Tag: trends

  • State of the Profession 2026 by CIPR

    State of the Profession 2026 by CIPR

    About the paper

    CIPR’s State of the Profession 2026 is original survey research on working conditions, activities, AI use, recruitment, pay, professional challenges, polarisation and inclusion in public relations.

    Chalkstream conducted an online survey for CIPR from 13 April to 4 May 2026, receiving 738 responses, of which 573 were complete; 88% of respondents were UK-based and 12% were based outside the UK.

    The 2026 sample is older, more senior and contains more agency, consultancy and independent practitioners than previous waves, so year-on-year comparisons, particularly on income, activities and AI, should be treated with caution.

    Length: 75 pages

    More information/download: https://newsroom.cipr.co.uk/organisations-more-cautious-about-taking-public-positions-compared-to-five-years-ago-ciprs-2026-state-of-the-profession-report-reveals/

    Core Insights

    1. What overall picture does the report paint of the PR profession in 2026?

    The central picture is not of a profession moving uniformly in one direction, but of one experiencing the same pressures very differently depending on sector, seniority, age and geography.

    Employment conditions illustrate this split clearly. Agencies and consultancies appear comparatively buoyant: 49% say they are growing, up from 38% in 2024. In-house teams look much weaker, with only 21% reporting growth, down from 33%, while 65% describe their teams as stable and 13% as shrinking. Confidence in future growth is correspondingly low. Among in-house respondents, 42% are not at all confident that their team will grow over the next 12 months, rising to 46% in the public sector.

    The profession’s day-to-day work combines continuity with some movement towards more strategic responsibilities. Copywriting and editing remains the most commonly reported activity, cited by 52% of practitioners, as it has been throughout the series since at least 2018. Strategic planning has moved into second place at 41%, followed by PR programmes and campaigns at 38%, community and stakeholder relations and media relations at 36% each. The report cautions, however, that the apparent rise of strategic planning may partly reflect the more senior 2026 sample.

    The perceived challenges facing the profession have also shifted. Fake news and disinformation is now the most commonly identified challenge, cited by 54%, replacing AI, which falls to second place at 49%. The expanding skill set expected of individual practitioners comes third at 39%. Concerns about professional status have also re-emerged: 34% cite PR not being seen as a professional discipline, returning the issue to the top five.

    Taken together, the report portrays a profession whose traditional work has not disappeared, but whose operating environment has become more difficult. Practitioners are simultaneously dealing with technological change, disinformation, expanding skills expectations, polarised public debate and uneven organisational investment in communication.

    2. What does the study reveal about the adoption of AI, and where are the largest gaps between use, confidence and governance?

    AI has become a normal part of professional practice, but the report finds a striking gap between widespread adoption and much more ambivalent attitudes towards its value.

    Eighty-two percent of practitioners use AI at least occasionally for work. Regular use remains unchanged from 2024 at 45%, but occasional use has risen from 28% to 37%, while the proportion saying they have never used AI has fallen from 8% to just 3%. Use is therefore close to universal, even though intensive use has not increased.

    Practitioners also report substantial practical benefits. Eighty-six percent say AI has improved the speed with which they complete tasks, and 75% say it has improved their ability to concentrate on higher-value or more strategic work. The evidence is more mixed when it comes to quality: 55% report a positive effect on the quality of their work, 48% on consistency and personalisation, and only 37% on the quality of decision-making.

    The attitudes data reveals an important tension. Seventy-one percent feel confident in their ability to adapt to AI-related changes, and 81% believe the skills that make PR professionals valuable cannot be replicated by AI. Yet only 47% believe AI will improve the overall quality of PR work. Thirty-four per cent regard AI as a threat to the profession, while 76% believe AI-generated content risks damaging trust in public relations.

    Governance has not fully caught up with adoption. Although 66% say their organisation has an AI policy, 24% of users report having no formal policy or guidance on which tools may be used. A third say they have used unapproved AI tools at work. Sixty percent have received AI training.

    There is also a weak link between organisations and their external suppliers. Among in-house practitioners who use agencies or independents, half have never asked them about their use of AI. Looking from the supplier side, 49% of agencies and independents say clients have not asked them about AI use at all, while only 5% say most or all clients ask.

    Sector differences are pronounced. Private-sector and agency practitioners tend to be the most positive and confident about AI. The public sector has the strongest policy and training structures: 79% report an organisational AI policy and 67% have received training. Not-for-profit and NGO practitioners appear comparatively exposed, with lower confidence, weaker policy coverage and greater concern about AI as a threat.

    The report therefore suggests that PR has moved beyond the question of whether AI will be adopted. The more important issue is now whether organisations can develop governance, skills and professional standards quickly enough to match the level of actual use.

    3. What does the report say about employment, recruitment and income, and how reliable are the apparent changes?

    The labour-market findings point to a growing divide between agencies and in-house communication functions.

    Nearly half of agencies and consultancies report that they are growing, compared with just over one-fifth of in-house teams. Agency respondents are also substantially more optimistic about the future: 46% are moderately or extremely confident that their organisation will grow over the next year, compared with only 21% of in-house practitioners.

    The differences are sharpest in the public sector. Forty-six percent of public-sector respondents are not at all confident about team growth over the next 12 months, compared with 34% in the private sector and 44% in not-for-profits and NGOs.

    The survey also finds changes in working patterns. Thirteen percent of respondents work part-time, compared with 7% in 2024. CIPR cautions against interpreting this as evidence of a profession-wide move towards part-time employment because independent practitioners, who are particularly likely to work part-time, make up a larger share of the 2026 sample.

    The same caveat matters considerably for salaries. Average full-time income is reported at £64,817, 22% above the 2024 figure of £53,052 and the highest recorded in the series. But the report explicitly attributes much of this rise to the greater seniority of the 2026 respondents. Directors, partners, founders and managing directors average £102,887, compared with £69,930 for heads of communication and associate directors, £56,311 for managers and £38,774 for interns, trainees, assistants and executives. A sample containing more senior practitioners will therefore mechanically produce a higher overall average.

    Organisation type also matters. Private-sector in-house practitioners report the highest average full-time income at £74,419, followed by agency and consultancy practitioners at £68,675 and independents at £66,900. Public-sector practitioners average £59,156 and not-for-profit and NGO practitioners £56,714.

    The estimated gender pay gap remains unresolved. After controlling statistically for age and seniority, the report calculates a gap of £5,539, compared with £3,894 in 2024. The 2026 estimate falls just short of statistical significance because fewer respondents provided income data, so the apparent increase should not be treated as definitive. The report’s more defensible conclusion is that there is no evidence that the gap has disappeared or clearly narrowed.

    Recruitment also contains a diversity concern. Among senior in-house respondents involved in recruitment, non-White practitioners are less likely than White practitioners to participate in recruitment decisions, 59% compared with 70%. The same pattern appeared in the 2022 and 2024 studies, making it more than a one-year anomaly within this survey series.

    4. How is growing social and political polarisation affecting the work and responsibilities of PR practitioners?

    This is one of the report’s most distinctive additions. For the first time, the State of the Profession study includes a substantial section specifically devoted to polarisation and controversial issues.

    The findings suggest that dealing with contested issues is increasingly becoming part of normal PR work. Sixty-four percent say navigating polarised opinions is becoming a larger part of their job, while 54% say polarisation in society has made their work more difficult. Ninety-one percent regard keeping up with current affairs as necessary for their job, yet 38% say doing so negatively affects their mental health.

    Personal and professional views also regularly come into conflict. Forty-three percent say they are sometimes asked to communicate messages with which they personally disagree, although 59% believe representing views one may personally disagree with is part of the professional role.

    More broadly, 82% say they encounter ethically or politically difficult topics at least occasionally: 40% rarely, 28% sometimes, 9% often and 4% very often. Younger practitioners report such experiences considerably more frequently. Among those aged 16–34, 53% say they encounter them sometimes, often or very often, compared with 21% among those aged 55 and over. The report explicitly says it cannot determine whether this reflects differences in the work given to younger employees or differences in the attitudes of the generations themselves.

    These issues are not merely theoretical. Practitioners report changing employment or client decisions because of organisations’ positions on social, political or ethical issues. Thirty percent have raised concerns internally about an employer’s stance, 24% have started looking for another job, and 22% have decided not to apply for a job they would otherwise have considered. On the agency and consultancy side, 39% have decided not to pitch for work because of a potential client’s position, 37% have declined a client or project and 22% have ended or attempted to end a client relationship.

    Organisations themselves appear to have become more cautious. Fifty-two percent of respondents say their organisation is more reluctant to take public positions than five years ago, while 48% believe the risks of taking positions on controversial issues outweigh the benefits. At the same time, 47% say organisations face greater pressure to comment, and 46% say employees increasingly expect them to take positions.

    The crucial governance finding is that fewer than half have meaningful organisational guidance. Only 21% report a formal policy on controversial issues and another 24% informal guidance; 39% have neither.

