Tag: Cision

  • 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.

  • 2025 Comms Report by PRWeek and Cision

    2025 Comms Report by PRWeek and Cision

    About the paper

    The report examines the current state of the PR and communications industry in 2025, with a particular focus on AI adoption, measurement and analytics, content strategy, influencer effectiveness, workforce challenges and C-suite priorities.

    It is based on original survey research: an online survey of 310 senior-level communications and marcomms professionals in the U.S. and Canada, fielded by PRWeek between 18 October and 20 November 2024; the methodology, sample and geography are clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 13 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.cision.com/resources/guides-and-reports/2025-comms-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about where the communications industry stands in 2025?

    The core argument is that the sector is advancing rather than standing still. The report explicitly frames 2025 as a story of measurable progress, especially in areas that have been recurring concerns since the study began in 2017, such as data, analytics and proving communications’ business value. At the same time, it argues that newer forces, especially generative AI, are now moving from experimentation into active workflow adoption.

    That argument is supported by several headline findings. The report says almost two-thirds of respondents believe generative AI is notably improving their data and analytics capabilities, while only a small minority say AI is not part of their communications strategy at all. It also states that 68% say they now have the tools needed to show the cause-and-effect relationship between communications work and bottom-line objectives. Together, those findings support the report’s broader claim that the industry is becoming more strategic, more data-enabled and more operationally mature.

    The tone is not triumphalist, though. The report still presents communications as a sector under pressure, especially pressure to do more with less, and one that continues to wrestle with reactive ways of working. So the central message is not that the industry has solved its problems, but that it has moved forward in meaningful ways while still facing structural challenges.

    2. What does the report show about AI adoption, and how significant is that shift?

    The report presents AI as the defining new capability story in communications. It says seven new AI-related questions were added this year specifically to capture where the industry now stands, suggesting that PRWeek and Cision see AI as too important to treat as a side issue. According to the findings, 23% say generative AI is used “very much so” in their overall comms strategy and 44% say “somewhat”, while only 9% say “not at all”. The report interprets this as evidence that AI integration has reached an acceleration point.

    The strongest operational uses are practical rather than futuristic. The report says AI is being used most regularly for content review and optimisation, brainstorming campaign ideas, audience targeting and content creation. On page 7, the visual data reinforce this point: content-related tasks stand out as the areas where regular use is highest, and nearly two-thirds of respondents say their company already has an AI policy or strategy in place. That matters because it suggests adoption is becoming formalised, not just improvised at the individual-user level.

    The report also shows that adoption is not limited to using public tools. More than a third of respondents say their organisation has developed at least one proprietary AI tool for internal or client use. Examples include RAG systems for summarising internal IP, insights engines built on large datasets and tools for automating post-meeting outputs. That indicates a shift from experimentation with third-party tools to organisation-specific applications embedded in workflows.

    At the same time, the report does not portray AI adoption as frictionless. Concerns remain about how to communicate AI-driven change to stakeholders, the possibility of budget cuts and job losses, and the risk of marginalising communications’ hard-won “seat at the table”. So the shift is significant, but it is accompanied by uncertainty about governance, role definition and organisational consequences.

    3. How does the report assess progress on data, analytics and measurement?

    This is one of the report’s clearest storylines. It explicitly compares 2025 with the first study in 2017, when 75% of respondents said the sector needed to get better at measuring and proving impact on business objectives. In 2025, by contrast, 68% say they have the necessary tools to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship between communications work and bottom-line outcomes. The report presents this as evidence of real progress in the industry’s relationship with measurement.

    The findings on measurement challenges support that interpretation. On page 5, the report shows year-on-year declines across several familiar pain points, including aligning metrics to revenue, converting data into actionable insights, identifying the best tools and reliance on media impressions. The 15-point drop in over-reliance on impressions is singled out as especially noteworthy. The implication is that communications teams are getting better at using more meaningful metrics and better tools.

    The report also connects this progress to stronger organisational legitimacy. It argues that when communications teams can show direct business value, they are better able to win C-suite trust and investment. This is reinforced by the finding that 84% say the C-suite has sought the counsel of the communications team more in the past year than before. In other words, better analytics are not presented merely as a technical improvement; they are framed as part of the reason communications is becoming more influential within organisations.

    Still, the report does not suggest that the measurement issue is settled. “Inability to measure impact effectively” remains one of the top three general challenges, chosen by 37% of respondents on page 10, and content-related measurement problems also remain substantial. So the deeper conclusion is that measurement has improved materially, but it is still unfinished business.

    4. What changing patterns does the report identify in influence, content and communications practice?

    One of the most striking shifts concerns influence. For the first time in the study’s eight-year history, employees rank as the most effective influencer type, edging out everyday consumers and clearly surpassing celebrities. The report treats this as a major reversal from 2017, when celebrities led and employees ranked last. On page 9, the chart shows employees in first place overall and also leading in sectors such as financial services and healthcare/pharmaceutical.

    The interpretation offered is that employee voices are seen as more authentic and credible than paid celebrity endorsements. The report links this shift to social media visibility and trust, arguing that employees can function as a brand’s most believable advocates when activated respectfully and authentically. It also notes that niche influencers appear to have more persuasive power than macro or micro influencers among dedicated social-media-based categories.

    In content and channel strategy, the report finds more continuity than disruption. Earned media remains the most relied-on part of the media mix, but the gap between earned and paid has narrowed. The most effective content types and social platforms remain broadly the same as last year, with branded social media, websites, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn all remaining prominent. However, the report highlights LinkedIn’s continued importance and notes that comments and shares have become particularly significant social metrics. These patterns suggest that while communications is changing technologically, many core distribution and engagement priorities remain familiar.

    There is also a workforce and organisational practice dimension. Team access to dedicated data analysts has risen, team size among non-agency respondents is up, and confidence in crisis preparedness is high. Meanwhile, work arrangements show a modest movement back toward the office, with fully in-office work rising year on year. So the report captures change not only in tools and tactics, but also in how comms teams are structured and how they operate.

    5. What are the report’s main implications for communications leaders and for the future of the profession?

    The clearest implication is that communications leaders are expected to be both more strategic and more commercially relevant. On page 11, the report shows that respondents think CEOs’ top priorities are strongly tied to growth, value, agility and revenue. That means communicators are being measured not just on storytelling or visibility, but on their contribution to wider business performance. The report also shows that respondents’ own top priorities include analytics and reporting, content creation, media and influencer management, and customer acquisition or engagement.

    A second implication is that the profession is entering a more hybrid model of value creation: part human judgement, part AI-enabled execution, part data-driven proof. The report repeatedly suggests that AI is most useful when it accelerates repeatable tasks, strengthens insight generation and frees communicators to focus on higher-value strategic and relational work. This implies that future advantage will not come from using AI in a generic way, but from combining it with strong prompting skills, good data infrastructure, human interpretation and organisational trust.

    A third implication is that communications still needs to become less reactive. The single most cited general challenge is “a focus that is too reactive, as opposed to proactive”. That is important because it suggests the profession’s next leap forward is not only about tools, but about operating model and influence: being earlier in decision-making, better aligned internally and more capable of shaping action rather than merely responding to events.

    Overall, the report’s conclusion is cautiously optimistic. It portrays a profession that is more confident, better equipped and more respected than before, but still under pressure to prove value, adapt to rapid technological change and work across organisational boundaries. That makes the report less a celebration than a status check: communications has advanced, but future credibility will depend on turning AI, analytics and authenticity into sustained strategic advantage.