Tag: Public Relations

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.

25 February 2025
C-suite Outlook 2025 – Delivering Value in a Volatile World by the Weber Shandwick Collective

About the paper

The report examines how global C-suite leaders are thinking about value creation, stakeholder priorities and volatility in 2025.

It is based on original survey research: a short survey of 200 private-sector global business leaders from multinational companies operating across North America, Latin America, EMEA and APAC, with fieldwork conducted from 14 November to 4 December 2024.

The sample includes companies headquartered in the United States and 22 other countries across five sectors, so the geographic scope is global, although the report presents only limited methodological detail beyond the sample profile.

Length: 9 pages

More information / download:
https://webershandwick.com/news/delivering-value-in-volatile-world

Core Insights

1. What is the report’s central argument about leadership in 2025?

The core argument is that CEOs and senior executives are entering 2025 with underlying optimism, but that optimism is tempered by a strong sense that the external environment remains unstable and difficult to control. On page 2, the report frames this tension directly: business leaders see relative macroeconomic stability compared with recent years, yet they remain highly alert to geopolitical disruption, market shocks, activism, policy change and other forces that can quickly alter the operating environment.

From that starting point, the report argues that corporate leadership now has to move beyond older, more polarised debates about shareholder primacy versus stakeholder capitalism. Its preferred framing is practical rather than ideological: the job of leadership is to define and deliver the specific mix of value that matters most to the stakeholders who shape the company’s success. In other words, the corporation’s role is presented not as serving one constituency at the expense of others, but as earning legitimacy and performance by managing a company-specific “value equation” across multiple stakeholder groups. This is the report’s main conceptual move, and it underpins everything that follows.

2. How do executives define “value”, and which forms of value matter most to them?

A major contribution of the report is that it treats value as multi-dimensional rather than purely financial. On page 4, executives rank five forms of value: economic value is highest at 98% importance, followed by functional value at 96%, ethical value at 88%, and both emotional and societal value at 78%. When respondents were asked to allocate relative weight across these categories, economic value received the largest share by far at 41%, compared with 24% for functional value, 14% for ethical value, 11% for societal value and 10% for emotional value.

That ranking shows two things at once. First, the report does not pretend that executives have become post-financial or post-commercial. Economic performance remains dominant. Secondly, it suggests that modern business leadership increasingly sees non-financial forms of value as part of business success rather than as optional extras. Ethical, societal and emotional value are not leading priorities, but they are still recognised by substantial majorities as important. The report therefore presents a broadened model of business value: financial performance sits at the centre, but it is strengthened or undermined by how companies function, behave and relate to stakeholders.

There is, however, an interesting gap between aspiration and performance. The page 4 chart on how well companies are delivering value across stakeholders shows strong perceived delivery on economic and functional value, but weaker performance on societal and especially emotional value. Fewer than a quarter say they are delivering societal or emotional value “very well”. So the report implies that executives recognise a wider value agenda more readily than they currently execute it.

3. Which stakeholders matter most in executive decision-making, and what does that reveal about the report’s perspective?

The report makes clear that stakeholder thinking is now mainstream among the leaders surveyed. On page 3, 99% say that considering the interests of multiple stakeholders is important. But the stakeholder model being described is not flat or equal. On page 5, customers rank first, with 99% saying they are important and 86% calling them very important. Investors and shareholders follow at 96%, and employees at 93%. Policymakers and government officials come next at 81%, with partners and suppliers and local communities both at 79%. Advocacy groups and non-profits rank much lower.

This hierarchy matters because it reveals the report’s practical worldview. It is not arguing that all stakeholders should be treated identically, nor that external advocacy pressure should dominate corporate decisions. Instead, it suggests a prioritised stakeholder model centred on those groups most directly tied to performance, legitimacy and licence to operate: customers, capital providers, employees, regulators and key operational partners. That is a more managerial and strategic version of stakeholder capitalism than a purely normative one.

The report also subtly signals that stakeholder management is becoming more political. The relatively high ranking of policymakers and government officials, combined with repeated references later in the report to regulation, geopolitics and public affairs, suggests that public policy is no longer a peripheral concern. It is becoming structurally central to the executive agenda, especially in a world where policy decisions can affect supply chains, investment flows, reputation and growth.

4. What does the research say about volatility, preparedness and growth prospects for 2025?

The report’s most important empirical message is that leaders feel materially less prepared for the kinds of disruptions they cannot control directly. On page 5, executives report greater confidence in handling internal or more familiar reputational threats, such as a major data breach, a company security threat, a health epidemic or a product recall. But preparedness drops sharply for external shocks such as global armed conflicts, terrorist attacks, political division after US elections, misinformation campaigns, natural disasters and actions by elected officials. This distinction is central: leaders are more comfortable with operational crises than with systemic volatility.

That matters because the report links growth prospects to the ability to deliver value under pressure. On page 6, only 17% of companies are described as in “high growth”, while 63% report moderate growth and 21% expect moderate or high contraction. Eight in ten companies therefore expect at least moderate growth, but the standout point is not exuberance. It is restraint. The report presents 2025 as a year of cautious forward movement rather than broad-based acceleration.

The priority data reinforces that interpretation. Revenue growth and profitability top the list of business priorities, but leaders also rank managing market volatility, investor expectations, business transformation, culture and workforce capability very highly. On page 7, the actions executives say they are taking include growing the business, launching products, adjusting governance structures, navigating AI, diversifying supply chains and responding more actively to policy and regulatory issues. So the report portrays growth not as a return to normal expansion, but as something that must be actively defended and engineered amid instability.

5. What are the report’s implications for communication and public affairs teams?

The clearest implication is that corporate communications and public affairs functions are becoming more strategically important, but many organisations are not yet confident that those teams are equipped for the task. On page 7, only 17% of executives say their communications and public affairs functions are “well equipped” to keep pace with rapid change, while 13% say their confidence in those functions has decreased. The report therefore identifies a capability gap at exactly the point where volatility makes communication, public affairs and reputation management more consequential.

The practical implications are spelled out most fully on page 8 in the “new rules” section. The report argues that value creation must start at the top, that CEOs need to prepare now for future volatility, that organisations must actively manage controllable volatility such as mis- and disinformation, that AI should support decision-making, and that the policy environment will become more demanding in 2025. In effect, communications is being repositioned from a downstream messaging function to an upstream strategic capability that helps leadership sense, interpret and respond to threats and expectations.