    When asked what would help, the most popular answer is not communications training. Sixty-one per cent want senior leadership to take responsibility for decisions on controversial issues, ahead of training in navigating polarised audiences at 53% and clearer organisational policy at 52%.

    The implication is that polarisation is increasingly a corporate governance issue rather than simply a communication challenge. Practitioners appear to be asking senior leaders to make the fundamental decisions about whether an organisation should speak, remain silent or take a particular position, rather than leaving communicators to carry that responsibility themselves.

    5. What does the study show about diversity and inclusion, and where are the tensions between the profession’s overall picture and individual experiences?

    The headline picture of workplace inclusion is comparatively positive, but the aggregate figure conceals substantial differences between groups.

    Sixty-eight percent of respondents describe their work environment as very or extremely inclusive, including 29% who call it extremely inclusive. Only 8% describe their workplace as not at all or only slightly inclusive.

    Organisation type matters considerably. Eighty-one percent of agency and consultancy respondents describe their workplace as very or extremely inclusive, compared with 62% in private-sector in-house teams, 61% in the public sector and 67% in not-for-profit organisations and NGOs.

    The most significant difference, however, concerns ethnicity. Among White respondents, 72% describe their workplace as very or extremely inclusive and only 5% as not at all or slightly inclusive. Among non-White respondents, the corresponding figures are 57% and 18%. Non-White practitioners are therefore more than three times as likely to report low workplace inclusivity.

    Representation also changes markedly with seniority. White respondents account for 58% of interns, trainees, assistants and executives, but their proportion rises progressively to 87% among directors, partners and managing directors. The report notes that this pattern has appeared in the data for several years.

    At the same time, diversity itself has fallen as a perceived industry challenge. Only 17% now identify lack of diversity among PR practitioners as one of the profession’s major challenges, placing it tenth, compared with fifth in 2024. This creates an important tension within the findings: concern about diversity has declined among practitioners as a whole even though the data continues to show substantial differences in representation, recruitment involvement and perceived inclusion.

    The report also broadens the diversity picture beyond ethnicity and gender. Fourteen percent of respondents report a long-term physical or mental health condition affecting their daily activities, while 16% identify as neurodivergent. Both figures vary considerably by employment type. Nineteen percent of independent practitioners identify as having a disability and 32% as neurodivergent, compared with 6% and 12% respectively among agency and consultancy respondents. The report does not establish why independent practice attracts or accommodates these groups at higher rates, so causal interpretations would go beyond the evidence.

    Overall, the report suggests that the profession should be cautious about treating a generally positive average assessment of inclusion as evidence that inclusion problems have been resolved. The experience of the average respondent is not necessarily the experience of practitioners from less well represented groups, and some of the strongest inequalities become visible only when the data is broken down by ethnicity, seniority or organisation type.

  • In Search of Mainstream by YouTube Culture & Trends

    In Search of Mainstream by YouTube Culture & Trends

    About the paper

    This is a mixed-methods industry report from YouTube Culture & Trends and NRG.

    It combines a review of recent research, analysis of entertainment, media and video trends from around the world, platform data and surveys of active online audiences aged 14–44; the main 2026 survey cited throughout was conducted in the US in April 2026 with N=939 respondents, alongside additional 2025 surveys and tracking data.

    The report does not clearly specify recruitment, weighting, full country coverage or a single total sample across all datasets, so the methodology is relatively high-level and partly proprietary.

    Length: 13 pages

    More information/download: https://www.youtube.com/trends/report/tr26-mainstream-trends-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about the state of mainstream culture?

    The report argues that mainstream culture has not disappeared under the pressure of media fragmentation. Instead, the mechanisms through which something becomes mainstream have fundamentally changed.

    Audiences now have access to far more creators, communities and content than in the era when a relatively small number of broadcasters, publishers and entertainment companies could define common cultural reference points. This has produced a more personalised and less synchronous culture, in which different groups can consume very different things.

    At the same time, the desire for shared experiences remains strong. Among US online 14- to 29-year-olds surveyed, 63 percent agreed that being interested in the same things as other people makes them feel part of something bigger. The report also finds an apparently contradictory development: 63 percent of 14- to 44-year-olds say they are more likely than five years ago to watch creators or content that everyone they know also follows, while 67 percent say they are also watching more things that nobody they personally know follows.

    The report interprets this as evidence that fragmentation and shared culture can coexist. People participate in more specialised cultural communities, but some ideas, creators and properties travel between those communities and eventually become widely recognised.

    The crucial change is therefore not whether mainstream culture exists, but how it is created. The report describes a movement away from predominantly top-down cultural gatekeeping towards a more networked process in which creators, communities and audiences collectively generate the attention, participation and understanding that allow something to break through.

    2. How does the report define and measure whether something has become mainstream?

    The report proposes three signals that together distinguish genuinely mainstream phenomena from things that are merely visible, popular or important within particular communities: visibility, comprehension and participation.

    Visibility refers to repeated exposure and widespread awareness across platforms and conversations. At its strongest, a cultural phenomenon becomes difficult to avoid.

    Comprehension means that people across different audiences understand what something represents. A genuinely mainstream phenomenon therefore becomes a form of cultural shorthand: people recognise references, jokes or memes without requiring extensive explanation.

    Participation captures the active behaviours surrounding something, including commenting, sharing, creating, remixing and purchasing. The report treats this as particularly important in contemporary digital culture because audiences no longer simply consume cultural products but actively contribute to their circulation and development.

    The model produces four different cultural positions:

    1. A niche phenomenon generates strong engagement within a particular community.
    2. Something known has high visibility and understanding but relatively little active engagement.
    3. Something popular may be large and highly engaging but remain especially meaningful to particular demographic groups.
    4. Something becomes mainstream only when visibility, participation and comprehension converge across a broad range of audiences.

    This distinction is important to the report’s argument because it rejects simple audience size as an adequate definition of mainstream success. Something can be culturally important without becoming mainstream, while high awareness alone does not necessarily demonstrate deep cultural significance.

    The survey findings support the emphasis on digital signals. Among US online 14- to 44-year-olds, 46 percent say widespread online discussion indicates that something has become really big in popular culture, while 41 percent point to memes, jokes or references and 41 percent to people watching content about it on YouTube.

    3. Why does the report see communities and participation as the new engines of mainstream culture?

    The report argues that digital media have changed audiences from relatively passive recipients of culture into active participants in its development and distribution.

    Its most striking finding in this respect is that 70 percent of the surveyed US online population aged 14–44 describe themselves as video content creators. The category is therefore being used very broadly, but the underlying point is that creating and sharing content is presented as ordinary audience behaviour rather than the activity of a small professional group.

    This participation can begin inside relatively small communities. Fans create videos, explanations, commentary, memes and other material for one another. That activity can then increase a topic’s visibility outside the original community while simultaneously providing new audiences with ways of understanding it. Participation therefore contributes to the other two elements of the report’s mainstream model: visibility and comprehension.

    The consumption patterns reported reinforce this argument. Seventy-one percent say they have watched videos that unpack stories within a particular fandom or community, while 69 percent have watched content from a community they would themselves consider niche.

    The report uses gaming, anime and podcasts to illustrate how interests previously regarded as specialist can become widely recognised cultural categories. Minecraft and Roblox, for example, achieved 75 percent recognition in the survey, approaching the 84 percent recorded for Marvel. Anime is presented as an example of sustained online participation helping a longstanding specialist interest move into broader popular culture, while podcasts illustrate how commentary and extended discussion can turn awareness into deeper understanding.

    The same logic changes how audiences perceive success. Rather than necessarily interpreting mainstream acceptance as “selling out”, younger audiences are portrayed as feeling personally invested in helping creators or fandoms succeed. Sixty-three percent of 14- to 29-year-olds say shared interests make them feel part of something bigger, compared with 54 percent of 30- to 44-year-olds. The report also cites earlier research in which fans expressed pride when something they supported succeeded because they believed they had contributed to that success.

    Mainstream breakthrough is therefore presented increasingly as a collective achievement: communities do not simply identify emerging cultural successes but actively help create them.

    4. What role does the report assign to YouTube, and how does that shape its perspective?

    YouTube is presented as playing several interconnected roles in the modern cultural system: discovery platform, participation infrastructure, explanatory layer and source of cultural validation.

    First, the platform provides entry points into interests and communities. The report argues that audiences may encounter a phenomenon through creator videos, commentary, clips or related content before engaging directly with the original property.

    Second, YouTube enables the participatory activity that the report considers central to contemporary mainstream formation. Fans can create, remix, discuss and share material, allowing specialised communities to generate cultural momentum.

    Third, the platform is portrayed as especially important for comprehension. Videos explaining, reviewing or reacting to something allow audiences not merely to become aware of it but to understand why it matters. The report describes this as increasingly important because visibility is abundant while understanding is comparatively scarce.

