the news I use”. It also cites falling generalised trust levels in the UK, Germany and Japan, with US trust remaining low and flat.

    This leads to a fundamental strategic shift. A channel cannot simply be labelled “trusted” in the abstract. It may be trusted by one stakeholder segment and distrusted by another. On page 19, the report uses the US example to show how left-leaning and right-leaning audiences consume and trust different sources. That means communicators must think in terms of relative trust within specific audience groups rather than aggregate trust across society.

    The report pushes the logic further with the claim that “sounds true” increasingly beats “is true”. That is one of its strongest interpretive claims: in public debate, authority, emotional resonance and perceived credibility may matter more than factual correctness alone. The implication is not that facts no longer matter, but that institutions can no longer assume facts will persuade by themselves. They must communicate in ways that connect with audiences that do not automatically grant them trust.

    4. What role does AI play in the report’s view of communications strategy and direct audience engagement?

    AI runs through the report as an enabling and disruptive force. Early on, the author says AI is woven through the trends rather than isolated as its own section. The report’s view is that AI can materially improve efficiency, research, measurement and tactical delivery, but that its organisational adoption remains uneven and its limitations still constrain full replacement of human work.

    In the context of fragmentation and trust, AI also changes how audiences discover information. The report argues that communicators now need to think not only about reaching humans through media and owned channels, but also about influencing the GPT-based systems those audiences may consult. On page 23, it says earned media accounts for about half of the sources cited by common GPTs in responses about companies or brands, while owned content contributes roughly another fifth. That makes credible earned and owned content strategic assets in both human and machine-mediated discovery.

    This is one of the report’s more forward-looking ideas: businesses increasingly need to act as publishers, not only to reach stakeholders directly but also to shape the information environment from which AI systems draw. That makes publishing strategy more central to corporate affairs than in older media models. It also ties back to trust, because the report frames credible earned and owned content as “vital levers of influence”.

    At the same time, the report draws a limit around AI. In the geopolitical section, it says AI can help manage the growing complexity of communications execution, but management’s demand for geopolitical intelligence, assessment and advice remains a uniquely human capability. So the report is neither techno-utopian nor dismissive: it sees AI as highly useful, but not as a substitute for senior judgement.

    5. What are the report’s main conclusions for corporate affairs leaders, especially in a more zero-sum geopolitical world?

    The report’s third major conclusion is that geopolitical uncertainty is no longer a background condition; it is becoming a central operating reality for corporate affairs. It describes a world in which governments are more nationalistic, businesses are increasingly treated as instruments of power projection, and economic security is becoming intertwined with national security.

    This produces a “zero-sum” environment in which political actors increasingly think in terms of winners and losers, while global companies are trying to create value across multiple markets and stakeholder groups. The report says this tension makes life harder for multinational firms because supporting one government position can complicate operations elsewhere, and localisation strategies, though increasingly attractive, also multiply stakeholder complexity.

    Its practical conclusion is that corporate affairs teams must become more sophisticated systems operators. They need better geopolitical sensing, more formal scenario planning, stronger risk tracking and more structured use of AI for targeted execution. But they also need deeper human expertise, because navigating cross-currents between governments, markets and audiences is presented as a high-judgement advisory function, not just a communications task.

    So the report’s broader meaning is this: corporate affairs is moving away from broad-message distribution and towards high-complexity influence management. Success in 2026 will depend on understanding fragmented audiences, working with relative rather than universal trust, building stronger direct and AI-visible publishing capabilities, and helping leadership navigate a world where politics, economics and communications are tightly fused.

  • Internal Communications Trends Report 2026 by Workshop

    Internal Communications Trends Report 2026 by Workshop

    About the paper

    This report examines the state of internal communication heading into 2026, focusing on foundations, channels, manager communication, feedback, strategy, and AI adoption.

    It appears to be a mixed-source report built primarily on a survey of 312 responses, supplemented by open-ended comments and data from Workshop customers; the precise fieldwork method and country list are not clearly specified.

    The data is international in scope, with respondents drawn from a range of locations and industries, but the exact geographic coverage is not clearly specified.

    Length: 69 pages

    More information / download:
    https://useworkshop.com/internal-communications-trends-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about where internal communication stands in 2026?

    The central argument is that internal communication is becoming more strategic, but the function is still under considerable operational strain. The report repeatedly frames the field as moving beyond simple message distribution towards a more intentional role centred on alignment, clarity, employee support, and business contribution. It says teams are getting “more strategic and more intentional”, but that expectations still outpace available resources, with workloads growing faster than team capacity.

    That core tension runs through the whole report. On the one hand, there are signs of maturity: stronger foundations, more deliberate channel use, wider adoption of measurement practices, and AI becoming part of everyday work. On the other hand, communicators still face major structural barriers such as limited time, insufficient staffing, weak budget support, being brought in too late, and difficulty proving impact.

    So the report’s main message is not that internal comms is in crisis, nor that it has fully “arrived”, but that it is in a transitional stage. It is increasingly recognised as a strategic function, yet many teams still operate with the tools, access, and organisational support of a more tactical service role.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that internal communication is strengthening as a function?

    The strongest evidence comes from the combination of improved foundations, perceived employee value, and clearer strategic ambition. The report says 51 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their organisation has a solid foundation for internal communications, and 81 percent believed employees would say internal comms helps them do their jobs better. That is important because it suggests internal communication is not being seen merely as corporate messaging, but as practical operational support.

    There is also evidence of greater strategic clarity. A large majority, 73 percent, said their internal comms strategy needs to adapt for 2026, which implies that teams are actively thinking about strategy rather than simply maintaining existing activity. At the same time, the top goals remain consistent: employee engagement, alignment across the organisation, and support for business goals. That combination suggests a function that is evolving, but around a stable strategic core.

    The report also points to a more sophisticated understanding of channels and content. Email remains dominant and highly effective, but communicators are not just expanding channels for the sake of it. The report argues that teams are becoming more intentional about the role each channel plays, especially by combining push channels such as email with pull channels such as intranets. Similarly, content priorities are shifting from volume towards meaning, with greater emphasis on leadership communication, employee spotlights, values-based content, and change communication.

    Taken together, this suggests internal comms is strengthening not because everything is working perfectly, but because practitioners are becoming more deliberate about how communication supports understanding, connection, and organisational coherence.

    3. What are the report’s main findings about the practical challenges internal communicators still face?

    The report shows very clearly that resource pressure remains one of the defining realities of the profession. Only 44 percent say they have the resources they need to deliver on strategy, and only 18 percent strongly agree that they have a dedicated budget for internal comms in 2026. The accompanying commentary makes the same point in plain language: many teams, including “teams of one”, are trying to meet growing expectations without matching support.

    The operational barriers are also quite specific. The most common broad challenge is getting content from other departments, cited by 61 percent. Measurement comes next at 56 percent, followed by not having enough time in the day at 48 percent and not being “in the loop” early enough at 45 percent. This pattern matters because it shows the problem is not just one of budget. It is also about internal process, governance, stakeholder behaviour, and the positioning of comms within the organisation.

    The report’s qualitative comments deepen this picture. Respondents describe being treated as order takers rather than strategic partners, being forced to accommodate too many stakeholders, and being asked to distribute messages rather than shape them upstream. That implies one of the biggest constraints on internal comms is not simply capacity, but organisational role clarity. Teams may be expected to produce high-quality, strategic communication, while being denied the early access and authority needed to do so.

    In effect, the report suggests that internal communication’s biggest challenge is not a lack of commitment or skill. It is the mismatch between its strategic potential and the conditions under which many teams are still expected to operate.

    4. What does the report reveal about the channels, content, and management systems that seem to matter most in 2026?

    The report presents a fairly clear hierarchy. Email remains the anchor channel: 95 percent use it and 81 percent rate it as one of their most effective tools. Intranet use is also widespread at 74 percent, but it is described as the most challenging channel, even while being the top investment priority for 2026 at 52 percent. This is one of the report’s most interesting tensions: the intranet is frustrating in practice, but still seen as strategically important when it works as a reliable knowledge hub.

    The report’s broader argument is that communicators should stop expecting one channel to do everything. Instead, they should design an ecosystem in which push and pull channels support one another. That is a more mature view of internal communication architecture, and it reflects a concern with actual employee behaviour rather than simply channel ownership.

    On content, leadership updates are the most commonly delivered type today, and leadership communication is also the top content priority for 2026. Employee spotlights, values-based content, change communication, and performance storytelling also rank highly. The report interprets this as a move away from simply sending updates towards creating meaning, context, and connection. In other words, content is becoming less transactional and more interpretive.

    Manager communication stands out as especially important. It is again the number-one trend for 2026, chosen by 56 percent, yet only 4 percent say managers are very effective at cascading communication. That gap is central to the report’s diagnosis. Managers remain the crucial relay point between organisational messaging and employee understanding, but the capability is still weak. Hence the report’s repeated emphasis on leader digests, manager toolkits, cascade templates, and training. It sees better systems for managers not as a side issue, but as one of the main ways internal comms can increase impact.

    5. What does the report say about AI, and what broader implications does that have for the future of internal communication?