For a communications reader, the most significant underlying message is this: communicators are not merely being asked to explain value after the fact. They are increasingly expected to help organisations define value, map stakeholder expectations, detect volatility early, prepare response systems, and support CEO judgement in real time. At the same time, the report suggests that many firms have not yet invested enough in these capabilities. So its conclusion is both elevating and cautionary: communications teams are needed more than ever, but they must upskill and become more operationally strategic if they are to meet the expectations being placed on them.

One caution is worth noting. Because the report is based on a relatively short survey of 200 leaders and is presented in a highly synthesised, infographic-style format, it is better read as a directional executive sentiment study than as a deeply elaborated academic analysis. Even so, it offers a clear and useful picture of how senior leaders are framing the challenge of 2025: deliver growth and stakeholder value, but do so in a world where volatility is persistent, political and increasingly external to managerial control.

30 January 2025
2025 Edelman Trust Barometer by Edelman

About the paper

The report is an original research study based on Edelman’s 25th annual online survey of the general population, examining global trust and what it calls a growing “crisis of grievance”.

Fieldwork ran from 25 October to 16 November 2024 across 28 countries, with more than 33,000 respondents in total and country samples ranging from 1,150 to 2,124; the geographic scope is global, spanning markets in North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

The methodology is clearly stated, though some analyses exclude certain countries or rely on adjustments because of question sensitivity or translation issues, and the report notes that in lower-internet-penetration countries the online sample may skew younger, more urban and more affluent.

Length: 78 pages

More information / download:
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer

Core Insights

1. What is the central argument of the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer?

The report’s core argument is that a long run of institutional failures has produced not just scepticism, but a deeper and more combustible public mood: grievance. Edelman’s framing is that trust is no longer the only issue. The bigger problem is that many people now feel that business, government and the wealthy operate for the benefit of a select few, while ordinary people bear the costs. That sense of unfairness is presented as the defining context for public trust in 2025.

The report argues that this grievance mindset has material consequences. It erodes trust across institutions, darkens expectations for the future, increases acceptance of zero-sum thinking, and creates a harsher environment for leadership, public discourse and social cohesion. Its conclusion is that the challenge is not merely reputational. It is social, economic and political: when people believe the system is rigged, trust falls, optimism fades and conflict becomes easier to justify.

2. What evidence does the report present that trust is fragile and that grievance is widespread?

Several findings build that case. Globally, the overall Trust Index is flat at 56, and the report’s headline on page 6 is that elections failed to improve trust. Among the 13 countries with national elections or leadership changes in the relevant period, only Argentina and South Africa saw significant trust gains. That supports Edelman’s view that political turnover by itself is not fixing the underlying problem.

The report also shows a broad climate of anxiety and disillusionment. Job insecurity fears rose across every threat measured, including recession, trade conflict, automation and lack of training. Employer trust, which had long been a relative bright spot, fell by 3 points globally to 75, which the report describes as an unprecedented global decline. Only 36% say the next generation will be better off, and in most developed countries fewer than one in five believe that. Fear of experiencing prejudice, discrimination or racism rose to an all-time high of 63 globally, up 10 points from 2024 in the countries tracked for that measure.

Most importantly, grievance itself is widespread. The report says 61% have a moderate or high sense of grievance against business, government and the rich, and majorities reach that level in 23 of the 26 countries included in the grievance analysis. High grievance is also linked to a far stronger zero-sum outlook: 53% of those with high grievance believe that what helps people with different politics comes at a cost to them, versus 23% among those with low grievance.

3. How does grievance reshape trust in institutions, leaders and technology?

This is where the report becomes especially sharp. Among people with low grievance, business, government, NGOs and media all sit in either trust or near-trust territory. Among those with high grievance, all four are distrusted: business falls to 42, government to 25, NGOs to 45 and media to 34. In other words, grievance does not just lower trust a little; it imposes a full-spectrum trust penalty.

The same pattern appears with business leaders and artificial intelligence. Trust in CEOs in general drops from 64 among those with low grievance to 30 among those with high grievance. Trust in one’s own CEO also falls sharply, from 72 to 51. Comfort with business use of AI declines from 50 to 29, while trust in AI falls from 56 to 34. The report’s message is that grievance makes people more suspicious not only of institutions, but also of the leaders and technologies associated with them.

It also deepens perceptions of institutional motive. On page 34, those with high grievance are much more likely to say news organisations would rather attract a large audience than tell people what they need to know, and more likely to believe media would support an ideology rather than inform the public. On page 35, the report finds that understanding ordinary people matters more for legitimacy than formal authority, especially among the highly aggrieved. That suggests a growing premium on empathy, fairness and lived relevance over status or office.

4. What does the report say about business, and why does it treat business differently from the other institutions?

Business occupies a complicated position in the report. On the one hand, it remains the most trusted institution globally at 62, ahead of NGOs at 58 and well ahead of government and media, both at 52. The report also argues that business is the only institution seen as both competent and ethical in its 2025 mapping, and it notes a 19-point increase in perceived business ethics since 2020 in the subset of countries used for that analysis.

On the other hand, that relative advantage does not amount to a free pass. The report shows that people with high grievance are more likely, not less, to say business is not going far enough on affordability, climate change, retraining, misinformation and discrimination. At the same time, there is very strong cross-group agreement that business is obliged to provide good-paying jobs in local communities and to train or reskill employees. That is one of the report’s most important implications: trust in business is conditional on practical contribution, not symbolic positioning.

The report also gives CEOs a circumscribed licence to act. Majorities say CEOs are justified in engaging on societal issues when they can make a major impact, improve business performance, protect stakeholders or address problems their business helped create. This is not an argument for unlimited corporate activism. It is a case for relevance, competence and accountability. Business has permission to lead where it can deliver, but not to pretend it can solve the crisis alone.

5. What broader conclusion does the report reach, and what are its practical implications?

Edelman’s larger conclusion is that grievance must be addressed at root level. The report does not argue that one better campaign, one election or one executive message will restore confidence. Instead, it says institutions need to rebuild trust by producing fairer outcomes, improving people’s economic prospects, strengthening skills, investing in communities and improving the quality of information. On its own summary page, the report reduces this to four ideas: grievances must be addressed, business has a licence to act, business cannot act alone, and trust can restore optimism.