    Its survey provides several strong platform-specific findings. Sixty-five percent of US online 14- to 44-year-olds agree that something feels more real or legitimate when they see it appear on YouTube. Seventy-three percent say YouTube is the best place for them to explore their interests deeply, and 72 percent say YouTube helps them remain interested in things long after initially discovering them.

    The report also uses case studies to illustrate this process. The NFL generated more than 20 billion YouTube views across official channels and fan communities in 2025, while the internet-born Backrooms phenomenon accumulated more than 15 billion views of related YouTube content before eventually becoming a major theatrical release. These examples are used to show how both established institutions and digitally native phenomena can use online communities as routes into broader culture.

    This perspective is important when interpreting the report. YouTube is not merely one object of analysis but also the publisher and a central part of the explanatory model. The report repeatedly presents YouTube-specific evidence demonstrating the platform’s importance and does not systematically compare its proposed cultural role with competing platforms. Its broader claims about fragmentation, communities and participation can therefore be distinguished from its more specific claim that YouTube occupies an especially central position within those processes.

    5. What broader picture of cultural power and influence emerges from the report?

    The report describes a redistribution of cultural power rather than the disappearance of cultural hierarchy altogether.

    Traditional institutions such as broadcasters, studios and major entertainment brands remain important, but they no longer possess the same exclusive ability to decide which cultural properties reach large audiences. Online communities can now generate awareness, participation and shared understanding before traditional institutions become involved.

    This reverses part of the traditional sequence of mainstream success. Instead of institutional endorsement creating cultural importance, the report argues that traditional recognition increasingly follows success that has already been established digitally. Film adaptations, streaming deals, major sponsorships and awards can therefore be interpreted as acknowledgement of cultural momentum generated elsewhere rather than the original source of that momentum.

    At the same time, digital scale alone is not sufficient. The report emphasises that real-world conversation remains particularly powerful: 42 percent of surveyed 14- to 44-year-olds say something feels worth their time when people they know in real life are talking about it. Digital culture becomes fully mainstream when online phenomena move beyond feeds and communities into wider everyday discourse and physical experiences.

    The resulting cultural system is more bottom-up, participatory and fluid. Niche communities can become incubators for much larger phenomena, audiences can function simultaneously as consumers, promoters and creators, and cultural understanding becomes almost as important as simple visibility.

    The report’s final implication is therefore that “mainstream” should no longer be understood primarily as whatever reaches the largest audience through dominant institutions. Mainstream culture now emerges when communities create enough participation to generate broad visibility and, crucially, enough shared understanding for an idea to travel beyond its original audience. In the report’s model, cultural power increasingly belongs to those capable of turning specialised engagement into something that people across very different communities can recognise, understand and participate in.

  • The State of PR 2026 by Muck Rack

    The State of PR 2026 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The State of PR 2026 is an original survey study of public relations professionals examining their roles, working conditions, strategic priorities, media relations practices, AI adoption, GEO and social media use.

    Muck Rack surveyed 1,115 professionals by email between 14 May and 12 June 2026 and retained 971 usable responses after data cleaning.

    The sample is heavily US-based (91%) and agency-weighted (56%), so the findings primarily reflect the American PR market rather than the global profession.

    Length: 34 pages

    More information / download: https://media.muckrack.com/documents/Muck_Rack_-_State_of_PR_2026.pdf

    Core Insights

    1. What does the report show about the changing scope of PR work?

    Media relations remains the profession’s central activity. Eighty-four per cent of respondents say it accounts for at least a quarter of their work, unchanged from the previous year. This suggests that, despite major technological and organisational changes, traditional earned media work still defines the PR role.

    At the same time, the role is broadening. Thought leadership accounts for at least a quarter of the job for 51% of respondents, six percentage points more than in the previous year. Media measurement and reporting is cited by 45%, content creation by 41%, and both executive and corporate communications by 25%.

    The report therefore presents PR not as a profession abandoning media relations, but as one layering additional responsibilities on top of it. Practitioners are increasingly expected to combine journalist outreach with content production, executive visibility, analytics, strategic advice and authority-building.

    This expansion may also help explain the pressure reported elsewhere in the study. Fifty-five per cent worked more than 40 hours in the preceding week, 77% worked outside normal hours at least once, and 66% rated their recent work stress above the midpoint of the scale. PR’s remit appears to be growing without traditional responsibilities becoming less important.

    2. How are AI and GEO changing PR strategy and practice?

    Generative AI has moved firmly into mainstream PR practice. Eighty per cent of respondents already use it in their workflow, compared with 77% in the previous year. A further 8% plan to explore it, while only 10% say they do not intend to use it.

    AI and automation are also the leading long-term priority: 61% expect them to grow in importance over the next five years. However, the report does not suggest that AI is replacing conventional PR skills. Media relations ranks second at 48%, up from 35% the previous year, followed by strategic planning at 32% and reputation management at 30%.

    Generative Engine Optimisation is emerging as a distinct strategic concern. Seventy-three per cent consider GEO at least somewhat important to their communications strategy, including 43% who describe it as very or extremely important. Yet responsibility remains unclear:

    • 29% say no one owns GEO.
    • 24% place responsibility with PR or communications.
    • 15% assign it to SEO or content teams.
    • 13% do not know who owns it.
    • 11% place it with marketing leadership.
    • 9% assign it to an AI or innovation team.

    This indicates that organisational practice is lagging behind strategic interest. GEO has become relevant before most organisations have established governance, responsibilities or consistent measurement.

    The tactics being adopted also reinforce PR’s traditional authority-building role. Fifty-five per cent are seeking coverage in high-authority publications to increase visibility in AI-generated responses. Half are producing more authoritative or data-driven content, and half are optimising content for search. Forty-four per cent are restructuring content so that AI systems can parse it more easily, for example through clear answers and FAQs.

    The underlying implication is that AI visibility is not simply a technical SEO issue. The report frames credibility, earned media coverage, authoritative content and machine-readable structure as mutually reinforcing elements of an emerging PR discipline.

    3. Why is earned media becoming harder to secure, and how are practitioners responding?

    The report portrays difficulty securing earned media as almost universal. Only 2% say it has not become more difficult during the year.

    The largest obstacles are structural:

    • 71% cite low journalist response rates.
    • 61% cite smaller or shrinking media lists in relevant beats.
    • 43% point to increased competition for coverage.
    • 36% cite a lack of timely or newsworthy stories.
    • 36% cite shorter media cycles and faster newsroom turnaround.
    • 35% identify overloaded or understaffed PR teams.

    These findings suggest that practitioners face pressure from both sides. Newsrooms have fewer relevant journalists and less available attention, while PR teams are competing more intensely for that attention.

    Nevertheless, many practitioners still use relatively broad outreach. Forty-nine per cent pitch more than 20 journalists per campaign or announcement, including 24% who pitch more than 50. This wide-net approach may partly reflect shrinking response rates: as the probability of an individual journalist responding falls, practitioners may compensate by increasing the number contacted.

    The relationship base is mixed rather than predominantly strong. Thirty-six per cent have previously worked with only a few of the reporters they pitch, while 35% have worked with about half. Only 27% have worked with most or all of them.

    Personalisation is common but often limited. Sixty-six per cent usually or always personalise their pitches, but among those who personalise, 73% change only a few sentences. Fifteen per cent tailor every part of the pitch, while 11% personalise only the greeting.

    The report therefore reveals a tension between relevance and scale. Practitioners recognise the need for personalisation and relationships, but the difficulty of earning coverage encourages larger pitch lists and relatively light-touch customisation.

    4. How do PR professionals believe the function can demonstrate greater value?

    Most respondents feel positively regarded by organisational leadership. Sixty-seven per cent say PR and communications is valued or very valued, including 36% who say it is very valued. However, one-third regard the function as only moderately, slightly or not valued.

    The strongest consensus in the entire value discussion concerns measurement. Sixty-nine per cent say producing measurable results is the best way to increase PR’s perceived value to leadership or clients. The alternative answers are far less prominent:

    • 11% choose improving executive visibility.
    • 10% choose delivering creative solutions.
    • 8% choose managing reputation risk.

    This does not necessarily mean that executive visibility, creativity or risk management are unimportant. Rather, respondents appear to believe that these activities become more persuasive internally when their consequences can be evidenced.

    Measurement and reporting already constitute at least a quarter of the job for 45% of respondents. The study therefore positions measurement not as a specialist or administrative add-on, but as an important source of organisational legitimacy.

    There is, however, a contrast between this strong belief in measurement and the immature measurement of GEO. Thirty-nine per cent are not currently measuring GEO success, while 21% are unsure how it is being measured. Only 25% track brand mentions in AI-generated responses, 21% monitor search visibility, and 17% track referral traffic from AI tools.