    The report treats AI as having moved decisively from novelty to normal workflow tool. It says 42 percent of respondents use AI every day and another 31 percent use it a few times a week. More than half describe themselves as actively experimenting, while 33 percent say AI is already integrated into some workflows. That is a strong sign that AI is no longer peripheral to the field.

    Current use is still concentrated in content production, where 72 percent use AI, followed by strategy or planning, summarising feedback or survey results, and repurposing content. But when respondents look ahead, the biggest priority is automation of repetitive tasks, cited by 68 percent. That matters because it shows communicators do not just want faster drafting. They want relief from low-value repeat work so they can spend more time on strategic judgement, nuance, and relationship work.

    At the same time, the report is careful not to frame AI in purely celebratory terms. The main concerns are accuracy or misinformation, loss of human tone, and privacy or security. These are not fringe objections: they are held by majorities or near-majorities of respondents. The report’s perspective is that these concerns are healthy constraints, not reasons to reject AI outright. Its implied model is human-centred augmentation: use AI for the early lift, then apply human review for trust, tone, and judgement.

    The wider implication is that internal communication may be heading towards a sharper division between work that can be accelerated and work that remains distinctly human. Drafting, summarising, formatting, repurposing, and workflow support will increasingly be automated or AI-assisted. But meaning-making, employee trust, leadership credibility, and organisational judgement will become even more central to the communicator’s value. In that sense, AI does not reduce the strategic importance of internal comms. The report suggests it may actually increase it.

  • What is AI reading? by Muck Rack

    What is AI reading? by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The paper is a mixed-methods, proprietary analysis from Muck Rack on how web-enabled generative AI models cite sources in response to realistic prompts.

    The report says it analysed more than 1,000,000 links generated by Gemini, Perplexity, Claude and ChatGPT between July and December 2025, across a large prompt set spanning multiple industries; the number of prompts and the geographic scope of the data are not clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 35 pages

    More information / download:
    https://generativepulse.ai/report/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report fundamentally trying to understand about AI citation behaviour?

    The report is trying to map what kinds of sources generative AI systems cite, how often they cite them, and what seems to influence those choices. It is not mainly a consumer study or a survey of users. Instead, it is an observational analysis of AI outputs and their linked citations across multiple models. Muck Rack frames this as relevant to Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO) and to PR and communications teams that want to understand how brands surface in AI-generated answers.

    At a practical level, the report studies citation behaviour across several dimensions: source type, recency, authority, industry specificity, and the balance between earned and owned media. It also emphasises that model behaviour is unstable and can change as systems are updated, so the findings should be treated as a snapshot rather than a fixed rulebook.

    The deeper argument is that AI visibility is shaped by media ecosystems, not just by a brand’s own website. For broad discovery-style prompts, the models appear to lean heavily on earned media and reputable third-party coverage; for narrower factual questions, owned channels become more important. That distinction is one of the report’s most important strategic takeaways.

    2. What does the report find about the kinds of sources AI cites most often?

    The central finding is that non-paid and earned media still dominate AI citations. The report states that about 94% of links cited by AI are non-paid media and that 82% of cited links come from earned media. Journalistic sources alone account for about a quarter of all citations. On the chart on page 5, the mix is shown as 24.7% journalistic, 24.5% third-party corporate/blog earned, 14.4% aggregators/encyclopaedic sources, 12% first-party corporate/blog owned, 7.3% academic/research, 6.7% government/NGO, 6% press release, and 4.3% social/UGC.

    That matters because it pushes against the idea that AI answers are driven mainly by brand-owned content. The report argues that traditional journalism remains highly influential, with journalistic citations holding fairly steady in the 20–30% range even though they fell slightly versus July.

    The findings also suggest that models do not all rely on the same handful of publications. The page 9 table shows different “top media outlets cited” for Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini, with only limited overlap. Reuters appears prominently for ChatGPT, while Gemini’s list includes Forbes, Investopedia and PC Magazine, and Claude’s includes U.S. News & World Report, Nature and Yahoo Finance. The report’s interpretation is that AI models pull from a diverse set of high-authority outlets, not one universally dominant list.

    3. According to the report, what makes content more likely to be cited by AI?

    The report highlights three main factors: authority, freshness, and relevance to the query domain. It explicitly says outlet authority matters, both broadly, through high-domain-authority publishers such as Reuters, and more narrowly, through specialist sources for specialist topics. It also says niche outlets remain important for industry-specific queries.

    Freshness is a major part of the story. The report says that half of all citations are to material published in the last 11 months, and that the highest citation rate occurs within the first seven days after publication. For Claude and ChatGPT, roughly 4% of all citations come from the last week, 5% from the last two weeks, and 8% from the last month. That suggests AI systems disproportionately reward timely coverage, especially soon after publication.

    The report also claims that press release structure matters. On page 15, the infographic says cited press releases have about twice as many statistics, 30% more action verbs, 2.5 times as many bullet points, mention more unique companies/products, and have a 30% higher rate of objective sentences than non-cited releases. That implies that structure and information density may affect machine readability and citation likelihood, although the report does not provide a full technical methodology for how those textual features were measured.

    4. What changes and trends does the report identify between July and December 2025?

    One of the report’s strongest messages is that AI citation behaviour is not stable. It repeatedly says that models are constantly tuning their citation mix, and page 19 gives concrete examples: ChatGPT reduced its reliance on Wikipedia, Gemini briefly spiked on YouTube in November, and Reuters gradually increased in importance across models.

    Several category-level shifts stand out. First, press release citations increased materially. The report says press releases overall rose from 1.2% to about 6% of citations from July to December, while direct citations to PR Newswire, Business Wire and GlobeNewswire rose from 0.2% in July to 1% in December, which it describes as a fivefold increase.

    Second, third-party corporate/blog citations declined. The report says this category fell by 35%, dropping from 37% to 24%, and links that decline partly to reduced reliance on management consulting content.

    Third, the report notes shifts in sector-specific citation patterns. For example, education queries are said to lean more towards .gov and .org sources than in July; healthcare is dominated by NGO and government sources, with Gemini as a partial exception because it uses YouTube; travel queries now mix in more Reddit and YouTube for some models; and technology queries appear to cite fewer unique outlets than before.

    5. What are the report’s main implications for PR, media relations and brand visibility in AI?

    The report’s practical conclusion is that earned media drives discovery in AI, while owned media matters mainly for fact-finding questions. It gives examples: broad prompts such as what coffee maker to buy are influenced by reputable earned coverage, whereas specific questions such as warranty details tend to pull from owned documentation. The report explicitly says owned content is important, but only for certain question types.

    For PR teams, this means AI visibility is not just an SEO or website issue. It is a media strategy issue. The report argues that for a given brand, much of the relevant AI citation coverage comes from a relatively small set of outlets: page 16 says 50% of a brand’s coverage can come from only 20 outlets. But it also warns there is no universal magic list; each brand has its own citation-driving mix.

    A particularly provocative implication appears on page 17: the overlap between the journalists most pitched by brands and those most cited by AI is only 2% on average. If that figure holds up, it suggests many media relations habits are poorly aligned with how AI systems actually construct answers. In other words, the report implies that PR professionals may need to rethink not just message discipline, but who they target, what formats they produce, and how quickly they publish.

    One note of caution: the report is useful, but the methodology remains somewhat thin in places. It clearly states the models used, timeframe, and the volume of links analysed, but it does not clearly specify the number of prompts, the exact sampling design, or the geographic boundaries of the dataset. So the strategic patterns are valuable, but some claims should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

  • State of PR Measurement 2025 by Muck Rack

    State of PR Measurement 2025 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The report examines how PR professionals measure their work, what metrics and frameworks they use, and how AI is beginning to reshape measurement practice.

    It is based on an original self-administered online survey fielded from 1–29 September 2025; 912 PR professionals responded, with 832 retained after data cleaning, and the report notes a conservative margin of error of +/- 3.4%.

    The respondent source is described as primarily Muck Rack’s database and email contacts, but the geographic scope of the survey is not clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 33 pages

    More information / download:
    https://muckrack.com/resources/research/state-of-pr-measurement

    Core Insights

    1) What does the report say about the current status and perceived importance of PR measurement?

    The report’s first major point is that PR measurement is now broadly normalised. 81% of PR professionals say they measure their work, and nearly all regard measurement as at least somewhat important; 50% call it extremely important and 32% very important. Reporting is therefore not a niche activity or an optional extra. It has become part of the standard operating logic of PR teams.

    The report also shows why teams measure. The strongest reason is to demonstrate impact to leadership or clients, cited by 90%. That matters because it suggests measurement is still heavily shaped by accountability and justification. It is not only about learning; it is also about proving value upward. At the same time, 65% say they use reporting to inform and adjust strategy, and 60% use it to track internal performance and benchmarks. So the report presents measurement as serving both political and managerial purposes: securing legitimacy externally while helping steer work internally.