That conclusion is reinforced by the relationship the report shows between trust, grievance and economic optimism. As trust rises across the nine-point trust spectrum, high grievance falls dramatically while optimism about one’s family’s economic future rises strongly. The implication is that trust is not treated here as a soft sentiment metric. It is positioned as a condition that supports social stability, confidence in the future and willingness to cooperate.

For communicators, the report points to a more demanding brief. People are less persuaded by authority alone and more focused on whether leaders understand them, whether institutions benefit them fairly, and whether claims are backed by visible action. That means communication cannot substitute for delivery. In this report’s logic, credibility now depends on whether institutions can show economic usefulness, fairness and genuine understanding of stakeholder reality.

21 January 2025
State of PR Measurement 2024 by Muck Rack

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.

5 November 2024
Global CommTech Report 2024 by Purposeful Relations

About the paper

The report presents original research on how public relations, communications and corporate affairs professionals think about and use AI and communication technology.

It is based on an online survey conducted via Microsoft Forms between July and September 2024, with 161 professionals surveyed across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America.

The data is global in scope, although the respondent mix is weighted towards Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

Length: 68 pages

More information / download:
https://purposefulrelations.com/global-commtech-report-2024/

Core Insights

1. What is the central argument of the report about AI and communication technology in public relations?

The report’s core argument is that the PR and communications profession recognises AI as a major issue, but is still responding too cautiously, too narrowly and too operationally. The authors argue that the sector understands AI mainly as a tool for efficiency rather than as a strategic force that will reshape professional practice, organisational decision-making and the wider social licence around AI use.

That argument appears early and runs throughout the report. The introduction says the industry sees AI as the “greatest challenge” but is not doing enough to address it. The executive summary repeats that pattern: AI is named as the top challenge, investment priority and training priority, yet actual preparedness remains weak. The report therefore frames the issue not as a lack of awareness, but as a gap between awareness and meaningful action.

A second part of the argument is that communications teams are at risk of repeating earlier mistakes made around digital change. The report explicitly warns that, just as the profession lagged on search and social media, it could also lag on AI unless it moves faster on policy, literacy, leadership and governance. It presents AI not just as another toolset, but as a development with effects comparable to an industrial revolution. That is a deliberately strong claim, and it is used to justify the urgency of the report’s recommendations.

Finally, the report argues that PR should not leave AI to technologists, lawyers or IT. Instead, it should play a central role in governance, ethics, stakeholder trust and organisational legitimacy. In other words, the profession’s real opportunity is not only to use AI more efficiently, but to shape how organisations adopt AI responsibly and credibly.

2. What do the findings reveal about how PR professionals currently understand and use AI?

The report shows that AI is now widely recognised as relevant, but that understanding of its value remains limited and uneven. Nearly half of respondents say AI skills are essential for communications professionals, and a broader majority rate them as important or essential. That suggests the profession no longer sees AI as marginal. However, the report repeatedly argues that respondents still associate AI mainly with simple, tactical uses rather than deeper strategic possibilities.

This becomes clear in the perceived benefits. Respondents most often cite saving time and improving productivity, while far fewer point to improving quality, boosting creativity, or enabling more advanced strategic work. The dominant mental model is therefore efficiency-led: AI helps people do existing tasks faster. The report sees that as too narrow, because it underplays AI’s role in insight, planning, forecasting, governance and relationship management.

The same pattern appears in how respondents think AI will affect practice areas. Many expect the biggest impact in consumer marketing communications, while far fewer expect major effects in crisis communications or public affairs. The authors interpret this as a misunderstanding of AI’s broader implications. In their view, the profession is over-associating AI with content production and underestimating how much it could reshape higher-stakes advisory and strategic work.

Actual use also reflects this early-stage maturity. Respondents report using AI most often for alternative content versions, content creation, brainstorming, monitoring, summaries and related tasks. But some areas reportedly “didn’t work well”, especially media outreach and research, which the report suggests may say as much about weak prompting, poor training or wrong tool choice as about AI’s actual limitations. The report also notes use of both personal and work AI tools, with ChatGPT the most prominent. One especially striking finding is that 66% say they have used personal AI tools for work. The authors treat this as a warning sign because it suggests shadow usage, weak governance and possible privacy or compliance risks.

So the overall picture is not one of rejection. It is one of partial adoption: interest is real, experimentation is happening, but the profession still tends to use AI as an assistant for tasks rather than as a source of strategic advantage.

3. What are the main organisational gaps and barriers preventing better use of AI and communication technology?

The report identifies two headline weaknesses around AI: policy and training. Sixty per cent of respondents say they do not have an AI policy, and only 43% say they have received AI training. The authors present those figures as the most urgent warning signs in the report. In their view, this means many teams are experimenting with AI without clear rules, formal literacy or strong organisational support.

Training itself also seems incomplete. Among those who have received it, most training is focused on practical use rather than ethics, safety or security. The report sees that as misaligned with the risk landscape, because respondents also identify legal, copyright, privacy and security concerns as the biggest AI challenges. In other words, the profession is worried about risk but is not training people proportionately on risk.

A related weakness is the lack of formal AI governance. Only about a third report that their team has an AI working group. The report suggests that this may mean either such groups do not exist or that communications is not represented in them. Either way, the implication is that PR is not consistently at the table where AI policy and practice are being shaped.

On the wider technology side, the biggest barriers are integration and capability. Three quarters cite difficulty integrating different systems, and two thirds cite the team’s ability to use technology effectively. Resistance to change also matters, but the report treats training and system complexity as the more structural obstacles. It argues that many organisations already pay for tools they do not fully use, which makes underuse and lack of upskilling a recurring theme.

There is also a leadership gap. Most respondents say there is no technology leader in their team. Where such leadership does exist, it often sits outside communications. The report sees that as a serious weakness because technology choices, adoption and governance are then shaped elsewhere, even though they increasingly affect communications performance directly.

Overall, the report’s diagnosis is that the main barriers are not merely technical. They are organisational: insufficient governance, weak literacy, fragmented systems, underused tools and a lack of ownership inside the communications function.