    The implication is that PR’s strategic aspirations may be developing faster than its evaluation methods. Practitioners believe measurable results are essential, but one of the profession’s most rapidly emerging priorities does not yet have widely established indicators or standards.

    5. What broader picture of the PR profession emerges from the report?

    The report depicts a profession experiencing simultaneous continuity and transformation.

    The continuity lies in media relations. It remains the dominant component of the job, and practitioners expect it to become more—not less—important. Online and digital media are pitched by 91%, but traditional formats remain significant: newspapers by 69%, magazines by 64% and television by 60%. Podcasts have also become a mainstream target, cited by 57%.

    The transformation lies in how authority, visibility and influence are created. PR now operates across earned media, thought leadership, search, social platforms and AI-generated answers. High-authority media coverage is valuable not only because people see it directly, but because it may influence what AI systems retrieve, cite or reproduce.

    LinkedIn occupies a particularly strong position. Sixty per cent regard it as the most valuable social platform for PR work, far ahead of Instagram at 18%. It is included in 87% of company social strategies and is the platform respondents most want to monitor, at 73%. This suggests that LinkedIn functions simultaneously as a corporate channel, a professional network, an executive visibility platform and an arena for thought leadership.

    Yet the profession’s development carries a human cost. Long hours, after-hours work and elevated stress are widespread. The combination of traditional media work, expanded content responsibilities, measurement demands, social media monitoring and emerging AI tasks may be increasing expectations faster than resources and organisational structures can adapt.

    Overall, Muck Rack’s perspective is that PR is becoming more technologically enabled and strategically expansive, while remaining rooted in media relationships and credibility. Its most important emerging role may be helping organisations build the authority required to be visible across both human and AI-mediated information environments. However, the sample’s strong US and agency bias means that this conclusion should not automatically be generalised to every national market or in-house communications setting.

  • World PR Report 2025-2026 by ICCO

    World PR Report 2025-2026 by ICCO

    About the paper

    The report ‘The Era of Relationship Capital – Consultancy Views of the Path Ahead’ examines the state and future direction of the global PR consultancy industry, combining original survey research with industry expert commentary.

    Its core research is an online survey conducted from September 2025 to March 2026 among 244 PR professionals across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the United Kingdom, North America, Latin America and the Middle East.

    Country-level coverage, recruitment method and weighting are not clearly specified, and the UK, North America, Latin America and Middle East each have fewer than 30 respondents. There is also a methodological inconsistency: at least one chart gives a base of 291 respondents rather than the stated 244, so detailed figures and regional comparisons should be treated with some caution.

    Length: 61 pages

    More information/download: https://www.iccoglobal.com/icco-world-pr-report/

    Core Insights

    1. What overall picture does the report paint of the global PR industry in 2025–2026?

    The report depicts a profession that remains broadly confident about its future but is operating under significantly greater pressure. The global optimism score for PR market growth is 6.2 out of 10, down from 6.6 the previous year, while 63 percent of respondents say they are optimistic about growth in their market. The result is not a story of contraction so much as one of more cautious confidence.

    More importantly, the report argues that the nature of PR is changing. Traditional execution is becoming less central to where agencies expect value and growth to come from. Strategic consulting was the leading growth area over the previous year, cited by 37 percent of respondents, followed by corporate reputation at 35 percent. Looking ahead, corporate reputation is expected to be the largest growth area at 41 percent, followed by strategic consulting at 39 percent. Strategic consulting also leads expected investment at 39 percent.

    Technology, healthcare and financial and professional services are the strongest client sectors. Technology is particularly prominent, reflecting both the wider AI boom and organisations’ need to communicate technological change.

    The report therefore presents PR as moving further “upstream” into advisory work. Its authors and contributors repeatedly describe a shift away from communications as primarily an execution or amplification function and towards judgement, interpretation, risk management, reputation and organisational decision-making.

    However, that development is taking place amid substantial economic and organisational pressure. The leading challenges include effectively integrating AI, cited by 34 percent; clients unwilling to commit sufficient funds, 31 percent; economic conditions, 29 percent; and pressure to achieve profit and margin targets, 25 percent.

    The central tension is consequently clear: PR agencies see growing demand for higher-value strategic advice at the same time that budgets, business models, technology and talent are all under pressure.

    2. How is AI changing PR practice, skills and professional expectations?

    AI is the report’s most powerful technological theme. It has moved from experimentation towards normal professional infrastructure.

    Eighty-nine percent of respondents say their organisations have integrated AI tools into everyday processes, up from 74 percent the previous year. Ninety-one percent identify AI as the technology most likely to be relevant to PR practitioners over the next five years, far ahead of cybersecurity at 38 percent and data science at 37 percent.

    The skills agenda reflects that transformation. Mastery of AI tools is identified by 45 percent as one of the most important skill sets for the coming decade, narrowly ahead of strategic consulting at 43 percent. Another 32 percent highlight the ability to critically assess and ethically deploy AI-generated content.

    The report does not, however, portray technological capability as sufficient by itself. Its contributors consistently argue that AI increases rather than eliminates the importance of human judgement. AI can accelerate research, pattern recognition, content creation and analysis, but the professional still has to provide context, interpretation, cultural understanding and strategic judgement.

    This creates a second dimension to AI adoption: governance and ethics. Eighty-four percent believe ethical adoption and use of AI is important for the PR industry, and 78 percent regard cultural intelligence as important as AI becomes embedded in communications.

    There is consequently a gap between adoption and maturity. AI is already widespread, yet effectively integrating it remains the single most frequently cited business challenge. The report suggests that the next competitive divide will not simply be between agencies that use AI and those that do not. It will be between organisations that combine AI with strong data, governance, professional judgement and strategic capability and those that merely use it to accelerate existing production.

    3. How are client demand and agency value shifting, and what does this mean for the traditional PR business model?

    The report provides considerable evidence that clients increasingly expect PR agencies to contribute at a more strategic level.

    Strategic consulting, corporate reputation and public affairs are all significant growth areas, while influencer communications, measurement and analytics and ESG also attract investment. Expected investment is led by strategic consulting at 39 percent and influencer communications at 38 percent, with measurement and analytics at 27 percent and ESG at 23 percent.

    Corporate reputation is especially important to the report’s argument. Sixty-three percent identify proactively improving corporate reputation as an important client objective, considerably ahead of issues and crisis management at 41 percent and increasing sales at 38 percent. Corporate reputation is also the service area most widely expected to grow during the coming year.

    At the same time, AI is reducing the scarcity value of routine production. Several contributors argue that content creation and other executional activities will increasingly become commoditised as technology lowers their cost. This makes expertise, interpretation, evidence and trusted counsel relatively more valuable.

    Yet there is an important contradiction in the data. Although the industry aspires to become more strategic, client measurement requests remain heavily oriented towards traditional communications outputs. Media clippings are the most commonly requested item, cited by 56 percent, while 36 percent still report client requests for Advertising Value Equivalency and another 36 percent for sentiment metrics.

    The industry’s own use of measurement also remains disproportionately focused on reporting. Eighty-two percent say measurement and evaluation metrics are used for reporting, compared with 52 percent for planning, 50 percent for justifying fees and budgets, 44 percent for decision-making and 40 percent for advising.

    The report therefore describes an industry caught between two models. Its growth ambitions centre on advisory work, reputation and strategic influence, but important parts of its measurement and client relationship practices remain rooted in traditional reporting and communications outputs.

    4. What structural challenges could prevent PR firms from making this transition successfully?

    Talent is one of the most persistent constraints. Retaining key talent is the most commonly identified talent challenge at 41 percent, followed by developing junior and mid-level staff at 35 percent and motivating younger executives at 34 percent.

    The industry’s recruitment patterns may reinforce the problem. Rival agencies remain the leading expected source of talent at 61 percent, followed by journalism at 54 percent and graduate programmes at 49 percent. Several expert contributors argue that this is poorly aligned with the industry’s emerging needs for expertise in data, technology, regulation, policy and specialised industries.

    Their interpretation is that communications firms need more multidisciplinary recruitment from areas such as analytics, law, science, public policy and professional services rather than repeatedly competing for the same conventional PR talent.

    Measurement creates another structural challenge. Twenty percent identify the inability to measure PR impact effectively as a major business challenge. The report’s measurement commentary argues that AI makes rigorous evaluation more important because technology can scale poor assumptions and weak analysis just as efficiently as it can scale good analysis.

    Ethics is similarly becoming more consequential. Misinformation and disinformation are consistently identified among the profession’s leading ethical challenges. Eighty-six percent believe agencies should advise clients against behaviour they regard as unethical, and 73 percent say they have turned down a client or assignment for ethical reasons. However, only 44 percent believe PR is more ethical than other industries, indicating a considerable gap between professional aspirations and perceptions of industry-wide behaviour.

    Workforce sustainability presents an additional problem. Thirty-four percent of respondents report experiencing mental health problems during the previous 12 months, while formal organisational support is far from universal.