    Operationally, measurement appears widespread but not especially deep. Most respondents spend relatively little time on it, with the report stating that nine out of ten spend less than four hours per week on measurement and reporting. Monthly reporting is the most common cadence, both for general reporting and for sharing results with executive teams. That pattern suggests measurement is routine, but often light-touch rather than highly intensive or embedded in continuous decision-making.

    So the report’s overall message here is not that PR lacks interest in measurement. Quite the opposite. The field values measurement highly and practises it widely. But the form that measurement takes is often constrained, periodic and pragmatic rather than fully strategic or methodologically sophisticated.

    2) Which metrics and frameworks dominate PR measurement today, and how credible do practitioners find them?

    The report shows a striking gap between widespread measurement activity and the limited use of formal frameworks. 61% say they do not follow any industry framework, while 29% use a proprietary or internal framework. Only 7% cite the Barcelona Principles and 4% the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework. That means the profession is measuring a great deal, but mostly without adopting shared formal standards.

    In terms of metrics, the field remains anchored in familiar outputs. The most-used measures are number of stories placed at 86% and reach/impressions at 79%. Other commonly used metrics include sentiment, website impact, share of voice, key-message pull-through, and various social or pitch-performance indicators. Revenue impact is used by only 17%, and LLM visibility is still relatively new. The report says PR teams use about five metrics on average.

    A particularly important insight is that practitioners continue to rely on metrics they do not fully trust. Stories placed and reach/impressions are not only widely used; they are also among the most commonly seen as accurate. But the confidence is uneven. The report explicitly notes that only about half believe reach/impressions accurately reflects their work despite nearly 80% using it. Key-message pull-through, meanwhile, is used by fewer people than stories placed or impressions, yet ranks comparatively better on perceived accuracy.

    That tells us something important about the profession’s habits. PR practitioners appear to use certain metrics partly because they are easy, standardised, familiar, and expected by stakeholders, not purely because they best capture communication effects. The report therefore depicts a field still dominated by countable coverage-oriented measures even while many practitioners recognise their limitations.

    3) How closely is PR measurement tied to business outcomes, and where does the linkage still break down?

    The report presents a mixed picture. On one hand, 75% say their PR measurement efforts are at least somewhat tied to broader business KPIs such as sales, brand awareness or talent recruitment. That is a notable majority, and it suggests that the aspiration to align PR with organisational outcomes is now mainstream rather than marginal.

    On the other hand, the report makes clear that this linkage remains fragile. One of the two biggest challenges named by respondents is linking PR metrics to business goals, also cited by 54%. The other equally large challenge is managing stakeholder expectations. In addition, 45% say they lack the right measurement tools or technology, and 40% say they do not have clear goals or success metrics. Together, those findings suggest that the profession may increasingly speak the language of business impact without always having the infrastructure, clarity or internal agreement needed to prove it convincingly.

    The report reinforces this interpretation through confidence levels. 44% say they feel only somewhat confident in the metrics they report to stakeholders. Just under half say budgets are affected by whether they reach their goals, while a slight majority say budgets are not tied to performance. In other words, performance measurement matters rhetorically and operationally, but it is not yet consistently decisive in resource allocation.

    The deeper implication is that PR measurement has moved beyond vanity metrics in principle, but not fully in practice. The report suggests the field is in a transitional state: business alignment is widely desired and partly present, yet still difficult to operationalise in robust, defensible ways.

    4) How is AI changing PR measurement, especially around LLM visibility and AI-generated mentions?

    The report treats AI as the biggest near-term change agent in PR measurement. At present, adoption is still modest: 28% say they are currently using AI or AI-powered tools in measurement or reporting, while 16% plan to adopt them within the next year. So AI is not yet dominant in day-to-day practice.

    However, expectations are much bigger than current usage. 93% believe AI will have either a major or moderate impact on PR measurement within two years. Respondents see the strongest potential in AI search visibility, automation, coverage categorisation and predictive analytics. The report therefore frames AI not as a fringe add-on but as a major incoming force.

    The most distinctive AI-related theme is LLM visibility: whether brands, executives or clients appear in answers generated by tools such as ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini. 61% say they are either already tracking this or planning to do so. 78% say it is important to understand whether they are mentioned in AI-generated answers. And 67% believe LLM visibility will become a standard PR metric in the next two to three years. The report explicitly links this to GEO, or generative engine optimisation, positioning LLM visibility as a new frontier metric for earned visibility in AI-mediated information environments.

    At the same time, the report shows caution. The biggest concern about AI in measurement is accuracy, cited by 75%, followed by ethical risks such as bias or misinformation at 55%. Concerns about transparency, proving ROI and lacking the right tools also feature strongly. So the report’s stance is not techno-utopian. It suggests the profession expects AI to matter profoundly, but also worries that the tools may be opaque, unreliable, or difficult to justify to stakeholders.

    5) What do the findings imply about the maturity, weaknesses, and likely direction of PR measurement as a discipline?

    The report paints PR measurement as a field that is mature in adoption but uneven in sophistication. Measurement itself is now standard. Teams report regularly, use multiple metrics, and see measurement as central to their work. In that sense, the discipline has advanced beyond the older era in which measurement could be dismissed or ignored.

    Yet the report also suggests that methodological maturity lags behind cultural acceptance. The low uptake of formal frameworks, reliance on output-heavy metrics, moderate confidence in reported results, and difficulty linking PR outcomes to business goals all point to a profession that has embraced measurement without fully solving the harder questions of meaning, causality and value demonstration.

    A second implication is that PR measurement remains shaped by stakeholder pressure. Teams measure above all to demonstrate impact to leadership or clients. That helps explain why familiar metrics survive even when practitioners question their adequacy: those metrics are legible, expected, and easy to communicate. The report therefore implies that the evolution of PR measurement is not just a technical matter; it is also organisational and political. Metrics persist partly because they satisfy audiences, not only because they best represent reality.

    Finally, the likely direction is clear. The next stage of PR measurement will probably be defined by two parallel moves: a continued push to connect communications data to business KPIs, and a rapid expansion of AI-related measurement, especially around LLM visibility and AI-generated mentions. But the report also implies that this future will be credible only if the profession addresses accuracy, transparency, and framework quality more seriously than it has so far. In that sense, the report is both optimistic and cautionary: PR measurement is expanding and modernising, but its legitimacy will depend on whether it can become not just more digital, but more disciplined.

  • Valuing Internal Communication by Internal Communication Research Hub Europe

    Valuing Internal Communication by Internal Communication Research Hub Europe

    About the paper

    The report examines how internal communication creates value for organisations, employees and society in a European context.

    It is a mixed-methods synthesis in the broad sense: the authors reviewed 60 academic journal articles and industry reports published in Europe since 2010, then used AI to generate themes which were subsequently sense-checked and refined through manual reading; it is explicitly not presented as a formal academic literature review.

    The evidence base is European in scope, but no single respondent sample is used because this is a secondary analysis of 60 prior publications rather than original fieldwork.

    Length: 38 pages

    More information / download:
    https://pracademy.co.uk/insights/new-report-valuing-internal-communication/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the value of internal communication?

    The report’s main argument is that internal communication should not be seen as a narrow channel-and-content function, but as a strategic organisational capability that creates value across three domains: organisations, employees and society. The report explicitly says it is structured around these three domains, reflecting a broader understanding of internal communication that goes beyond organisational performance alone.

    A second core point is that the profession still struggles to have this value fully recognised. The report opens by noting that perceived value remains a challenge for practitioners, and frames the whole project as an attempt to clarify and strengthen the business and societal case for internal communication.

    A third important point is conceptual: the report argues that internal communication is evolving from a mainly transmissive model towards a more dialogic, relational and human-centred one. It summarises definitions of internal communication as moving beyond information dissemination towards interaction, relationships, employee voice, involvement and purpose. That shift matters because it changes what “value” means: not just distributing information efficiently, but enabling alignment, trust, engagement, culture, well-being and change.

    So the report’s central thesis is not merely that internal communication is useful. It is that internal communication is a foundational practice that shapes how organisations function internally, how employees experience work, and potentially how work spills over into wider social outcomes.

    2. How does the report say internal communication creates value for organisations?

    For organisations, the report consolidates the value of internal communication into the PACEC framework: Performance, Alignment, Culture, Engagement and Change. This is the report’s main organising model for organisational value.

    Performance refers to business-related outcomes such as productivity, service and product quality, innovation, lower absenteeism, lower costs, reputation and advocacy. The report is careful not to claim that internal communication is the sole cause of these outcomes, but it does argue that internal communication is associated with them and can measurably contribute to them. It also links internal communication with knowledge-sharing and employee advocacy, both of which strengthen organisational performance and brand perception.

    Alignment is presented as especially important. Internal communication is described as helping translate strategy, purpose, values and priorities so that employees understand what matters and what part they play. The report even says strategic alignment was cited as the top purpose for internal communication by practitioners in 2025. In practical terms, this means internal communication helps turn abstract corporate strategy into shared understanding and coordinated action.

    Culture is another major value domain. The report argues that internal communication does not just reflect culture; it actively shapes it. Through symbolic work, leadership language, tone, transparency and emotional framing, communicators can reinforce or change norms, values and assumptions. The report highlights both cognitive culture and emotional culture, suggesting that communication can help create more human, inclusive and emotionally supportive workplaces.