4. How does the report assess the broader state of communication technology adoption beyond AI?

Beyond AI, the report paints a fairly critical picture of the communications profession’s technology habits. Its broader claim is that many teams still rely on outdated, inefficient tools and workflows, especially spreadsheets and email, even when more suitable specialist tools exist.

This is most visible in relationship and task management. More than half of respondents say they use spreadsheets to manage relationships with contacts, and 43% say spreadsheets are their main way of managing projects and tasks. The report treats this as evidence that communications teams have not modernised core operational systems. It argues that these habits make teams less efficient, less collaborative and less capable of using data well.

The report also highlights inconsistent use of collaboration tools. Microsoft Teams appears to be the most common collaboration platform, but email remains heavily relied upon, which the report regards as a sign of outdated workflow culture. Likewise, even where organisations already subscribe to tools included in broader software suites, such as Microsoft Planner, adoption remains low. The authors interpret this as wasted investment: teams are paying for capabilities they neither configure nor train people to use properly.

At the same time, respondents do understand that communications technology matters. Media monitoring, media databases, content creation tools, collaboration systems and project management tools are all rated as important. So the issue is not that professionals deny the value of technology. The issue is that their actual tool choices and usage patterns often lag behind that stated recognition.

The report is especially pointed about agencies and consultancies. It says they continue to rate themselves as more competent than in-house teams at using and adopting technology, yet the wider evidence in the report suggests in-house teams are often ahead on training, policy and actual maturity. That creates an interesting contrast between self-perception and practice.

In short, the report sees broader comms-tech adoption as underdeveloped. The profession may be surrounded by tools, but it still often lacks the processes, discipline and leadership needed to turn those tools into real operational advantage.

5. What conclusions and practical implications does the report draw for the future of the profession?

The report’s conclusion is that doing nothing is no longer a viable option. It argues that AI and communication technology are not temporary trends but structural shifts that will affect every part of the profession. That leads to a clear practical message: communications teams must move from passive awareness and scattered experimentation to deliberate capability-building.

The immediate priorities are concrete. The report calls for organisations to develop AI policies, expand AI training, establish working groups, improve technology leadership and make better use of existing systems. It also recommends moving away from spreadsheet-led processes, improving collaboration and focusing technology investment on real pain points in workflows and decision-making.

But the implications go further than operational tidying-up. The report argues that senior leaders must engage personally with AI, not delegate it downward. It explicitly rejects the idea that AI is mainly for junior staff or content creators. Instead, the report suggests that AI can enhance senior advisory work in areas such as corporate affairs, crisis communications and stakeholder influence. That widens the significance of the findings: the future of the profession is not only about efficiency gains, but about whether experienced communicators can use AI to improve strategic judgement and organisational value.

There is also a normative conclusion. The profession, the report says, has a responsibility to help organisations secure the social licence to use AI. That means PR should contribute not just to messaging, but to ethical use, governance, transparency and public trust. This is arguably the report’s most ambitious claim: that AI could elevate the profession if communications leaders step into a broader role around legitimacy and responsible adoption.

So the final implication is twofold. On one level, the profession needs better tools, training and processes. On another, it needs a bigger sense of its own role. The report sees AI as both a capability challenge and a professional identity test. Teams that treat it only as automation will fall behind; teams that treat it as a strategic, ethical and organisational issue may strengthen their relevance.

9 October 2024
World PR Report 2023-2024 by ICCO

About the paper

The paper is a mixed-methods industry report on the state and direction of the global PR agency sector, covering growth, AI, talent, ethics, measurement, client demands, and workplace issues.

The core dataset is an online survey of 268 PR professionals across eight regions, supplemented by a focus group of senior leaders from PROI Worldwide agencies in a dozen countries and a short excerpt from the Global Women in PR Annual Index; the report states fieldwork for the global survey took place between August and September 2020, which is unusual for a 2023–2024 edition and should be treated as stated rather than clarified.

Length: 67 pages

More information / download:
https://iccopr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ICCO-report-2023-interactive.pdf

Core Insights

1. What is the report’s central argument about the current state of the global PR industry?

The report’s main argument is that the global PR industry remains fundamentally optimistic and growth-oriented, but that this optimism sits alongside real structural pressure. The industry believes it can grow, invest, and adapt, yet it is doing so in a context marked by economic uncertainty, fee pressure, talent strain, misinformation, and changing client expectations.

That duality runs through the whole report. On one side, 96% of organisations say they expect to grow over the next five years, and the average optimism score for PR market growth is 7.0. On the other side, the two biggest near-term challenges are general economic conditions and clients unwilling to commit sufficient funds, both cited by 42% of respondents. The report therefore does not paint a triumphalist picture. It presents PR as a sector that is resilient and ambitious, but also under pressure to prove value, modernise its skills, and defend margins.

The tone is especially revealing: the report repeatedly suggests that PR is moving into a more strategic and consequential role, but that this role is not guaranteed. It has to be earned through better consulting capability, stronger measurement, technological adaptation, and more credible ethical conduct. In that sense, the report is not just describing industry conditions. It is urging the profession to mature.

2. Why does AI occupy such a dominant place in the report, and what does that suggest about the future of PR work?

AI dominates the report because it is treated as the clearest symbol of the industry’s current transition. The report frames AI not as a niche tool or isolated trend, but as the defining force reshaping future relevance, future skills, and future operating models. 86% of respondents rank AI among the top three most relevant technologies for the future of their business, 59% say they have already integrated AI tools into everyday processes, and 96% believe AI will have a significant impact on the PR industry.

What is especially important is that the report links AI to three different kinds of change. First, it links AI to efficiency: the top expected application of new technology is “operating more efficiently” at 55%. Second, it links AI to content and workflow change: multimedia content creation rises sharply as an area likely to be affected. Third, it links AI to capability change: “mastery of AI tools” becomes the single most important future skill set, ahead of strategic consulting.

That suggests the future of PR work will be shaped by a tension between automation and strategic value. Routine production, analysis, and content tasks are likely to become faster and more scalable. But the report does not imply that technology replaces strategic judgement. In fact, strategic consulting remains near the top of growth areas and skill priorities. So the deeper implication is that PR professionals will need to combine technical fluency with higher-order advisory work. AI raises the floor for efficiency, but also raises the bar for strategic differentiation.

3. What does the report identify as the main growth opportunities for PR agencies, and what do those opportunities have in common?

