About the paper
The report examines how PR professionals measure, track and report their work, with a particular focus on which metrics they use, which they trust, the challenges they face, and how reporting is coordinated internally.
It is based on original research: a self-administered online survey fielded from 11 to 21 October 2024, with 472 responses collected and 397 retained after data cleaning; the report gives a conservative margin of error of about ±5%.
The geographic scope is not clearly specified in the report, although respondents were recruited primarily through Muck Rack’s database and email contacts.
Length: 25 pages
More information / download:
https://muckrack.com/blog/2024/11/06/the-state-of-pr-measurement-2024
Core Insights
1. Why does PR measurement matter so much to practitioners, according to the report?
Measurement matters because PR professionals see it as central to demonstrating the value of their work. The report shows that 86% say measuring and reporting PR efforts is either very important or extremely important, and 89% say the main reason they report on their work is to demonstrate impact to leadership or clients.
It is also not a marginal activity within the profession. For 40% of respondents, measurement and reporting account for at least a quarter of their job, making it one of the more time-consuming parts of PR work. The report therefore presents measurement not as an optional add-on, but as a core part of how PR teams justify their contribution and maintain credibility with decision-makers.
A further sign of its importance is that respondents link PR’s perceived value to measurability. The top factors seen as increasing PR’s value among internal stakeholders include producing measurable results and tying PR activities to key business initiatives. That suggests PR measurement is not only about internal reporting discipline, but also about status, influence and budget legitimacy inside organisations.
2. Which metrics do PR professionals rely on most, and which do they trust least?
The most commonly used metrics are number of stories placed, reach/impressions and website impact. Specifically, 85% track number of stories placed, 76% track reach/impressions, and 46% track website impact. On average, respondents say they track five metrics.
However, the metrics that are most used are not always the same as those seen as most accurate. The three metrics considered most trustworthy are number of stories placed, reach/impressions and key message pull-through. Number of stories placed is the standout: 63% say it most accurately measures their efforts. Reach/impressions comes next at 42%, followed by key message pull-through at 35%.
By contrast, respondents are notably sceptical about several metrics often associated with more sophisticated or business-oriented measurement. Pitch performance is seen as the least accurate by 32%, while sentiment and revenue impact are each named by 24%. Reach/impressions also appears on the “least accurate” list for 23%, showing that some widely used measures are also contested. In other words, PR professionals continue to rely heavily on familiar output and exposure metrics, while remaining uncertain about the validity of several commonly discussed alternatives.
3. What does the report reveal about confidence and difficulty in PR measurement?
The report reveals a profession that sees measurement as necessary, but not fully settled or secure in how it does it. Only 7% say they are extremely confident in the metrics they report, while 31% are very confident and 49% are only somewhat confident. That means roughly half of respondents occupy a middle ground: they are not without confidence, but neither are they fully convinced that their reporting tells the whole story well.
The difficulty of the work reinforces that picture. Just 25% say tracking their efforts is easy or very easy, while 40% say it is neither easy nor difficult and 35% say it is difficult or very difficult. So although most teams do measure their work, many do so with uncertainty and friction.
Time pressure appears to be part of the explanation. Most respondents spend relatively little time on measurement and reporting: 56% spend one to four hours per week, and 32% spend less than one hour. Altogether, 88% spend under four hours weekly. The report implies that PR measurement is treated as important, but often carried out under practical constraints that limit how rigorous or comprehensive it can be.
4. What are the biggest obstacles preventing stronger PR measurement?
The biggest obstacle is linking PR metrics to business goals. This is selected by 61% of respondents, making it the top challenge in the study. That is significant because it points to a structural problem: PR teams may be able to report activity and outputs, but struggle to connect those outputs to wider organisational priorities and outcomes.
The next major challenge is managing stakeholder expectations, cited by 53%. This suggests measurement is not just a technical problem of data collection, but also a political and communicative one. PR professionals are operating in environments where different stakeholders may want different kinds of proof, at different levels of sophistication, and with different assumptions about what PR should be able to deliver.
Other important barriers include unclear goals or success metrics, named by 38%, and not having the right goals or success metrics, cited by 23%. The report also notes that open-ended responses mentioned data quality, access to resources and maintaining consistency year over year. Taken together, these findings suggest the core weakness is not merely lack of tools, but a broader lack of alignment around what success looks like and how PR contribution should be evaluated.
5. What broader picture does the report paint of the current state of PR measurement?
The report paints a picture of a profession that is committed to measurement, but still in a transitional stage of maturity. Most PR professionals measure their work, most consider measurement highly important, and many recognise that metrics are essential for proving PR’s value. But this commitment sits alongside only moderate confidence, persistent methodological disagreement and fairly limited time investment.
It also shows that measurement remains unevenly integrated inside organisations. Responsibility for reporting is spread across roles, with 32% saying the whole team collaborates equally, while others assign it to managers, coordinators, directors or others. Coordination with marketing is mixed: 31% say reporting is handled separately with no coordination, 30% share reports for alignment, and only 13% hold joint meetings to discuss combined metrics. This suggests PR measurement is still often siloed rather than fully embedded in a broader business-performance framework.
The report’s underlying perspective is clear: PR needs better ways to demonstrate impact, especially to leadership. But the findings also suggest that the field has not fully resolved the tension between easy-to-report output metrics and more meaningful business-linked measures. The consequence is a measurement culture that is active and valued, yet still searching for stronger credibility, clearer standards and better organisational integration.