    Engagement is framed mainly as organisational engagement rather than only job engagement. The report links good internal communication, especially senior leader communication and listening, with stronger organisational commitment, citizenship behaviours, job satisfaction and broader well-being outcomes. It suggests that internal communication is particularly valuable when it supports clarity, openness, honesty and two-way exchange.

    Change is the fifth element. The report says internal communication is a critical success factor in change initiatives, including restructures, mergers, process change, culture change and technology implementations. It cites evidence that excellent communication is associated with much higher positivity towards change, especially when clarity, honesty and listening are present.

    Taken together, the organisational argument is that internal communication adds value not by “sending messages” alone, but by creating the conditions for coordinated action, trust, adaptation and sustained performance.

    3. How does the report say internal communication creates value for employees?

    For employees, the report argues that internal communication creates value through three main outcomes: belongingness, identification and well-being. This is the equivalent employee-side framework to PACEC.

    Belongingness is about feeling part of the organisation and included within it. The report connects this to employee–organisation relationship theory, which emphasises trust, mutual influence, satisfaction and commitment. Communication contributes here through two-way exchange, transparency, authenticity and the quality of communication channels. In other words, communication helps determine whether employees feel they are merely labour inputs or recognised members of a collective.

    Identification goes a step further. The report argues that when employees feel belonging and also understand and align with organisational purpose, values and goals, they are more likely to identify with the organisation. It also notes that feeling valued by leaders and managers is central here. This makes identification partly communicative: people identify more strongly when communication makes them feel respected, seen and meaningfully connected to organisational purpose.

    Well-being is the third employee value outcome. The report links internal communication to psychological, social and physical dimensions of well-being, while being especially strong on the psychological and social side. Inclusive, accessible communication, employee voice, appreciation, support, and a positive communication climate are all described as contributors to employee well-being. The report also notes that engaged employees tend to show stronger well-being overall.

    A useful nuance in the report is its distinction between local and corporate employee experience. Some communication happens primarily through line managers and supervisors, especially around day-to-day work, while other experience is shaped by senior leader and corporate communication, especially around purpose, values, change and broader employee experience. This implies that employee value is not generated by one team alone but through a layered communication system.

    So the employee case is that internal communication matters because it affects whether people feel included, respected, psychologically safe, purposeful and well supported at work. That is a substantive human outcome, not just a by-product of business performance.

    4. What wider value does internal communication have for society, and why does that matter?

    The report treats societal value as an emerging but under-researched dimension. It says plainly that this domain has not yet featured prominently in academic or industry research, which makes this part of the argument more exploratory than the organisational or employee sections.

    Its first societal claim is economic. If internal communication contributes to stronger organisational outcomes and impacts, then organisations become more successful and sustainable, which in turn supports employment, tax contributions and broader social cohesion. This is the most direct societal pathway identified in the report.

    Its second societal claim is more interesting: employees are also members of society, so their experience at work may spill over into life outside work. The report discusses life satisfaction as one possible bridge between workplace communication and wider societal outcomes. It cites a 2020 study that found a strong relationship between internal communication and life satisfaction, with especially strong associations for informal communication and general communication climate.

    This leads the report to emphasise informal communication. It identifies four functions of informal internal communication: information and coordination, belonging and connectedness, stress management and recreation, and private relationships. These are important because they show that societal value may arise not only from formal top-down communication, but from the everyday relational environment of work.

    The broader implication is that if organisations focus only on performance metrics, they may undervalue communication practices that support connection, friendship, recovery, belonging and life satisfaction. The report argues that this would be short-sighted, because these “softer” outcomes may also underpin performance rather than competing with it.

    5. What conditions must be in place for internal communication to create value, and what are the consequences when it fails?

    The report is very clear that value does not arise automatically from having an internal communication function. It depends on how communication is planned, measured and practised. Strategy and measurement are presented as foundational: internal communication needs clear objectives, robust planning and evaluation, and much more emphasis on outcomes and impacts rather than just outputs such as opens, views and attendance. The report explicitly notes that measurement remains a challenge for many practitioners.

    The report also stresses communication quality. Trust, openness, honesty, timeliness, transparency and clarity are described as crucial enablers. It warns against “gloss” or spin, because employees interpret over-polished communication as a sign that information is being hidden or that leaders are detached from reality.

    Listening is another essential condition. The report argues that it is not enough to provide occasional, tokenistic opportunities for employees to speak. Listening must be ongoing, multi-method and linked to response mechanisms. This is important because the report’s model of value is dialogic: communication creates value not just by informing employees, but by connecting, hearing and responding to them.

    These conditions are brought together in the “internal communication value ladder”, which suggests that value is created through a combination of information-sharing and listening-and-responding. When those are in place, organisations can build a dialogic communication climate, which supports outcomes such as engagement, commitment, alignment, trust, advocacy and well-being, and eventually wider impacts such as high performance, employer brand strength, successful change management and even healthier societies.

    When internal communication fails, the consequences are extensive. The report points to misalignment, project delays, missed goals, lost sales, disengagement, silence, weaker advocacy, failed change efforts, stress, absenteeism, burnout and possible damage to relationships and family life. It also notes that while it is difficult to isolate exact financial costs, poor communication has been associated with substantial productivity losses.

    So the final message is quite strong: internal communication is valuable, but only when it is treated as a strategic, relational and measurable practice. Otherwise, organisations end up with the costs of poor communication rather than the benefits of good communication.

  • People, pressure and purpose in international public relations by The PR Network

    People, pressure and purpose in international public relations by The PR Network

    About the paper

    The report examines how international public relations functions are structured, valued and managed, arguing that the role has expanded far beyond traditional media relations into a broader strategic management function.

    It is a mixed-methods-style practitioner report grounded primarily in original qualitative research: 25 in-depth interviews with senior international public relations and corporate communication leaders conducted in April and May 2025, across multiple sectors and regions, although the precise country-by-country geographic distribution of interviewees is not clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 41 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.thepr.network/people-pressure-purpose

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s main argument about the true role of international public relations?

    The report’s core argument is that international public relations is already functioning as a strategic management discipline, even if organisations do not always recognise or reward it as such. It says the field has outgrown its historic association with media relations and press coverage, and now plays a much wider business role.

    According to the report, international PR teams do at least four things that place them squarely in management territory.

    • First, they support market entry by building awareness, credibility and stakeholder relationships before commercial teams are fully in place.
    • Second, they shape reputation and brand distinction in unfamiliar or competitive markets.
    • Third, they manage reputational risk and strengthen organisational resilience by spotting issues early and helping shape the response.
    • Fourth, they advise leadership on tone, timing, signalling and stakeholder expectations.

    That is why the report insists PR should not be understood as a support service concerned mainly with coverage. It presents communicators as “door openers and market makers”, leadership advisers and cultural interpreters whose work influences growth, trust and risk management. In effect, the report is trying to reframe international PR as a business-critical capability rather than a tactical communications function.

    2. How does the report say effective international PR teams should be structured and governed?

    The report rejects the idea that there is one ideal operating model. Instead, it says effective structures depend on organisational context, market maturity, growth stage, internal capacity, cultural complexity and budget.

    It identifies four main structural models.

    • A centralised model gives headquarters strong control and consistency, but offers low local autonomy.
    • A hub-and-spoke or regionalised model gives regional leads responsibility for adapting and implementing strategy under central oversight.
    • A best-in-class network model relies on independent local agencies or consultants chosen for market expertise, with high local autonomy.
    • A hybrid model combines elements of the others and adapts according to market and business needs.

    The report’s real point is not that one model is inherently superior, but that successful teams design deliberately rather than by accident. Strong structures balance strategic coherence with local responsiveness. The best teams work with clear principles, shared objectives and some central oversight, while still allowing variation by market. In other words, design matters more than doctrine.

    The report also suggests that structure is a signal of organisational seriousness. How a company structures PR reflects how much it values the function. If PR is genuinely strategic, then the reporting lines, mandates and decision rights need to reflect that.

    3. Why are local insight and cultural fluency so central to success in international PR?

    The report treats local insight as the currency of international PR. Its argument is that global strategy fails when central teams treat local markets merely as execution points rather than as sources of intelligence and judgement.

    A recurring theme in the interviews is that local teams are often closest to what is happening on the ground but furthest from decision-making. That creates risk. Campaigns or messages that ignore local nuance can damage credibility, weaken relationships and undermine the very trust they are meant to build. The report is explicit that “global” should not mean “uniform”. Alignment and adaptability have to work together.

    The table on the “five pillars of effective international public relations” makes this especially clear. It highlights trust, cultural fluency, alignment with commercial priorities, better mechanics of collaboration and stronger agency management as the main ingredients of effective cross-border work. In practice, this means local teams should have influence, not just instructions; messaging frameworks should be adaptable, not rigid; and collaboration systems should support shared planning and transparency.

    More broadly, the report elevates cultural fluency from a soft skill to a leadership capability. The best practitioners do not merely translate language. They interpret meaning, authority, timing, tone and stakeholder expectations across markets. That is presented as one of the reasons international PR practitioners add strategic value beyond their formal job descriptions.