The main growth opportunities cluster around three themes: strategic value, sustainability-related work, and technology-linked demand. In expected growth areas, strategic consulting ranks first at 47%, followed by corporate reputation at 40% and purpose/CSR at 38%. In expected sectors of growth, IT and technology leads at 49%, followed by financial and professional services at 40% and healthcare at 39%. In expected areas of investment, ESG comes first at 49%.

These opportunities have a common logic: they are all areas where PR moves beyond tactical publicity and towards business-critical advisory work. Strategic consulting implies deeper involvement in organisational decision-making. Corporate reputation and purpose work imply longer-term, stakeholder-based value creation. ESG and sustainability work imply communication at the intersection of business performance, legitimacy, and public expectation. Even technology-sector growth is not presented as mere sectoral luck; it reflects where complexity, innovation, and narrative demand are highest.

The report also makes clear that clients’ priority issues reinforce this trend. Sustainability and environment is by far the top social issue clients are likely to prioritise, at 69%. That means agencies are likely to grow where they can help organisations explain, justify, and operationalise their role in society, not just where they can generate coverage.

So the big picture is that the strongest opportunities lie in areas where PR can claim strategic relevance to business outcomes, legitimacy, and adaptation to major external pressures.

4. What are the report’s biggest warnings or criticisms of the industry itself?

The report’s sharpest criticism is that the industry still too often fails to measure what matters. Measurement and analytics are clearly seen as important, and AMEC usage is growing, but outdated and invalid practices still remain. Most notably, 34% say AVE is a likely client request, even though the report explicitly describes AVE as a discredited and invalid metric. It argues that this creates a disconnect between clients’ stated objectives, such as improving reputation, increasing sales, and building brand purpose, and the weaker metrics often used in practice.

That criticism is about more than metrics. It is really about professional credibility. The report suggests that if PR continues to rely on activity measures, media clippings, or flawed proxies, it risks looking busy rather than valuable. The language is unusually direct: there are “no excuses” for failing to demonstrate impact properly.

A second warning concerns ethics. The report shows significant concern about misinformation and about the lack of consequences for unethical behaviour. It also shows uneven commitment to codes of conduct across regions. The message is that PR cannot claim a serious advisory role while tolerating weak ethical enforcement.

A third criticism concerns talent and inclusion. The report notes progress in DEI policy and mental health support, but it also shows a gap between having policies and actually reflecting the diversity of the public served. That is a subtle but important critique: formal commitments are not the same as substantive change.

Taken together, the report’s warnings are aimed inward. They suggest the industry’s external opportunity depends on internal discipline.

5. What broader conclusion does the report reach about what PR agencies must do next to remain credible and competitive?

The broader conclusion is that PR agencies must become more strategically useful, more technologically capable, and more professionally accountable at the same time. The report does not suggest that one of these is enough on its own. Growth will not come simply from adopting AI, or from talking about ESG, or from improving wellbeing policies in isolation. The argument is that future success depends on integrating these elements into a stronger model of agency value.

That means, first, agencies must improve the quality of their counsel. Strategic consulting, corporate reputation, ESG, and purpose all rank highly because clients increasingly need advisors, not only executors. Second, agencies must upgrade skills, especially around AI, analytics, and advisory work. Third, they must strengthen the way they prove outcomes, because measurement is central both to reporting and to budget justification. Fourth, they must deal more seriously with ethics, misinformation, and trust. And fifth, they must look after their people, because retention, motivation, and development are major vulnerabilities.

The report’s final implication is that PR’s future is not mainly about media relations becoming digital or content becoming faster. It is about whether agencies can position themselves as credible partners in navigating uncertainty. Economic volatility, climate pressure, AI disruption, and trust erosion all make communication more central to organisational success. But they also make superficial PR less defensible. The path ahead, as the report sees it, is open, but only for agencies that can match optimism with capability.

One caveat worth noting from the report itself: the methodology is not fully transparent in every respect. The survey sample and regions are stated, and the report includes a separate PROI focus group contribution, but the reported survey fieldwork date appears inconsistent with the edition year. That does not invalidate the report, but it does mean the methodological framing should be treated with some caution.

5 December 2023
2023 Future of Corporate Communications Study by Edelman

About the paper

The paper is a mixed-methods corporate communications study from Edelman, combining a quantitative survey with qualitative interviews to assess how the communications function is evolving after the pandemic.

The report states that it surveyed 218 C-level communications leaders in June 2023 and conducted 20+ in-depth interviews in July and August 2023, with respondents drawn from U.S.-based Fortune 500 and Forbes Global 1000 organisations; the sample is therefore primarily U.S.-focused, even though many of the companies have national, multinational, or global reach.

Length: 30 pages

More information / download:
https://www.edelman.com/2023-future-of-corporate-comms

Core Insights

1. How does the report argue that the role of corporate communications has changed in recent years?

The report’s central argument is that corporate communications has moved from being a mainly executional support function to becoming a strategic leadership function. Edelman presents this as a post-pandemic shift: communications leaders are no longer merely helping to deliver decisions once taken, but are increasingly involved in shaping enterprise decisions before they are finalised.

The report says this shift is visible both in perception and in practice. Half of CCOs now see themselves as strategic advisers to business leaders, up from just over a third in 2021, while only 10% still feel stuck in a cost-centre position, down from 30% two years earlier. It also says that 64% are brought into major business decisions when the decision path is still tentative, compared with only 9% who are consulted after decisions have already been made.

In other words, the function is portrayed as operating at the intersection of value creation and risk mitigation. Communications is not just reacting to reputational threats; it is being expected to anticipate them, interpret stakeholder expectations, and influence strategy across the enterprise. That is the report’s strongest framing of the profession’s future.

2. What evidence does the report provide that communications leaders are under growing pressure, even as their strategic status rises?

A key tension in the report is that greater influence has come with greater pressure, but not necessarily with matching support. The report says nearly 80% of communications leaders feel their role is more demanding than it was 12 months earlier, and 77% say their CEO demands more of them than a year ago. It also notes that CCOs spend nearly one-fifth of their time counselling the CEO on non-communications matters, which underlines how far the remit has stretched.