    Taken together, the findings suggest that PR’s move towards strategic advisory work requires more than adding new technologies or services. Agencies need deeper talent pools, stronger measurement capability, credible ethics and governance, and organisational models capable of retaining and developing professionals with increasingly complex skill sets.

    5. What does the report mean by “relationship capital”, and why does it see this as the profession’s central strategic opportunity?

    “Relationship capital” is the organising idea used by ICCO to connect many of the report’s otherwise separate findings. It describes the accumulated trust, goodwill, credibility and access that allow an organisation to be heard and believed by important stakeholders, particularly during uncertainty or crisis.

    The concept reflects the report’s view of the environment in which organisations now operate. Geopolitical instability, economic uncertainty, social polarisation, fragmented media, misinformation and AI-generated content have all made reputation and trust more difficult to establish and maintain.

    ICCO’s argument is that attention alone therefore becomes less strategically valuable. Attention can be purchased or generated quickly, whereas relationships and credibility have to be accumulated through consistent behaviour and engagement over time.

    This helps explain why corporate reputation, strategic consulting, crisis counsel, public affairs, insight and evaluation feature so prominently throughout the report. They all contribute to an advisory model in which communications professionals help organisations understand stakeholders, anticipate risk, make decisions and maintain legitimacy rather than simply generate visibility.

    It also reveals the report’s underlying perspective. As an organisation representing PR consultancies, ICCO clearly has an interest in presenting communications as a strategically important management discipline rather than a commodity service. The survey findings provide some support for that interpretation, particularly the growth of strategic consulting and corporate reputation. However, other findings, including continued budget pressure, traditional measurement practices and strong demand for executional services such as influencer communications, show that the transition is incomplete.

    The report’s broader conclusion is therefore not that traditional PR activities are disappearing. It is that their relative value is changing. As AI makes communications production cheaper and information environments more fragmented, the report expects competitive advantage to shift towards the capabilities that are harder to automate: trusted relationships, judgement, strategic interpretation, ethical counsel and evidence-based advice.

  • 2026 Sharepoint Intranet Benchmarking Report by SWOOP Analytics

    2026 Sharepoint Intranet Benchmarking Report by SWOOP Analytics

    About the paper

    SWOOP Analytics’ 2026 SharePoint Intranet Benchmarking Report analyses how SharePoint intranets are actually used and what drives intranet health, engagement, clutter and AI readiness.

    It is original benchmarking research based on real usage data, not survey responses, covering 410,457 intranet visitors, 253,755 intranet pages and 41 organisations worldwide over 1 October–31 December 2025.

    Length: 98 pages

    More information / download:
    https://sharepoint2026.swoopanalytics.com/

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report’s central argument is that SharePoint intranets have moved beyond the adoption problem. Almost all employees now access the intranet, with 95% of employees using it during the three-month benchmark period. The issue is no longer whether people visit the intranet, but whether the content they find there is useful, current, readable and well governed.

    This creates a major shift in how intranet success should be understood. The report argues that success is not primarily about publishing more content, driving more visits or creating a larger intranet. Instead, the strongest intranets are those that help employees complete tasks, find trusted guidance and navigate content efficiently. In other words, the intranet is becoming less of a broadcast channel and more of a productivity and knowledge infrastructure.

    The report is especially clear that Content pages — policies, how-to guides, reference material and other evergreen pages — are the heart of the intranet. Employees spend 10.4 minutes per workday on Content pages, compared with only 0.9 minutes on News pages. News still matters, but it is consumed lightly, skimmed quickly and performs best when short and highly relevant.

    The broader conclusion is that intranet performance now depends on disciplined governance: clear ownership, content lifecycle management, accessibility, readability, pruning of outdated pages and a stronger distinction between news, reference content and knowledge assets.

    2. What does the data show about how employees actually use intranets?

    The report shows a pattern of near-universal but increasingly selective use. Employees are not abandoning the intranet. On the contrary, access has increased from 86% in 2024 to 93% in 2025 and 95% in 2026. But they are becoming more intentional in how they use it.

    The average employee visits the intranet 3.23 times per working day, slightly down from 3.36 in 2025, while pages viewed per visit have risen modestly to 2.22. Employees also access an average of 39.6 unique pages over the three-month period. This suggests fewer casual check-ins and more purposeful visits.

    The device data is striking. Desktop remains overwhelmingly dominant, accounting for 89% of intranet access, while phone access has fallen sharply to just 1.7%. The report interprets this as evidence that intranets are mainly experienced as desktop productivity environments, not mobile-first communication channels.

    Another important signal is the increase in home-page-only visits, from 3.6% in 2025 to 6% in 2026. The report sees this as strategically significant because it may indicate scanning without engagement, overexposure to generic content or weak prompts for next action. The homepage should therefore function as a hub for tasks and journeys, not as a billboard.

    3. Which content factors most strongly affect intranet engagement?

    The report finds that engagement is driven less by publishing volume and more by content hygiene, readability, accessibility and structure. This is one of its most important findings.

    SWOOP’s Health Score combines three dimensions: Quality, Experience and Engagement. Quality includes ageing content, spelling and grammar, broken links and missing editors. Experience includes readability, heading length, heading-to-paragraph ratio and accessibility. Engagement measures whether users spend an amount of time on a page that is reasonable in relation to its length.

    For both News and Content pages, readability and accessibility are especially important. Pages with poor structure, long sentences, accessibility issues or insufficient headings perform worse. The report also notes that accessibility is not merely a compliance matter; it has a measurable relationship with engagement.

    For News pages, structure and brevity are critical. The strongest-performing news articles are typically 200–400 words, with readership declining after around 400 words and completion rates falling further for longer articles. Very long news articles, especially those over 1,000 words, have the weakest completion rates.

    For Content pages, the picture is slightly different. Broken links matter more because these pages are often used as tools or reference material. Ageing content is more ambiguous: older Content pages may be heavily used because they are mature and valuable, but the report stresses that this only works if they are reviewed periodically. Old does not automatically mean stale, but unmanaged old content becomes a risk.

    4. What does the report say about clutter and AI readiness?

    The report argues that clutter is now one of the central intranet problems, and that it directly affects both human browsing and AI performance. The Clutter Index measures low-value pages, navigation complexity, home-page-only visits, unread News pages and content relevance across departments. In 2026, the Clutter Index rose slightly to 0.33.

    Unread and irrelevant News is identified as the largest contributor to clutter. The practical message is quite direct: organisations should publish less News, apply stricter criteria for what qualifies as News, convert evergreen News into reference pages and remove stale items from prominent news streams.

    The AI Readiness findings are especially relevant. The overall AI Readiness score improved only marginally, from 51.13 in 2025 to 52.38 in 2026. This happened despite a dramatic improvement in search effectiveness, from 34.16 to 66.3. The reason is that search effectiveness only accounts for 10% of the AI Readiness index, while content readiness and engagement readiness account for 90% combined — and both declined slightly.

    The report’s sharpest AI conclusion is that AI readiness is no longer primarily a search problem. The bigger constraint is the quality, currency and governance of the content that AI depends on. If an intranet contains outdated, duplicated, unmanaged or low-value pages, AI tools may retrieve and summarise poor content more efficiently, but not necessarily more accurately or usefully.

    The report therefore warns that AI will not magically fix intranet disorder. It may amplify it.

    5. What are the main implications for communication, intranet and knowledge-management teams?

    The first implication is that intranet teams should shift from publishing management to content stewardship. More content is not the answer. Better governed content is. The report repeatedly points to pruning, lifecycle management, ownership, templates, accessibility checks and review cycles as practical levers.

    The second implication is that Content pages deserve more strategic attention than News. News is visible and often politically important, but Content pages account for the overwhelming majority of time spent. Improving policies, guidance, FAQs, how-to pages and other reference material is likely to deliver more value than increasing the volume of internal news.

    The third implication is that leaders and managers are important intranet users. The report finds that Leadership & Executive and Management roles have the highest engagement intensity. This suggests that intranet content should be designed to support leader-led communication: clear summaries, explicit actions, reusable briefing points and easily cascadeable messages.

    The fourth implication is that organisations need to think of intranets as knowledge-management systems. The report introduces a Knowledge Management Ratio comparing pages with files, distinguishing between balanced, file-dominant, content-led and news-led intranet profiles. The most AI-ready organisations are not those with the most content, but those with the clearest pathways from work artefacts to maintained, authoritative “single source of truth” guidance.

    The final implication is that governance must become supportive rather than punitive. The Boehringer Ingelheim case study shows this well: around 2,000 editors, mandatory training before publishing rights, automated health-score nudges, community support and lifecycle pruning have enabled a very large intranet to remain healthy. The report presents this as evidence that federated governance can work if editors are equipped with standards, data and support rather than simply controlled from the centre.