    4. What human and organisational pressures are shaping the profession today?

    This is one of the strongest parts of the report. It argues that behind the strategic rhetoric lies a profession under significant strain. The interviews suggest that purpose remains high, but pressure is rising.

    The report identifies four interlinked pressures.

    The first is workload and burnout. International roles often span multiple time zones, lean teams and constant responsiveness, creating a “follow the sun” expectation that stretches working days and weeks. The report says the answer is not asking individuals to endure more, but redesigning workflows, protecting personal time and resourcing properly.

    The second is insecurity and emotional labour. PR is described as one of the first functions questioned when budgets tighten, especially where leadership does not fully understand its value. At the same time, communicators are expected to coach, influence and protect the organisation, often without visible recognition for that invisible labour.

    The third is the pressure to keep evolving. Practitioners are expected to become fluent in AI, data and integration while still delivering day-to-day work. The report says there is often no real space in the system for learning, which makes future-readiness harder to achieve than leaders may assume.

    The fourth is mental health and isolation. The report notes that mental strain surfaced in almost every conversation, whether explicitly or indirectly. Working across cultures, at distance and in under-resourced environments can create isolation and sustained pressure. Its broader implication is that sustainability in international PR is not just a wellbeing issue; it is an operating-model issue.

    5. How does the report think international PR should be measured and where is the field heading next?

    The report argues that measurement remains one of the profession’s most frustrating fault lines because teams are still too often judged by legacy indicators that do not capture strategic value. It says practitioners feel they are effectively maintaining two measurement systems at once: one that reflects real contribution, such as influence, access and risk mitigation, and another that satisfies dashboard expectations, such as coverage volume, impressions and sentiment.

    It is especially critical of the lingering influence of advertising-value thinking. Even if AVEs are no longer openly championed, the report suggests that the mindset behind them still shapes how senior leaders interpret success. That leaves communicators undervalued and makes it harder to connect PR to broader organisational outcomes.

    Instead, the report proposes a more rounded approach. It highlights tiered targeting, message pull-through, salience over sentiment, pipeline alignment and digital attribution as more useful methods. None is presented as perfect on its own, but together they move evaluation closer to value. It also stresses the need for integrated reporting frameworks and common definitions so teams can compare performance across markets with confidence.

    In terms of the future, the report identifies three priorities: embedding strategic value more firmly in leadership decision-making, redesigning roles and operating models for resilience, and systematically developing the skills future communicators will need, including data, AI, policy and management capability. The overall conclusion is that the future of international PR will depend on stronger recognition, better-designed systems and more sustained investment in people.

    The report’s underlying perspective is clear throughout: international PR already creates strategic value, but its structures, metrics and organisational recognition still lag behind the reality of the work.

  • IC Index 2025: Your guide to IC channels and topics by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2025: Your guide to IC channels and topics by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The report is a focused internal communication channels-and-topics analysis from the IC Index 2025, examining what information UK employees in large organisations want, how much communication they receive, and which channels they rely on.

    It is based on original survey research: an online representative quota sample of 4,939 UK workers aged 18–64 in organisations with 500+ employees, fielded in late March to early April 2025; the geographic scope is the UK only.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though the report is limited to larger employers, so it does not represent smaller organisations or microbusinesses.

    Length: 9 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource-report/ic-index-2025-guide-to-ic-channels-and-topics.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the current state of internal communication?

    The core argument is that internal communication in large UK organisations is broadly functioning reasonably well at a practical level, but clear gaps remain in relevance, targeting and topic coverage. The report says there have not been “massive shifts” since the IC Index began in 2023, yet some movements are important enough to affect communication strategy, especially when looked at through demographic and organisational differences such as generation, sector and employer size.

    In essence, the report presents a fairly balanced picture. On the one hand, most employees say they receive the right amount of communication, most prefer written information, and email still dominates as the everyday channel for updates. On the other hand, substantial minorities still feel under-informed on key issues, especially pay and benefits, career development, job guidance, organisational challenges and hybrid working.

    So the deeper message is not that internal communication is broken, but that it needs to become more audience-aware and more disciplined. The strongest practical implication is that communicators should stop treating employees as one uniform audience and instead think more carefully about what different groups need, when they need it, and through which formats and channels. That “know your audience” theme is visually reinforced in the audience-segmentation spread on page 8.

    2. How well are organisations getting the volume of communication right?

    The headline result is that 74% of employees say they receive “the right amount” of internal communication, while 14% say they get too much and 12% say they get too little. That is a strong result overall, suggesting that most large organisations are not wildly misjudging communication volume.

    But the more important finding is what happens when organisations miss the mark. Employees who say they get the right amount are much more positive about communication overall: 75% rate organisational communication as excellent, their engagement score is 75%, and 72% would recommend their employer as a great place to work. By contrast, among those who say they get too little communication, only 17% rate communication as excellent and 42% rate it as poor. Those getting too much communication are also less positive, but not to the same extent: 42% still rate communication as excellent and 20% as poor.

    That leads to one of the report’s clearest conclusions: too much communication is less damaging than too little. In other words, information overload is not ideal, but information starvation is worse. The report frames this as a meaningful challenge for leaders and managers, who need to filter noise while still ensuring people get the essentials.

    There is also an organisational-size effect. Smaller large organisations, with 500–999 employees, are most likely to get the balance right: 83% of employees in that group say the amount is right. Among organisations with 10,000+ employees, that drops to 67%. This suggests scale makes communication calibration harder, likely because more business units and functions are competing for attention.

    3. Which topics do employees most want more information about?

    The clearest unmet need is pay and benefits. More than a third of employees, 36%, say they receive too little information on that topic. The next biggest gap is career and personal development opportunities at 31%, followed by guidance to help people do their job at 27%, organisational challenges at 26%, and ways of working or hybrid working, also at 26%.

    That pattern matters because it shows employees are not just asking for more grand strategy messaging. They want information that directly affects their working lives, their future prospects and their ability to do their job well. Pay, progression and practical guidance all sit near the top of the list. The report explicitly notes that the top gaps are heavily focused on the individual employee experience.

    At the same time, organisational meaning still matters. The report flags that too little information on strategy and direction, career development, job guidance, purpose and mission, and values and culture is associated with a particularly negative effect on engagement. So employees need both instrumental information and sense-making information: what affects me personally, and what tells me where the organisation is going and why.

    There are also a few trend signals since 2023. Ways of working and hybrid working has moved up six places on the “too little” ranking, while strategy and direction has dropped five places, implying some improvement on strategy communication relative to other themes. Meanwhile, diversity and inclusion stands out as the topic with the highest “too much” score at 21%, followed by values and culture and people stories/news at 15% each. That does not necessarily mean those topics are unimportant; rather, it suggests some organisations may be over-indexing on them relative to employees’ felt needs.

    4. How do employees prefer to receive information about organisational priorities and plans?

    The dominant preference is written communication. Overall, 53% say they would prefer to read information about their employer’s priorities and plans, compared with 31% who would rather talk about it in team or group discussions, 10% who prefer visual formats such as film or infographics, and just 6% who prefer audio.

    This is important because it pushes back against the idea that internal communication should automatically become more multimedia-heavy. The report shows that written communication remains the default preference for a majority. It also suggests that the appetite for audio has weakened: the share preferring audio has fallen by 6 percentage points since 2023. By contrast, preference for talking about priorities and plans has risen by 11 points, which may indicate a growing desire for interaction and discussion around important organisational issues.

    The pattern is not uniform across all organisations. In employers with 500–999 staff, only 44% prefer to read information and 39% prefer to talk about it. In organisations with 1,000 or more employees, the pattern stabilises at roughly 55% preferring to read and 28% preferring discussion. So smaller large organisations appear more conversational in how employees want to engage with priorities and plans.

    One especially interesting finding is that digital connectedness makes very little difference here. Employees who spend most of their time at a computer and those in less digitally connected roles have near-identical preferences for reading communication, and only small differences on the other formats. That weakens the common assumption that frontline or offline workers necessarily want less written communication.

    5. Which channels do employees actually rely on, and how do audience differences shape channel use?

    In practice, email is still the dominant channel by a wide margin. Sixty-five per cent say they rely on email for general news and updates. After that come one-to-ones with line managers at 35%, company newsletters at 34%, and team meetings at 34%. Then there is a second tier: colleagues by word of mouth at 25%, Microsoft Teams at 21%, and the intranet at 17%.

    This matters because it shows a clear distinction between preference and reality. Employees may say they like written information, and the channel data confirms that written, scalable formats still dominate everyday organisational communication. Email remains the backbone. Manager communication and team-based discussion are important, but secondary.

    The report also adds a useful caution about advocacy. Some low-usage channels, including LinkedIn, Instagram, Slack and TikTok, are associated with very high levels of employer advocacy among the people who use them. But the report sensibly argues that this probably reflects the fact that advocates are more likely to engage with their employer through those channels, rather than those channels causing advocacy. In other words, correlation here should not be mistaken for channel effectiveness.