At the same time, resources are not keeping pace. The report says 44% of communications leaders do not believe their CEO understands the resources needed to shape enterprise decision-making or execute communications programmes successfully. Budget expectations have also softened: 40% expect their budgets to increase, compared with more than half in 2021, while 28% expect flat budgets and 30% expect moderate cuts.

This matters because the report treats communications as a function being asked to do more with uncertain backing. It is expected to cover an expanding range of stakeholders, manage a broader mandate, and prove business value more clearly, yet it still struggles to secure stable investment. One of the report’s recurring assumptions is that communications still has not fully solved the challenge of linking its work to measurable business outcomes.

3. Why does the report place so much emphasis on data, technology, and organisational structure?

The report argues that modern communications can no longer rely mainly on instinct, media experience, or message craft. Instead, it says an advanced communications function must be built around actionable data: stakeholder signals, behavioural insights, monitoring, analytics, and social listening. This is presented as essential because senior leadership now expects communications to bring evidence-based insight into decision-making, not just narrative support.

That logic also drives the report’s discussion of structure. Edelman says the proportion of leaders reporting a centralised communications structure has grown sharply since 2021, because centralisation helps organisations gather intelligence more holistically, reduce silos, and respond to risk more consistently. On that basis, the report implies that organisational design is not a side issue; it is part of how communications earns strategic credibility.

Technology sits within the same argument. The report says 56% believe AI is already affecting their business, and 44% say they are investing more heavily in communications technology than the year before. But it does not present technology as a simple productivity win. It also highlights integration problems, rapid change, and ongoing concerns around privacy, policy, and ethics. The report’s perspective is quite clear here: tools matter, but their value depends on interpretation, application, and the ability of the function to use data intelligently.

4. How does the report explain the growing importance of employees and corporate purpose in communications?

One of the report’s most important arguments is that reputation now begins inside the organisation. Employees are presented as the most consequential stakeholder group because they are closest to value creation, can advocate for or against the company, and shape how external stakeholders perceive the business. On the chart on page 17, employees are shown as the stakeholder group putting the most pressure on organisations to act on social issues, ahead of investors, NGOs, regulators, media, and consumers.

The report also stresses that “employees” are not a single, uniform audience. It points to a five-generation workforce, differing expectations about work, and rising tension between leadership and younger workers, especially Gen Z. As a result, communications is increasingly held accountable for outcomes such as employee engagement, employer brand, retention, and DEI. In fact, the report says 60% expect employee engagement to be the single most important outcome their function must deliver over the next two years.

Corporate purpose is then positioned as the framework that helps organisations navigate this more complex internal environment. The report says communications teams are heavily involved in clearly communicating purpose, fostering meaning among employees, and, in some cases, ensuring purpose shapes strategy itself. So purpose is not treated here as branding language alone; it is framed as a practical decision-making compass and a guardrail for when companies should act on social or socioeconomic issues.

5. What does the report suggest will define the future agenda for corporate communications?

The future agenda, according to the report, will be defined by three overlapping pressures: technology and AI, ESG and sustainability politics, and geopolitical volatility. On AI, the report suggests communicators must help build the business case for adoption while understanding the operational and ethical risks. On ESG, it argues that despite political backlash, especially in the U.S., integration of ESG into communications strategy remains strong, with 76% saying ESG is mostly or fully integrated.

On geopolitics, the report is especially forward-looking. It argues that elections, polarisation, disinformation, labour activism, and broader geopolitical instability will all have growing reputational and business consequences. That is why it repeatedly calls for stronger cross-functional working, especially with sustainability, investor relations, HR, legal, and government affairs.

The broader conclusion is that tomorrow’s CCO will have to be a cross-enterprise integrator: someone who can read stakeholder dynamics, translate them into business implications, and help the organisation act with clarity and credibility. The report assumes that winning trust, internally and externally, will be the defining competitive task for communications. But it also implies that success will depend on whether the function can prove value, secure resources, and combine judgement with data more effectively than in the past.

30 September 2023
Global CommTech Report 2023 by Purposeful Relations

About the paper

The report examines how public relations and communications professionals think about, use, and plan to invest in communication technology and AI.

It is based on original research from an online survey run between December 2022 and March 2023 using the Stickybeak chatbot research tool, with 329 PR and communications professionals surveyed and 160 completing all questions.

The data is global in scope, covering respondents from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, North America, and Latin America, although the sample was recruited through the organisers’ and partners’ networks, so it is not presented as a representative global sample.

Length: 55 pages

More information / download:
https://purposefulrelations.com/global-commtech-report-2023/

Core Insights

1. What is the report’s central argument about the current state of comms technology in PR and communications?

The report’s central argument is that there is a substantial gap between how competent PR and communications professionals believe they are with technology and how they actually use it in practice. The authors repeatedly suggest that many teams overestimate their digital maturity while still relying on basic, often inefficient tools for core work.

This “reality gap” is the backbone of the report. More than half of respondents say they are very or extremely competent with their current communication technology, yet the underlying usage data points to widespread under-adoption of fit-for-purpose systems. The report highlights, for example, that 41% use spreadsheets to manage project tasks, only 46% use CRM software, and 39% use spreadsheets to manage contacts. That pattern implies that many teams are still handling critical workflows through improvised or outdated methods rather than through dedicated platforms.

The broader meaning is that PR and communications has not yet modernised to the extent its own practitioners may believe. The report argues that the profession has missed earlier waves of innovation, including SEO and social media, and now risks falling behind again unless it improves its grasp of data, analytics, workflow systems, and AI. In that sense, the report is both a diagnostic study and a call for acceleration.

2. What does the study show about how PR teams actually use technology, and where are the biggest weaknesses?

The study shows that adoption is strongest in traditional, familiar categories and weakest in areas that support workflow discipline, relationship management, and integrated operations. Respondents rate media monitoring and social listening, collaboration and messaging, content creation and production, and social media publishing as highly important. By contrast, planning, project and task management, and especially CRM, appear much less embedded in practice.

Three weaknesses stand out in particular. First, project and task management is underdeveloped. Almost half of respondents are not using proper project management software, with 41% relying on spreadsheets and 6% on paper. That suggests a profession still managing complex, collaborative work through tools not designed for that purpose.

Second, contact and relationship management is weak. Fewer than half use CRM software, while nearly four in ten use spreadsheets as a pseudo-database for contacts. For a field built around relationships with journalists, stakeholders, communities, regulators, and others, the report treats this as a particularly telling weakness.