  • IC Index 2026 by Institute of Internal Communication

    IC Index 2026 by Institute of Internal Communication

    About the paper

    The IC Index 2026 report examines the state of internal communication in UK large organisations, focusing on trust, change, leadership, AI, manager communication and employee attention.

    It is original survey research: Ipsos Karian and Box surveyed a representative quota sample of 5,000 UK workers aged 18–75, all working in organisations with 500+ employees, between 15 and 29 January 2026.

    The geographic scope is the UK; the report also includes practitioner reflections from internal communication experts.

    Length: 37 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.ioic.org.uk/insight-practice/ic-index.html

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the IC Index 2026 report?

    The report argues that internal communication has become more strategically important because employees are facing a tougher, more uncertain work environment, while trust, clarity and confidence are weakening. The subtitle — “The reality check” — is apt: the report presents declining communication ratings, falling trust in leaders, weak change communication, limited AI clarity and rising employee time pressure as warning signs for organisations.

    The authors frame internal communication not as a support function, but as a core mechanism for organisational resilience. They argue that internal communicators need to help leaders communicate with clarity, candour and compassion, build two-way communication systems, surface difficult conversations and connect organisational ambitions to employees’ lived reality.

    The report’s most important claim is that internal communication determines whether organisations can manage change, maintain trust and achieve their goals. The conclusion makes this explicit: organisations with dedicated IC teams have stronger strategic alignment, advocacy, information flow and representation, and the authors present this as evidence that internal communication is more critical when trust and change pressures intensify.

    2. What are the main problems the report identifies in the current employee experience?

    The report identifies six headline problems.

    First, employees are experiencing more organisational change but less clarity. More than half report restructuring in the past year, and over a third report redundancies; both are up 12 points compared with 2024. Yet only 49% agree that the reasons behind changes are clearly communicated, down seven points compared with 2023.

    Second, trust in leadership has fallen. The Trust Index is down seven points compared with 2025 and now sits at 58%. Trust in CEOs or most senior leaders and leadership teams has fallen by nine points each. Only half of employees say they trust their CEO or most senior leader, and only half trust the leadership team.

    Third, leaders appear to be overestimating how well they have communicated strategy and AI. Senior leaders are consistently much more positive than non-managers about strategy clarity, belief in strategy and AI communication. For example, 87% of senior leaders say the organisation has been clear on strategy and business priorities, compared with 57% of non-managers.

    Fourth, many employees feel poorly supported through change. Only 42% agree their organisation is good at helping employees adapt to change, while 31% actively disagree. The report links stronger change support to practical actions such as honesty about impacts, listening to employees, providing skills, and clarifying what people need to do differently.

    Fifth, frontline and digitally disconnected employees are less well served. Employees not frequently connected to a computer are more likely to hear about major changes through word of mouth and are less likely to trust leaders or feel psychologically safe.

    Sixth, employees have very little time for internal communication. Most employees spend ten minutes or less per day reading or viewing organisational news and updates, and just over one in five say they spend no or hardly any time at all.

    3. What does the report say drives employee confidence in the future?

    The report treats confidence as a multi-factor “equation”, not simply a product of optimistic messaging. Just under three in five employees — 57% — say they feel confident about the future of their organisation, while one in five actively disagree.

    The strongest driver of confidence is whether work processes allow employees to work efficiently. This is significant because it means confidence is grounded in employees’ day-to-day experience, not only in leadership narratives. Only half of employees agree that their organisation’s work processes allow them to work efficiently.

    The other major drivers are open and honest communication, clarity about strategy and business priorities, belief that AI is being used to solve the right problems, and feeling connected to people beyond one’s immediate team. The report’s implication is that internal communication can influence confidence, but cannot do so credibly if it ignores operational friction, weak processes or unclear AI adoption.

    This is one of the stronger analytical points in the report: employee confidence depends on whether the organisation feels coherent. Employees need to understand where the organisation is going, believe communication is honest, see that AI has a meaningful purpose, and experience work as efficient enough to make the future feel achievable.

    4. How does the report portray the role of leaders and managers?

    The report presents leaders and managers as central to whether communication lands — but also as part of the problem.

    Senior leaders are portrayed as increasingly disconnected from employee perceptions. They are much more likely than non-managers to believe that strategy and AI have been communicated clearly. On AI, for instance, 67% of senior leaders agree that leaders have explained clearly how AI will be used, compared with just 27% of non-managers.

    Managers are presented as the key sense-making layer. Most managers spend some time communicating with their teams each day, but more than half spend 30 minutes or less, and 14% spend less than 15 minutes. This matters because employees often depend on their direct managers to translate organisational messages into team-level meaning.

    The report also shows that manager support is uneven. More than three quarters of managers feel equipped to lead conversations about what is happening across the business, but this has declined compared with 2025 and 2024. Managers who receive training, preparation time or other structured support feel more equipped, while those receiving no support feel least equipped.

    The strongest practical insight is that managers adapting communication to their team context has a large impact. Employees whose managers do this well are far more likely to find communication relevant, rate communication as excellent and recommend their employer as a great place to work.

    5. What are the report’s most important implications for internal communication practice?

    The report’s main implication is that internal communication needs to move further upstream. It should not merely distribute decisions after they have been made; it should help leaders understand employee reality before, during and after change.

    For change communication, the report suggests that IC teams need to push for early, honest, jargon-free communication; clear rationale; regular updates; routes for questions; and visible listening. The evidence shows that employees are more positive when organisations explain the reasons for change, listen to views and clarify what people need to do differently.

    For leadership communication, the implication is that trust cannot be rebuilt through messaging alone. Leaders need visibility, openness, empathy and evidence that they understand employee challenges. The report connects falling trust especially to CEOs and senior leadership teams, making leadership communication a strategic risk area rather than a stylistic concern.

    For AI communication, the report implies that organisations are under-communicating the purpose and practical expectations of AI adoption. Only 35% believe their organisation is using AI to solve the right problems, and only 32% say their employer has clearly communicated how they are expected to use AI as part of their job.

    For channels and content, the report’s implication is that relevance is now existential. Employees have little time, and 56% say employer communications feel relevant. The report points towards personalisation, segmentation and opt-in/opt-out models, while also warning that these require good audience data and a serious channel strategy.

    Finally, the report argues that representation and good-news communication matter more than many organisations may assume. Only 42% see stories about people like them in internal communications, yet those who do are much more likely to be advocates and to trust the organisation. Similarly, good news is not merely “nice to know”: effective communication of good news has a stronger impact on advocacy and overall communication ratings than effective communication of bad news.

  • 2026 Trends in Communications Budgets by Gartner

    2026 Trends in Communications Budgets by Gartner

    About the paper

    The report analyses 2026 communications budget trends, with a focus on how CCOs are reallocating spend towards PR, AI, technology, analytics and measurement.

    It is primarily original survey research based on Gartner’s 2026 CCO Spend Survey, conducted online from late October to mid-December 2025 among 200 senior communications decision-makers in North America and Europe, all from organisations with at least $1 billion in annual revenue.

    The report also draws on secondary Gartner survey evidence from CFOs, CEOs and CMOs, so it is best understood as a mixed-evidence analyst report rather than a purely standalone survey study.

    Length: 23 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.gartner.com/en/communications/research/cco-budget-2026-ec

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report’s central argument is that communications functions are being forced to transform under constrained budget conditions. Gartner argues that CCOs can no longer rely on incremental budget planning or traditional allocations. Instead, they must actively redirect resources towards AI, communications technology, analytics, measurement, PR, brand and crisis communications.

    The underlying logic is that communications is now expected to support broader business transformation, especially AI-driven transformation, while also managing heightened reputation risk, misinformation, shifting stakeholder expectations and declining trust. The report frames this as a strategic inflection point: communications functions that fail to modernise their capabilities risk further budget cuts, while those that reallocate spending towards measurable, technology-enabled and reputation-focused work will be better positioned to demonstrate business value.

    A key point is that this is not presented as a story of abundant new funding. Gartner emphasises that many CCOs face cuts or constraints: 46% say their current-year communications budget forecast was reduced due to company-wide cost-cutting, and 44% say their function lacks the budget needed to execute its strategy successfully. At the same time, 82% say their communications strategy needs to evolve rapidly to meet changing audience expectations. This creates the report’s core tension: ambition is rising, but capacity is not keeping pace.

    2. How are communications budgets changing, and where are CCOs reallocating spend?

    The report finds that overall budget growth is limited and uneven. Smaller organisations with revenue below $5 billion expect modest increases, while larger organisations face stagnant or declining budgets. Most organisations spend around 0.5% of revenue on communications, with smaller companies spending a higher percentage and very large companies spending a lower percentage, presumably because larger organisations benefit from economies of scale.