    Audience differences are one of the most valuable parts of the report. On page 8, several patterns stand out:

    Public sector employees are more likely than private sector employees to rely on the intranet, 20% versus 15%, while private sector employees are more likely to rely on virtual and in-person town halls. Smaller organisations make heavier use of team meetings, WhatsApp and LinkedIn. For example, among employees in organisations with 500–999 people, 40% rely on team meetings, 22% on SMS or WhatsApp, and 15% on LinkedIn, compared with just 31%, 6% and 4% respectively in the largest organisations.

    Generational differences are especially sharp. Gen Z employees are much more likely than Baby Boomers to rely on SMS or WhatsApp, 19% versus 5%, and more likely to use LinkedIn and Instagram. Baby Boomers, by contrast, are more likely to use the intranet, 20% versus 10% for Gen Z. Millennials also show relatively high use of digital screens, LinkedIn and Instagram.

    Finally, part-time employees are more likely than full-time employees to rely on word of mouth, 30% versus 24%, and employees in global organisations are more likely to use company newsletters than those in UK-only organisations, 38% versus 30%. Together, these patterns reinforce the report’s strongest strategic point: channel strategy should be audience-led rather than based on one standard corporate mix.

    Overall, this is a useful, applied piece of original research. Its main value is not in dramatic headline shifts, but in showing where the practical frictions are: under-communication is more harmful than over-communication, employees still want written clarity, pay and career information remain underserved, and channel reliance varies enough by audience that a single-channel logic is unlikely to work well.

  • Future of Professionals Report 2025 by Thomson Reuters

    Future of Professionals Report 2025 by Thomson Reuters

    About the paper

    Thomson Reuters’ Future of Professionals Report 2025 examines how AI and GenAI are affecting legal, risk, compliance, tax, accounting, audit and trade professionals, with a particular focus on strategic AI adoption and ROI.

    It is an original survey-based report, drawing on 2,275 responses gathered in February and March 2025 from professionals across firms, corporations, government and in-house functions.

    The geographic scope is international, with responses from the US, Canada, UK, Mainland Europe, Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Australia/New Zealand.

    Length: 31 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/c/future-of-professionals

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report argues that AI adoption has moved from experimentation to strategic differentiation. Thomson Reuters’ core claim is that the decisive question is no longer whether professional organisations should adopt AI, but whether they do so deliberately, visibly and in alignment with broader business goals.

    The report frames a widening divide between organisations with a clear AI strategy and those relying on informal or ad hoc adoption. Organisations with visible AI strategies are presented as significantly more likely to experience AI-related benefits, including revenue growth, productivity gains and stronger operational performance. By contrast, organisations without a strategy are portrayed as at risk of falling behind within a few years.

    This is not just a technology argument. The report repeatedly emphasises that AI must be connected to organisational purpose, workflow redesign, leadership behaviour, talent strategy and individual professional development. AI is described as an enabler of broader transformation rather than a standalone tool.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that AI is already affecting professional work?

    The report provides several data points showing that AI has already become a major force in professional services and related corporate functions.

    Most prominently, 80% of respondents believe AI will have a high or transformational impact on their profession within five years. At the same time, 53% say their organisation is already experiencing at least one type of benefit from AI adoption. The most common benefits are efficiency, productivity, faster response times, reduced errors, cost reduction and freed-up time.

    The report estimates that AI could save professionals around five hours per week, or 240 hours per year. In the foreword, Thomson Reuters states that for legal professionals this represents an average annual value of around $19,000 per professional, contributing to a combined annual impact of $32 billion in the US legal and tax/accounting sectors.

    However, the report also identifies a gap between expected long-term impact and current organisational change. While 80% expect AI to have a major impact within five years, only 38% expect high or transformational change in their own organisation this year, and 30% believe their organisation is moving too slowly.

    3. What distinguishes organisations that achieve stronger ROI from AI?

    The report’s main explanatory model is the “AI Success Pyramid”, which identifies four layers required for stronger AI returns: strategy, leadership, operations and individual users.

    The strongest lever is strategy. Organisations with a visible AI strategy are described as 3.5 times as likely to experience at least one form of ROI compared with organisations that have no significant AI adoption plans. They are also almost twice as likely to report revenue growth from AI compared with organisations adopting AI informally.

    Leadership is the second layer. Respondents whose leaders lead by example are 1.7 times as likely to see AI benefits. Organisations investing in AI-powered technology are twice as likely to report benefits, while those adding new governance roles are also more likely to experience positive outcomes.

    Operational change is the third layer. The report argues that organisations need to redesign workflows, roles, delivery models, services and pricing structures. This is where AI moves beyond personal productivity and begins to change how professional work is produced and delivered.

    The fourth layer is individual adoption. Professionals with good or expert AI knowledge are 2.8 times as likely to see organisational benefits as those with basic or no knowledge. Regular users of AI tools are 2.4 times as likely to report benefits compared with non-regular users. This makes individual AI literacy a strategic issue, not merely a personal skill upgrade.

    4. What risks, barriers and tensions does the report identify?

    The report identifies several barriers to more robust AI adoption. The largest barrier to investment is demonstrable accuracy, cited by 50% of respondents. This is followed by available budget, data security, ethical concerns and implementation resources.

    Accuracy is especially important because professional work often carries high stakes. The report notes that 91% of professionals believe computers should be held to higher standards of accuracy than humans, including 41% who say AI outputs would need to be 100% accurate before being used without human review. This reinforces the report’s view that human oversight remains essential.

    The report also highlights a new concern: overreliance on AI at the expense of professional skill development. Almost a quarter of respondents identify this as a negative consequence of concern. This is a subtle but important shift from earlier fears of job loss towards worries about deskilling, judgement and long-term professional capability.

    Another major tension is misalignment between organisational and individual adoption. Some professionals have personal AI goals but are unaware of any organisational strategy, meaning they are being encouraged to adopt AI without clear guidance. Conversely, some organisations have AI strategies but professionals lack personal AI goals, creating an implementation gap.

    The report also describes the “jagged edge” of AI adoption: uneven adoption across regions, functions, organisations and demographics. For example, some organisations invest heavily but see low individual usage, suggesting wasted investment and weak change management. Others see high individual usage but low organisational investment, which may create risks if employees rely on public tools without proper safeguards.

    5. What does the report imply for the future of professional work?

    The report implies that professional value will increasingly depend on the ability to combine domain expertise with AI fluency. It does not argue that AI replaces professional judgement. Instead, it argues that modern professionals will use AI to augment core abilities such as research, writing, analysis, communication, project management, technical expertise and higher-order thinking.

    The “modern professional” in the report is someone who can use AI as a working partner: to analyse patterns, compare regulations, draft documents, summarise complex material, explain specialist issues in accessible ways, manage deadlines and explore scenarios. The traditional professional skillset remains important, but the report suggests that it will increasingly be mediated and amplified by technology.

    The report also points to a significant skills gap. Forty-six percent of respondents report skills gaps within their teams, with the largest gap in technology and data skills. Technical domain expertise is also a concern. This means the future challenge is not only AI adoption but reskilling across multiple levels of the organisation.

    The report’s final implication is competitive: organisations and professionals that act deliberately are likely to gain advantage, while those that wait may lose relevance. For organisations, this means connecting AI to strategy, governance, workflow and value creation. For individuals, it means developing AI proficiency through formal training, experimentation, peer learning and active involvement in how AI is developed and used.

  • IC Index 2025 by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2025 by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The paper is an original quantitative research report on what drives strong internal communication experiences, with a particular focus on care, connection, leadership behaviour, listening, change communication and AI communication.

    It is based on an online survey of a representative quota sample of 4,939 UK workers aged 18–64, fielded between 21 March and 4 April 2025, and covers the UK only; the report also incorporates commentary from IoIC Fellows, so it combines survey research with expert interpretation.

    Length: 33 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/resource-report/ic-index-2025.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about what creates the best internal communication experiences?

    The report’s core argument is that the best internal communication experiences are driven less by channels and message volume, and more by human connection between employees and leaders. The strongest communication experience is not primarily explained by intranets, emails or strategy decks, but by whether leaders are visible, approachable, authentic, empathetic and willing to listen.

    That argument is visible most clearly in the section on what makes a “10/10” communication experience. Only 13% of employees give their organisation top marks for communication, which makes excellence rare rather than routine. Those employees are much more likely to say leaders understand the challenges employees face, that feedback is used to inform action, and that they hear regularly from senior leaders. They are also more likely to describe CEO communication as open, inspiring, clear, authentic and approachable.

    The report is therefore making a practical point to internal communicators: excellent internal communication is achieved when communication feels real. Leaders need to do more than explain strategy; they need to create a sense that they know employees, care about their experience and are prepared to engage in genuine two-way communication. That is the report’s central thesis.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that empathy, care and leader behaviour matter more than many organisations may assume?

    The report repeatedly shows that employee perceptions of empathy and care are closely tied to trust, value and advocacy. Just 51% of employees agree that leaders understand the challenges employees face, which means almost half of the workforce does not positively experience leadership empathy. That matters because employees who rate communication at 10/10 are overwhelmingly more likely to feel understood by leaders.