Third, there is a fragmentation problem. Teams use a wide mix of tools, and the report identifies integration difficulties as one of the biggest barriers to effective use of technology. This matters because even when tools are present, disconnected systems can prevent efficiency gains. The report’s implicit point is that digital maturity is not just about buying more tools; it is about coherent systems, trained teams, and better workflows.

3. How does the report portray the role of AI, data, analytics, and measurement in the future of the profession?

The report presents AI, data, analytics, and measurement as central to the future of PR and communications, not as side issues. AI is seen overwhelmingly as an opportunity rather than a threat, while analytics and data are rated as the strongest opportunity area of all. Measurement and evaluation is identified as the most important emerging skill for the future, followed closely by data science and analytics.

This is important because the report ties future relevance not just to faster content production, but to better insight, better planning, and better decision-making. Several sections argue that communications teams need to move beyond using technology only for monitoring, publishing, and content support. The more strategic opportunity lies in using technology to generate insight, improve accountability, model outcomes, and support governance and reputation management.

At the same time, the report suggests that the profession is not fully ready. Although respondents recognise the importance of these capabilities, recruitment is difficult in precisely these areas, and many teams still struggle with basic data use, technology adoption, and evaluation practice. The report also notes that understanding of the ethics of AI and communication technology is uneven. So while the future direction is clear, the transition remains incomplete.

4. What differences does the study identify between agency and in-house respondents?

The most striking difference is the contrast between confidence and actual practice. Agency respondents rate themselves more highly than in-house respondents when it comes to using existing technology and identifying new tools. However, the report suggests that this confidence is not always matched by stronger adoption in practice. In some areas, in-house teams appear more advanced.

For example, 64% of agency respondents say they are very or extremely competent in using their current technology stack, compared with 44% of in-house respondents. Similarly, 67% of agency respondents say they are competent at identifying and adopting new communication technology, against 52% of in-house respondents. Yet when specific use cases are examined, agencies are not clearly ahead. In-house practitioners are shown as more likely to recognise the importance of project planning and task management, for instance.

There are also differences in spending patterns and organisational context. In-house teams face more complex decision-making, with procurement, finance, and IT more involved in technology investment. They are also more likely to be increasing investment in owned media and content creation, and 23% are cutting spending on external agencies. That hints at a structural shift: in-house functions may be building more capability internally, which could put pressure on agency fee models, particularly in content-related services.

5. What are the report’s main implications for the PR and communications industry?

The report’s main implication is that the profession needs a broader and more disciplined approach to digital transformation. Its message is not simply “buy more tech.” Instead, it argues that teams need to audit existing tools, improve training, integrate systems, build a better measurement culture, and treat data and analytics as core capabilities rather than specialist extras.

A second implication is that efficiency pressures are becoming strategic pressures. Budget is seen as the biggest challenge facing teams, yet the report argues that better use of technology can help address budget pressure by improving productivity and effectiveness. In that sense, comms technology is framed ոչ only as an operational aid but as a lever for resilience in tougher economic conditions.

A third implication concerns the evolving shape of professional value. The report suggests that automation and AI will reduce time spent on routine tasks and may weaken traditional agency billing models based on labour time, especially in content creation. That pushes both in-house teams and agencies towards higher-value work rooted in insight, prediction, relationship management, and strategic counsel. Several contributors describe a future in which communications professionals must become more analytical, more technologically fluent, and more ethically confident.

Finally, the report implies that culture matters as much as software. One of its consistent themes is that adoption barriers often come down to skills, training, resistance to change, and weak governance rather than lack of tools alone. The industry therefore needs not just new platforms, but new habits, clearer frameworks, and stronger professional development.

5 June 2023
2021 Future of Corporate Communications Study by Edelman

About the paper

The report examines how the corporate communications function is evolving from a transactional support role into a more strategic business partner, focusing on priorities, structures, capabilities, investment, and reporting lines.

It is a mixed-methods original research report based on a quantitative survey of 200 participants fielded in December 2020 and January 2021, plus 35+ in-depth interviews with senior communications leaders from participating U.S.-based organisations.

The dataset is globally distributed but heavily North America-led, with survey geographies reported as North America (85%), EMEA (7%), APAC (4%), and Latin America (4%); interview participants were drawn from U.S.-based organisations.

Length: 76 pages

More information / download:
https://www.edelman.com/expertise/commstech/2021-Future-of-Corporate-Comms-Research

Core Insights

1. What is the central argument of the report about the future role of corporate communications?

The report’s core argument is that corporate communications is moving up the strategic continuum, from being treated as a cost centre or executional service provider to becoming a value-generating business partner. Edelman argues that external disruption, especially the pandemic, social issues, business transformation, and a more complex stakeholder environment, has increased the strategic importance of communications inside organisations. The report presents this not as a marginal shift, but as a structural change in what senior communicators are expected to do.

A major theme is that communications is no longer just about media relations, messaging, and storytelling. Instead, the function is increasingly expected to help shape decisions on risk, workforce issues, reputation, transformation, social purpose, and stakeholder trust. The report says this has brought communicators closer to CEOs, boards, and the C-suite, with 46% now reporting to the CEO versus 34% in 2014, and 77% saying perceptions of communications as a strategic business driver changed within their organisation during 2020.

At the same time, the report is careful not to suggest that this evolution is complete. It repeatedly notes that progress is uneven. Some organisations still see communications in largely reactive or transactional terms, and maturity varies by industry, geography, and leadership culture. So the report’s argument is both optimistic and cautionary: the opportunity is real, but it has to be claimed and proved.

2. What forces are driving this shift in corporate communications?

The report identifies several forces pushing communications into a more strategic role. COVID-19 is presented as the immediate accelerator. It increased the visibility and relevance of communications, especially around employee engagement, business continuity, internal alignment, and executive decision-making. More than half of respondents said COVID-19 shifted the communications focus and demand on their function, with employee communications emerging as the most strongly affected area.

Beyond the pandemic, the report highlights business transformation as the most important long-term driver, cited by 77% of respondents, followed by social issues at 73%, customer or consumer demand shifts at 56%, and talent at 38%. This matters because it frames communications not as a function reacting to one crisis, but as one increasingly embedded in permanent organisational change. Communicators are being pulled into transformation programmes, social issue response, workforce strategy, and stakeholder trust management.