    Within constrained budgets, the mix of spending is changing. Communications budgets remain heavily weighted towards traditional areas: labour accounts for 40.3%, agencies and services for 23%, operational costs for 17.3%, and communications technology tools and internal platforms for 16.8%. However, looking ahead, technology is the area most likely to receive increased investment: 35% of communications leaders expect to increase spend on communications technology and internal platforms.

    This implies that CCOs are trying to fund transformation partly by reducing or limiting other areas. Gartner explicitly points to potential trade-offs in events, creative services, translation, operational costs and some agency spending. The report does not say these activities are unimportant, but argues that they must be streamlined, delegated, automated or tightly linked to strategic priorities if communications is to fund AI, data and analytics capabilities.

    3. Why are PR, brand and crisis communications receiving increased budget attention?

    Gartner argues that external reputation management is becoming more important because the risk environment is more volatile. PR and corporate brand command the largest shares of communications budgets, with public relations at 14.3% and corporate brand at 8.8%. Crisis communications has also grown, rising by 2.1 percentage points year on year to 4.8% of the current budget.

    The report links this shift to several forces: AI disruption, misinformation and disinformation, geopolitical uncertainty, regulatory complexity, stakeholder scrutiny and the growing speed with which reputation issues can escalate. It also argues that public large language models are changing how audiences discover and trust information, which means organisations must rethink earned media, owned content and answer engine visibility.

    This is one of the report’s more forward-looking arguments. Gartner suggests that PR is not simply about media coverage; it is becoming part of how organisations maintain discoverability, credibility and influence in AI-mediated information environments. That is why the report recommends prioritising PR and earned media investments that support “answer engine visibility”, reallocating some spending from paid media to owned and earned media, investing in authoritative owned content, and updating the corporate narrative across traditional, social and owned channels.

    4. What does the report say about AI, GenAI, technology and analytics in communications?

    The report presents AI, technology and analytics as the main transformation priorities for communications functions. GenAI investment is rising from 5.7% of total communications budget in the current fiscal year to a forecast 8.8% next year, a 54% year-on-year increase. However, Gartner also notes that current GenAI spend is below the level predicted in the previous year’s research, which suggests adoption is moving more slowly than expected.

    The barriers are not only financial. The report says 86% of communications leaders recognise the need to update team talent strategies and skill sets to capitalise on GenAI opportunities. It also says 57% believe the function must address substantial audience scepticism about GenAI integration in communications work, and 43% report that GenAI investments have not yet delivered the expected value.

    Analytics is another major theme. Thirty-four percent of leaders plan to increase spend on data and analytics, and 35% already have a dedicated communications data scientist or analyst, while another 25% plan to add one within 12 to 18 months. Yet the actual budget allocation for measurement, monitoring and analytics is still only 4.1%, up from 2.9% the year before. Gartner contrasts this with marketing’s 8% allocation and argues that communications still underinvests in the capabilities needed to link its work to organisational outcomes.

    The report’s perspective is therefore cautiously pro-investment. Gartner does not simply say “spend more on AI”. It argues that AI and technology investments must be part of a coherent strategy tied to business and communications outcomes, with proper talent development, measurement and success metrics. Otherwise, CCOs risk cutting human capability too aggressively while buying tools that fail to deliver value.

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

    The main implication is that CCOs need to become much more deliberate budget strategists. Gartner’s advice is to stop planning budgets through small adjustments to last year’s numbers and instead redraw allocations around current business priorities, reputation risks and transformation needs. The report repeatedly frames budget planning as a strategic leadership discipline, not an administrative exercise.

    A second implication is that CCOs must be able to defend investment in business terms. The report recommends linking communications outcomes to enterprise priorities such as reputation, engagement, trust and business transformation. It also urges communications leaders to benchmark spending, establish clearer budget targets for analytics and measurement, and build stronger evidence of impact.

    A third implication is that communications leaders must make harder trade-offs. Gartner explicitly recommends cutting low-value work that does not support business objectives, offloading or streamlining activities such as event management, graphics, creative services and translation where appropriate, and reassessing agency spend so it is focused on high-ROI activities or skills not available in-house.

    Finally, the report implies that internal communications should not be neglected. Although external-facing activities receive much of the budget attention, employee communications is the third-largest budget allocation, and Gartner warns that AI transformation creates employee anxiety that could threaten enterprise success. The report says 69% of communications leaders see employee anxiety from changes such as AI transformation as a significant risk over the next two years. That means CCOs must continue investing in employee communications, change communications, manager and leader communications, intranet platforms, employee experience platforms and measurement of internal communications effectiveness.

    Overall, the conclusion is clear: communications leaders are being asked to do more than protect reputation or produce content. Gartner sees the function’s future value in helping organisations navigate AI-enabled transformation, sustain trust, manage reputation risk, and prove impact through data.

  • The Changing Shape and New Economics of News Podcasting by Reuters

    The Changing Shape and New Economics of News Podcasting by Reuters

    About the paper

    The Reuters Institute report examines how news podcasting is shifting from audio-only formats towards video, personality-led “shows”, and hybrid business models.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on qualitative audience research with 50 regular news/current affairs podcast users in the US, UK, and Norway, mini-groups with a subset of those users, semi-structured interviews with 13 publishers plus industry experts and platforms, and selected Digital News Report/IAB quantitative data.

    Length: 39 pages

    More information / download:
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/changing-shape-and-new-economics-news-podcasting-listening-watching-podcasts-shows

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central change reshaping news podcasting?

    The report argues that news podcasting is no longer simply an audio medium distributed through open RSS feeds. It is becoming a more fluid, multi-format category that blends audio, video, social clips, newsletters, live events, subscription products, and sometimes television-style shows.

    The key shift is from “podcasts” as discrete audio products to “shows” as broader audience franchises. Video is the most visible driver of this change. Platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, and Apple are increasingly prioritising or enabling video podcasting, encouraging publishers to rethink production, distribution, discovery, and monetisation.

    The report does not claim that audio is disappearing. Instead, it argues that podcasting is becoming dual-format. Audiences often use audio and video in different contexts: audio while commuting, exercising, cooking, or multitasking; video at home, on YouTube, or on connected televisions. This means publishers are not simply replacing audio with video, but trying to work out which formats, shows, and audiences justify investment in video.

    A second major change is the rise of personality-led conversational formats. These are cheaper to produce than heavily edited narrative documentaries, easier to turn into video, and better suited to social clips and host-driven audience relationships. This is pushing parts of the market away from highly produced narrative series and towards recurring, reactive, talent-led shows.

    2. How are audiences using news podcasts, and what do they value about them?

    The report finds that news podcast users are generally a highly engaged subset of the news audience. They are not usually using podcasts as their only source of news. Rather, podcasts supplement other formats by offering depth, explanation, perspective, and a more conversational relationship with journalists or hosts.

    Podcast use is described as complementary to other news habits. Social media may provide fast discovery, websites and apps provide checking and updates, radio may support routine listening, while podcasts are used for deeper understanding. This makes podcasts particularly valuable for “active knowledge-building” rather than simple headline consumption.

    The appeal of video varies by country, context, and content type. US respondents were more open to video podcasting, partly because YouTube plays a larger role in their podcast discovery and consumption. Norwegian respondents were more resistant, with stronger attachment to audio and local public-service audio platforms. UK users sat somewhere between these positions.

    Audiences gave three main reasons for choosing video:

    • personal format preference
    • consumption context
    • and content type.

    Some younger users feel more connected to hosts when they can see facial expressions, body language, and surroundings. Others only want video when the subject benefits from visuals, such as breaking news footage, complex explanations, comedy, lifestyle, or entertainment. For factual news, many still prefer audio because it is flexible, intimate, and easy to use while doing other things.

    3. How are publishers responding to the shift towards video?

    Publishers are taking video seriously, but most are cautious about a full “pivot to video”. The report identifies three main strategic reasons for investing in video: acquisition, retention, and revenue.

    For acquisition, video helps publishers reach audiences through YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube Shorts, Spotify, and connected TVs. Video clips are easier to share and can act as discovery tools for younger audiences who may not actively seek out publisher websites or podcast apps.

    For retention, podcasts deepen audience relationships. The report repeatedly emphasises the human dimension of podcasting: hosts build trust, habit, familiarity, and parasocial connection. For subscription publishers, these relationships can reduce churn and strengthen the broader value of the subscription bundle.

    For revenue, video opens access to larger advertising budgets than audio alone. However, the report is careful to note that the economics remain uncertain. Video production costs more, requires new workflows, and may not pay off in smaller markets where advertising opportunities are limited.

    Publisher strategies differ sharply. The New York Times is selective: shows such as Hard Fork, Popcast, and The Ezra Klein Show have video versions, while The Daily remains audio-first. The Guardian is also hybrid, using video for some conversational and sports formats while protecting narrative audio investigations. Die Zeit treats video mainly as a discovery layer. The Economist is exploring video inside a subscription ecosystem. Nordic publishers such as Bonnier, Schibsted/Podme, and Politiken are more cautious because they already have strong audio habits, subscription models, and smaller advertising markets.