    The same pattern appears in relation to tone. Trust in the CEO or most senior leader is highest when communication is described as inspiring, authentic, caring, approachable and empathetic. It is far lower when leaders are seen as arrogant, unapproachable, boring, closed or indifferent. The report is effectively arguing that tone is not cosmetic; it is a trust-building variable.

    Care also matters strongly in moments of organisational strain. Only 56% say difficult people-affecting changes such as restructures or redundancies are communicated with care. Yet where employees do feel that such change is handled carefully, the uplift is dramatic: they are far more likely to feel valued and to recommend their employer as a great place to work. This suggests that care is not a soft add-on but a determinant of important organisational outcomes.

    The report also highlights a perception gap. Managers, especially senior leaders, are highly confident in their own communication skills, time and information, but employees are much less convinced on related measures such as openness, listening and follow-through. That implies many leaders may believe they are communicating effectively while employees experience something more distant or one-way.

    3. How does the report explain the importance of listening and acting on feedback?

    One of the report’s strongest conclusions is that listening only matters when employees can see evidence that their input changes something. The report distinguishes between organisations that merely invite feedback and those that “close the loop” by showing how feedback informs decisions and actions. This is one of the clearest findings in the whole study.

    Overall, 60% of employees say their organisation welcomes open and honest feedback, while only 53% say it is good at showing how colleague feedback is used. That gap is significant. It suggests many organisations are better at asking than responding. The report treats this as a live weakness, not a solved problem.

    The consequences are substantial. Among employees who say their organisation both welcomes feedback and shows how it is used, 90% would recommend their employer as a great place to work. By contrast, advocacy is far lower where organisations are seen as all talk and no action, selectively responsive, or completely disinterested. This is one of the most concrete business-case findings in the report: listening plus visible action strongly correlates with advocacy.

    The report also adds nuance about how leaders should listen. Large online Q&A sessions are the most common listening mechanism, but smaller and more personal formats such as small-group sessions, one-to-ones, reverse mentoring and discussions on internal social media are associated with stronger advocacy and stronger perceptions that feedback is welcomed. The implication is that scale does not automatically equal quality; smaller, more direct interactions often work better.

    4. What does the report reveal about organisational differences, especially the role of size, hierarchy and employee position?

    A striking pattern across the report is that smaller organisations consistently perform better than larger ones on a wide range of communication measures. Employees in organisations with 500–999 people are more positive than those in the largest organisations on leadership empathy, change communication, listening, feedback follow-through and AI clarity. The report treats organisation size as one of the most important contextual variables shaping communication quality.

    Large organisations appear to struggle particularly with emotional closeness and responsiveness. For example, perceptions that leaders understand employee challenges fall markedly as organisational size increases, and confidence that feedback informs decisions also drops sharply in the biggest organisations. Similarly, communication about difficult change is seen as less caring in larger organisations. This supports the report’s broader argument that scale makes human connection harder, though not impossible.

    Hierarchy matters too. Managers are much more likely than non-managers to believe leaders understand employee challenges, and senior leaders are the most positive group of all. The report reads this as a sign of disconnect between leadership perception and employee experience. That same pattern shows up in work identity: managers, particularly senior leaders, are much more likely than non-managers to say their job is an important part of their identity. This matters because leaders may overestimate how central the organisation is in employees’ lives, and therefore misjudge what communication employees find meaningful.

    The report also shows that clarity on strategy is strongest when it comes from the CEO or most senior leader. Employees who most commonly hear about business priorities from the CEO are the most likely to say strategy is clear. So while organisations often rely on multiple channels and local managers, the study suggests that senior leader communication remains uniquely important for strategic clarity.

    5. What does the report conclude about AI communication, and what are the wider implications for internal communicators?

    The report frames AI as a growing communication challenge defined by both opportunity and unease. Employees can see benefits in generative AI, especially for automating routine tasks, increasing productivity and saving time. But their worries are stronger and more emotionally charged: the biggest concern is loss of human jobs, followed by data privacy and security, lack of transparency, misinformation and unethical use.

    Against that backdrop, organisational clarity is weak. Only 41% say their employer has clearly communicated how generative AI is used responsibly in the organisation, and only 36% say expectations are clear on how they themselves are expected to use AI as part of their job. Again, smaller organisations perform much better than larger ones.

    The most important conclusion is that clarity changes comfort. Employees who say their organisation has clearly communicated responsible AI use are almost twice as likely to feel comfortable with AI being used to create written messages, images or video from their employer; in both cases, comfort rises to 70%. In other words, the discomfort is not only about the technology itself but also about organisational silence and ambiguity.

    The wider implication is that internal communicators should not treat AI as a purely technical issue owned elsewhere. The report strongly suggests that IC teams need to press for clear principles, practical guidance, manager support and honest explanation about where AI is used, why it is used and what safeguards exist. In the report’s logic, this is an extension of the same broader principle seen throughout the study: uncertainty damages trust, while clarity plus human-centred communication improves acceptance.

  • The New CCAO and CCO Mandate by United Minds

    The New CCAO and CCO Mandate by United Minds

    About the paper

    The paper examines how Chief Corporate Affairs Officers and Chief Communications Officers are adapting to political volatility, cultural complexity, economic uncertainty, and AI-enabled communications work.

    It is an original qualitative research report based on semi-structured, in-depth interviews with CCOs and CCAOs from Fortune 1000 companies, conducted over two months in early 2025; the exact number of participants is not clearly specified in the report.

    The geographic scope includes both U.S.-based and European corporate affairs leaders.

    Length: 8 pages

    More information / download:
    https://webershandwick.com/news/new-ccao-and-cco-mandate-navigating-a-new-era-of-corporate-leadership

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report argues that the corporate affairs and communications function has not retreated in importance as companies have pulled back from the more visible social-issue positioning of the early 2020s. Instead, CCAOs and CCOs have become less publicly visible but more strategically central inside the enterprise.

    The core claim is that corporate affairs leaders are now expected to help companies navigate a volatile intersection of business, politics, culture, stakeholder expectations, employee sentiment, and reputation risk. Their mandate is no longer simply to explain corporate decisions after the fact. They are increasingly expected to help shape those decisions before they are made.

    The report frames this as a shift from communications as a reactive function to corporate affairs as a source of enterprise foresight. The ideal corporate affairs function, according to the report, helps leaders anticipate risk, understand stakeholder dynamics, interpret political and cultural signals, and protect the company’s licence to operate.

    2. How is the CCAO/CCO role changing in relation to business strategy?

    The report’s first major theme is that corporate affairs leaders are becoming proactive business partners. Their value increasingly lies in their ability to translate political, regulatory, cultural, and stakeholder signals into business implications.

    This means they are not only advising on messages, positioning, or crisis response. They are helping business leaders understand where external pressures may require changes to products, operations, stakeholder engagement, or risk management. One example in the report describes a policy-related issue around a consumer product where corporate affairs brought data to the business, prompting an eight-week sprint that helped resolve product issues and changed the relationship between corporate affairs and the product leader.

    The report presents corporate affairs leaders as “orchestrators” across functions. Because they sit close to the CEO agenda and have an enterprise-wide view, they can connect information from legal, policy, HR, product, finance, operations, communications, and external stakeholders. Their strategic value comes from synthesising those signals into business intelligence.

    The practical recommendation is to build formal cross-functional intelligence networks and develop ways to quantify external risk in financial terms. In other words, corporate affairs must be able to speak the language of business impact, not only the language of reputation.

    3. Why does political complexity matter so much in the report?

    Political volatility is one of the report’s defining conditions. The authors locate the research in the early 2025 U.S. context, following Donald Trump’s second inauguration and first 100 days in office. The report says companies are operating in a climate shaped by executive orders, economic volatility, hyper-partisanship, and sudden political attention.

    The report argues that this has forced corporate affairs leaders to rethink public engagement. Companies are moving away from broad social activism and towards brand protection, business-aligned issue engagement, and risk management. The task is no longer simply “Should we speak out?” but “Where does engagement serve the business, where does silence reduce risk, and where is private dialogue more effective than public positioning?”

    One especially important idea is the “audience of one” problem: the risk that a single powerful political figure can draw attention to a company and create operational, reputational, or regulatory consequences. Corporate affairs leaders are therefore developing scenario plans, rapid-response frameworks, and more cautious approaches to political communication.

    This also changes the advisory role of corporate affairs. The report suggests that CCAOs and CCOs are becoming voices of restraint and judgement within executive teams, helping leaders distinguish between noise, bargaining tactics, genuine risk, and issues that require action.

    4. How does the report redefine crisis and reputation management?

    The report argues that crisis management is no longer an exceptional capability. It has become a baseline expectation. In a “permacrisis” environment, corporate affairs teams must apply crisis tools continuously, not only when a discrete crisis breaks out.

    This changes the role in two ways. First, crisis work now extends beyond media response. Corporate affairs teams are expected to help solve the underlying problem, coordinate across business functions, and prevent issues from escalating. Secondly, the report says corporate affairs leaders must make the financial case for proactive reputation management.