The report also stresses the importance of the changing media and information ecosystem. Social media, digital channels, and faster news cycles have altered how organisations reach stakeholders and how quickly reputational issues can escalate. That has expanded the role of communications into digital, content, creative, analytics, and more direct coordination with marketing. In other words, the environment has become too fast, fragmented, and high-stakes for communications to remain a back-end support function.

3. How does the report say the communications function itself needs to change in order to meet these expectations?

The report argues that strategic credibility starts inside the function. Communications teams need to change how they think about themselves, how they organise, and what capabilities they prioritise. The report contrasts an older model built around reactive storytelling and service delivery with a newer model based on strategic planning, business acumen, insights, measurable outcomes, and multidisciplinary collaboration.

A recurring theme is that the modern function must be agile, multidisciplinary, and insights-driven. Teams can no longer rely only on classic PR strengths such as writing, media contacts, and message development. They now need broader capability across employee communications, risk and crisis, brand and corporate positioning, change communications, digital, creative, data, and analytics. The report explicitly describes the ideal talent profile as “T-shaped”: people with deep expertise in one area, but enough breadth to work across multiple strategic contexts.

The report also argues that relationship-building with senior leadership is essential. Functions that are seen as more strategic have typically earned closer CEO and C-suite access, often by combining stronger counsel with better evidence of impact. It recommends integrated strategic planning, clearer governance, clearer roles, and more consultative team behaviour. The implication is that structural change alone is not enough. A communications team only becomes strategic when it shows business understanding, connects its work to organisational goals, and consistently executes at a high level.

4. What does the report reveal about investment priorities, technology, and capability gaps?

One of the clearest findings is that expectations are rising faster than resources. The report says communicators are being asked to do more, across more areas, with stronger proof of business value, but many are not receiving proportional budget increases. It notes that only 6% of CCOs expected a budget increase of 15% or more, while 45% anticipated a budget decrease or no change in the coming year. Later benchmarking pages show a similar tension, with 54% expecting some increase but 46% expecting budgets to stay flat or decline.

Within that constrained environment, CommsTech emerges as the headline investment priority. The report defines this as the tools, technology, and data that allow communicators to target, measure, and shape perceptions and behaviour. Seventy percent said CommsTech was a top investment area, and the report positions it as central to proving ROI and connecting communications work to business results. But it also shows that adoption is still immature: 44% report baseline media-impression measurement, yet only 30% map revenue growth back to communications activity.

The report is especially useful in showing why adoption is slow. Barriers include difficulty justifying large tech investments, weak support from CEOs or business leaders, IT ownership conflicts, poor collaboration with marketing and sales, and internal team struggles to adopt digital tools and analytics. So the report is not simply making a pro-technology argument. It is saying that technology only matters if organisations also invest in skills, processes, governance, and data fluency. Capability gaps in change communications, analytics, and ESG are also singled out as emerging needs.

5. What are the main implications and conclusions for communications leaders and organisations?

The report’s main conclusion is that this is a pivotal moment for the communications profession. The external environment has created an opening for communications leaders to claim a more central role in business strategy, but doing so requires deliberate change. Communicators must demonstrate business acumen, link activity to outcomes, invest in specialist capability, and speak the language of strategy, ROI, and performance. In the report’s framing, the opportunity will not convert automatically into influence. It has to be operationalised.

For organisations and CEOs, the implication is equally strong. If they want communications to function as a true strategic partner, they need to bring it into decisions earlier, provide closer access to leadership, resource it properly, and recognise reputation, trust, employee engagement, and stakeholder alignment as business-critical issues rather than peripheral concerns. The report even suggests that some companies are beginning to elevate reputation into shared business goals and leadership accountability.

The report’s final perspective is practical rather than theoretical. Across its “playbook” sections, it repeatedly returns to six or seven concrete ideas: have a clear vision for the function, align communications with business strategy, combine planning with insight, improve governance and process, build multidisciplinary teams, invest in people and specialist skills, and prove impact through measurement. That makes the report less a prediction document than a management guide for how communicators can turn heightened relevance into durable strategic authority.

21 September 2021
Securing your spot on the Top 100 PR Influencer Index
What does it take to truely become an influencer in the public relations industry? The internet is awash with lists and rankings of dubious validity and methodology that tempts us to ‘game the system’ to improve our ranking – such as repeatedly autoposting the same hashtags or buying a large following (don’t do that, please).

The Top 100 PR Influencer Index

Recently, Commetric published their brand new PR Influencer Index, and I was intrigued because the top 3 people on the list have only a relatively tiny following of fans – fewer than 35,000 each. So what was going on? Is Reach no longer important?

My curiosity spurred me to invite Maya Koleva, Commetric’s Head of Research & Insight, to join me in a conversation about the methodology behind the Index, hoping to glean some insight into what makes an influencer influential.

Maya provided a lot of juicy information, most of which you will have to watch the video to get. But for starters, if you hope to make the Top 100 list in the future you need to:
- Have a minimum of 5,000 followers (real ones). This is the minimum definition of a ‘micro influencer’, so at 2,794 I still have a ways to go (but please feel free to follow me for insights about PR measurement).
- Have a Twitter bio in English with some of the relevant key words – this gets your foot in the door for the primary sample
- An alternative to the bio key words is to engage frequently on Twitter with PR trade media such as PRovoke Media (former Holmes Report), PRNews or PRMoment.
- Use a personal account – sorry, no organisations, companies etc. make the cut
- Focus your effort on replying and engaging others in interesting conversations. You won’t become a recognized influencer by continuously blasting out tweets that get limited engagement – or if you ignore the responses you get.
Basically, the methodology behind Commetric’s PR Influencer Index rewards being part of a vibrant network, engaging in true conversations, sharing valuable and relevant content, and not forming ‘opinion bubbles’. This is expressed in the Centrality Score, which is a part of the methodology, which Maya explains in the video below.

Form your own influencer strategy

What do you think of Commetric’s methodology and strong emphasis on network centrality and engagement rather than (massive) reach? Will it influence (pun intended) your personal strategy to achieve Influencer status?

Not sure if you are already in the Top 100 PR Influencer Index? Revisit the full list here.
11 May 2021