    One quoted example describes a corporate affairs leader asking for $2.5 million for a campaign during a contentious situation and using analysis to show that the potential return was 12 times the investment. The point is that reputation work becomes more credible in the C-suite when it is connected to profit protection, revenue risk, regulatory exposure, or operational continuity.

    The implication is that corporate affairs must move from “the team that handles crises” to “the function that helps prevent avoidable business risk”. The report recommends crisis prevention scoring, financial modelling of reputational risk, and closer collaboration with finance and analytics partners.

    5. What does the report say about employees and AI as part of the new mandate?

    The report treats employee communication as a continuing priority, but one that has become more delicate. Employees are described as one of the most important stakeholder groups, especially during uncertainty. At the same time, internal communication now has to navigate political polarisation, regulatory sensitivity, DEI-related scrutiny, and the risk that different employee groups may interpret corporate messages very differently.

    The report therefore points to a more cautious, “sanitised” form of transparency. Companies may still communicate openly, but in ways designed to avoid partisan signalling or unnecessary exposure. The authors recommend mapping internal stakeholder intersections and using tools such as message testing to understand differences within the employee base.

    AI is presented as a practical accelerator for the corporate affairs function. The report says AI is being used for tasks such as preparing Q&As, analysing large volumes of stakeholder content, vetting influencers, monitoring media and misinformation, supporting strategic planning, and improving data analysis. Rather than presenting AI mainly as a replacement threat, the report frames it as a way to free communications professionals from routine work and move them towards more strategic advisory roles.

    However, the report also makes clear that AI adoption is a change-management issue. Teams need clarity on what should remain human-led, what can be AI-assisted, and what ethical guardrails are needed around bias, accuracy, and appropriate use.

    Overall conclusion

    The report’s main message is that the CCAO/CCO mandate is expanding from communications execution to enterprise-level judgement. Corporate affairs leaders are being asked to help companies interpret volatility, anticipate risk, advise CEOs, manage political exposure, support employees, use AI responsibly, and convert stakeholder intelligence into business decisions.

    Its most important contribution is the framing of corporate affairs as a foresight function. Its main limitation is methodological: while the qualitative design is described in some detail, the report does not clearly specify the number of interviewees, which makes it harder to judge the breadth of the evidence base.

  • The Ipsos AI Monitor 2025 by Ipsos

    The Ipsos AI Monitor 2025 by Ipsos

    About the paper

    The paper is a 30-country survey about public understanding of AI, trust, perceived risks, and expectations for AI’s impact on work, content, brands, economies and everyday life.

    It is original survey research conducted by Ipsos via its Global Advisor online platform and, in India, its IndiaBus platform, between 21 March and 4 April 2025, with 23,216 adults across 30 countries; India used a mixed face-to-face and online approach.

    The methodology is clear, but Ipsos notes that some country samples are more “connected” than nationally representative, and that the 30-country average is an unweighted average across markets rather than a population-adjusted global figure.

    Length: 57 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ipsos.com/en-dk/ipsos-ai-monitor-2025

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central tension in public attitudes towards AI?

    The report’s central argument is that public opinion on AI is defined by a tension Ipsos calls the “Wonder and the Worry of AI”. People recognise AI’s potential and expect it to become embedded in many areas of life, but they also feel nervous about its consequences.

    At the 30-country average level, 52% say AI products and services make them excited, while 53% say they make them nervous. That means excitement and anxiety are not opposing camps so much as overlapping reactions: many people appear to hold both views at once.

    This tension is also geographically uneven. The Anglosphere — the US, Great Britain, Canada, Ireland and Australia — is described as more nervous than excited. European markets sit in a middle zone, with moderate excitement and less intense nervousness. Several South-East Asian markets are much more positive, while Japan is presented as an outlier: neither especially excited nor especially nervous.

    The broader meaning is that AI is not being received as a simple “innovation story”. People expect progress, but they are not automatically confident that the benefits will be fairly distributed, responsibly governed, or socially benign.

    2. How much do people understand AI, and how does knowledge vary by country?

    A majority say they understand AI at a general level, but fewer say they understand where AI is actually being used.

    Across the 30 countries, 67% agree that they have a good understanding of what artificial intelligence is. However, only 52% say they know which types of products and services use AI. That gap matters: people may feel familiar with AI as a concept while still being unsure where it is embedded in everyday services.

    There are large country differences. Indonesia, Thailand and South Africa are among the highest on claimed understanding of AI, while Japan is lowest. For knowing which products and services use AI, Indonesia and Thailand again rank high, while Belgium, Japan and Canada are at the lower end.

    This suggests that “AI literacy” is not just a question of awareness. The public may know the term, recognise the general idea, and still lack practical understanding of where AI is operating in search, marketing, recruitment, news, advertising, disinformation, customer service or workplace tools.

    3. What does the report reveal about trust in AI, companies and governments?

    Trust is one of the report’s most important fault lines. People are not simply asking whether AI is useful; they are asking who controls it, who regulates it, and whether organisations using it can be trusted.

    Only 48% across the 30-country average say they trust companies using AI to protect their personal data. Trust is much higher in countries such as Indonesia, Thailand and India, while Sweden, Canada, Japan, France and the United States sit much lower. The net trust measure is only slightly positive at the global country average level, which signals a fragile trust environment for brands and platforms.

    Governments are trusted somewhat more than companies in this context: 54% say they trust their government to regulate AI responsibly. But this also varies dramatically. Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are high-trust markets, while the United States, Japan, Hungary, Great Britain and Canada are much lower. Ipsos suggests that low trust in government regulation may help explain higher nervousness in some markets, especially the US.

    One striking finding is that people say they trust AI more than people not to discriminate or show bias. At the 30-country average, 54% trust AI not to discriminate or show bias, compared with 45% who trust people not to discriminate or show bias. That does not mean people think AI is neutral; rather, it suggests that public trust in human fairness is also weak.

    The strongest trust-related consensus is disclosure. Seventy-nine per cent agree that products and services using AI should have to disclose that use. This is one of the clearest implications for organisations: transparency is not a niche concern but a mainstream expectation.

    4. How do people feel about AI-generated content, advertising and brand use?

    The report shows a clear public distinction between expecting AI-generated content and preferring it. People believe AI will be widely used, but they still prefer human-created content in most cases.

    For example, 79% think AI is likely to be used for online search results, and only 28% say they are uncomfortable with that use. That suggests search may be one of the more socially acceptable AI applications. By contrast, people are much more uncomfortable with AI-generated political ads, AI-written news stories, AI screening job applicants, and AI used to create or target disinformation.

    When asked about content preferences, the public consistently favours human-driven content. Seventy per cent prefer human-driven online news articles or websites; 71% prefer human-driven photojournalism; 67% prefer human-driven movies; 62% prefer human-driven advertising; and 60% prefer human-driven customer marketing websites.

    For brands, the picture is mixed and potentially risky. People are split on whether AI use would make them trust companies more or less. At the 30-country average, AI-enhanced product images produce 34% more trust and 38% distrust; AI-written product descriptions produce 33% more trust and 42% distrust; AI-created advertising images or video produce 30% more trust and 38% distrust; and AI-written product reviews produce 29% more trust and 36% distrust.

    The implication is that AI use in marketing is not automatically reputationally damaging, but it is not automatically efficiency-positive either. Brands may gain from AI where it improves usefulness, speed or relevance, but they risk distrust when AI is perceived as deceptive, synthetic, manipulative or insufficiently disclosed.

    5. What future impact do people expect AI to have on jobs, economies and everyday life?

    People expect AI to become more important in daily life, but their expectations are uneven across domains.

    A majority already feel AI has affected them: 52% say AI products and services have profoundly changed their daily life in the past three to five years. Looking ahead, 67% say AI will profoundly change their daily life in the next three to five years. So AI is not viewed as speculative; it is already part of people’s lived experience and expected to intensify.

    On work, the findings are ambivalent. Globally, 59% think AI is likely to change how they do their current job in the next five years, but only 36% think it is likely to replace their current job. Even more importantly, people are more optimistic about their own job than about the wider labour market. Among those with a job, 38% think AI will make their own job better, while 16% think it will make it worse. But for the job market overall, only 31% think AI will make it better, while 35% think it will make it worse.

    This “my job versus the job market” distinction is one of the report’s most useful insights. People may believe they personally can adapt, benefit or remain protected, while still worrying about broader labour disruption.

    The same pattern appears in other future-facing areas. People are optimistic that AI will improve efficiency: 55% say it will make the amount of time it takes to get things done better, compared with only 10% who say worse. They are also more positive than negative about entertainment options and health. But they are much more concerned about disinformation: only 29% think AI will make the amount of disinformation on the internet better, while 40% think it will make it worse.

    Economically, the global country average is cautiously positive: 34% think AI will improve their country’s economy, while 23% think it will worsen it. Ipsos argues that countries most excited about AI tend to be countries where people are also more likely to believe AI will benefit the economy. In other words, enthusiasm appears tied not only to technology itself, but to whether people believe AI will produce visible, shared economic benefits.