    The report’s table on publisher strategies is especially useful because it shows that video is not one strategy but several: full video versions, short promotional clips, subscriber-only video, TV/documentary extensions, studio models, and selective experiments.

    4. What is changing in the economics of news podcasting?

    The economics are becoming more complex and hybrid. Traditional podcasting has mostly been free and advertising-supported, but publishers are now experimenting with subscriptions, bundles, premium layers, bonus episodes, live events, memberships, merchandise, IP licensing, and brand partnerships.

    The report shows that direct payment remains difficult. Audience research in the US, UK, and Norway found that many listeners value news podcasts but are reluctant to pay because there are so many free alternatives. Some would switch to another show if their favourite podcast went behind a paywall. Others might pay only for genuinely distinctive content, such as exclusive interviews, deep expertise, investigative journalism, archives, or bonus material.

    Several publishers are nevertheless testing paid audio. The Economist put most of its podcasts behind a paywall while keeping The Intelligence free. Die Zeit launched a separate podcast subscription. Politiken launched a stand-alone audio app. The New York Times offers an audio subscription mainly around archives and bonus material, while still using free recent episodes to support the broader bundle. Schibsted/Podme uses a premium podcast subscription model in the Nordics, with some free content and some exclusive paid layers.

    Advertising remains central, but video changes the opportunity. The report notes that US podcast advertising revenue reached $2.4 billion in 2024, while digital video advertising was vastly larger. That creates an incentive for podcast publishers to access video budgets. But the advertising market is still organised around separate audio and video buying teams, and measurement, ad-serving, pricing, and platform standards remain unresolved.

    The report’s broader conclusion is that podcasts are rarely just stand-alone revenue products for traditional publishers. They are often part of a wider funnel: attracting new users, increasing engagement, reducing churn, and adding value to subscriptions.

    5. What are the wider implications for journalism and media organisations?

    The report suggests that the future of news podcasting will be shaped by a tension between journalism-led publishing and creator-led show business.

    For traditional newsrooms, the challenge is organisational as much as technological. Audio, video, social, text, product, and commercial teams can no longer operate as separate silos if one recorded conversation can become a podcast episode, a video episode, social clips, a newsletter, a transcript, a written article, and a subscriber feature. This requires new skills, new production workflows, and potentially new “studio” or “show” structures inside media companies.

    The rise of talent also raises editorial questions. Podcast-first companies such as Goalhanger and Chora Media put hosts, fandoms, communities, and show brands at the centre. Their model looks less like traditional news publishing and more like a blend of creator economy, television, live events, and music-industry-style fandom. Traditional publishers may want some of that audience loyalty, but adopting the model raises questions about editorial control, host power, commercial boundaries, and whether newsrooms are set up to develop and retain talent in the same way.

    The report’s final implication is that “podcasting” itself is becoming harder to define. Some purists still tie the term to RSS distribution or audio. But in practice, audiences increasingly encounter podcasts on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, social feeds, connected TVs, apps, and paywalled publisher products. The boundaries between podcast, video show, radio programme, social franchise, and subscription product are blurring.

    The report concludes that the future is unlikely to be audio versus video. It is more likely to be a hybrid ecosystem where successful publishers combine reach and depth, free and paid layers, journalism and personality, open distribution and owned platforms. The strategic question is how much news organisations are willing to invest in creator-led, show-based formats without losing the editorial qualities that made their audio journalism valuable in the first place.

  • 2026 Work Trend Index by Microsoft

    2026 Work Trend Index by Microsoft

    About the paper

    Microsoft’s 2026 Work Trend Index Annual Report examines how A.I. agents are changing work, arguing that as agents take on more execution, human agency shifts towards intent-setting, judgement, orchestration and accountability.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on Microsoft 365 telemetry, a 20,000-person online survey of A.I.-using knowledge workers across 10 markets, a separate 1,800-person global survey on managers and agentic A.I., and expert perspectives; the main survey covers Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the UK and the US.

    Length: 29 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/agents-human-agency-and-the-opportunity-for-every-organization

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central argument of the report?

    The report’s central argument is that AI and agents are not merely productivity tools; they are forcing a redesign of the operating model of work. Microsoft frames this as a shift in which agents take on more execution, while humans gain more “agency”: more capacity to define intent, direct work, exercise judgement and own outcomes.

    The report is explicit that the key question is no longer simply whether organisations are adopting AI. The larger question is whether they are structurally capable of capturing its value. Its thesis is that many workers are already using AI in advanced and resourceful ways, but their organisations have not yet redesigned the surrounding systems — leadership alignment, incentives, governance, performance evaluation, culture and management practices — to match what AI now makes possible.

    A useful way to express the report’s logic is this: AI raises individual capability, but organisational design determines whether that capability becomes institutional advantage. The report repeatedly contrasts “AI adoption” with “AI absorption”. Adoption means people or teams use tools. Absorption means the organisation changes how work is designed, evaluated, governed, learned from and scaled.

    This is why the report’s three-part structure matters. At the employee level, AI expands what individuals can do. At the leader level, the task becomes rearchitecting work rather than simply deploying tools. At the organisational level, the most advanced firms become “Learning Systems” that capture lessons from AI-enabled work and turn them into repeatable practices.

    2. How does AI change the role and value of individual employees?

    The report argues that AI lifts the ceiling on individual potential by helping people do more complex, higher-value work. In Microsoft’s privacy-preserving analysis of more than 100,000 Microsoft 365 Copilot chats, 49% of classified conversations supported cognitive work such as analysing information, solving problems, evaluating and thinking creatively. The rest were split between working with people, finding information and producing work.

    Survey findings reinforce this. According to the report, 66% of AI users say AI has allowed them to spend more time on high-value work, and 58% say they are producing work they could not have produced a year earlier. Among “Frontier Professionals” — the most advanced AI users in the research — that latter figure rises to 80%.

    However, the report does not present this as simple automation. Its stronger claim is that human value moves. As AI takes on more execution, the employee’s differentiating contribution becomes judgement, quality control, critical thinking, intent-setting and the design of the human-AI workflow. The report says AI users themselves recognise this: 50% name quality control of AI output as an increasingly important human skill, while 46% name critical thinking. A striking 86% say they treat AI output as a starting point, not a final answer, and that they remain responsible for the thinking.

    The report’s page 9 framework is particularly useful. It describes four modes of working with AI: asking, delegation, collaboration and exploration. The key point is not that one mode is superior. The most advanced users know which mode a task requires. Quick factual queries may be “asking”; recurring reports or structured summaries may be “delegation”; proposals and judgement-heavy communication may require “collaboration”; and unfamiliar workflows may call for “exploration”. This is an important conceptual distinction because it moves the discussion beyond “prompting” towards work design.

    3. What is the “Transformation Paradox” identified by the report?

    The “Transformation Paradox” is the report’s term for the gap between workers’ AI readiness and organisations’ ability to support it. Microsoft maps respondents across two dimensions: individual AI capability and organisational readiness. The result is a five-zone model.

    Only 19% of AI users fall into the “Frontier” zone, where both individual capability and organisational readiness are high. Another 10% are in “blocked agency”: they have strong individual AI capability, but their organisations are not ready to support or absorb it. A further 5% represent “unclaimed capacity”, where the organisation is more ready than the individual. Sixteen per cent are “stalled”, with both low individual capability and low organisational readiness. The largest group, 50%, sits in the “emergent” zone, where both individual practice and organisational conditions are still forming.

    The paradox is that the pressure to use AI is rising, but the organisational systems still reward old ways of working. The report says 65% of AI users fear falling behind if they do not adapt quickly with AI, yet 45% say it feels safer to focus on current goals than to redesign work with AI. Only 13% say they are rewarded for reinventing work with AI even when results are not immediately achieved.

    This is one of the report’s most important findings because it reframes AI transformation as a management and systems problem. The obstacle is not simply lack of tools or lack of individual skill. It is the mismatch between what employees are capable of doing and what their organisations measure, encourage, permit and reward.

    4. What role does leadership play in turning AI use into organisational value?

    The report places substantial responsibility on leaders and managers. It argues that the job of every leader is now to “rearchitect work” — not just introduce AI tools, but redesign workflows, roles, incentives, metrics, governance and expectations around what humans and agents should each do.

    Leadership alignment appears to be weak. Only 26% of AI users say their leadership is clearly and consistently aligned on AI. The report also finds a perception gap between leaders and employees: leaders are more likely than employees to say AI-driven reinvention feels safe and rewarded. That suggests that senior leaders may believe the organisation is more supportive of AI transformation than employees experience in practice.

    Managers are presented as especially important because they translate strategy into everyday behaviour. A separate Microsoft-led study of 1,800 employees globally found that when managers actively model AI use, employees report a 17-point lift in AI value, a 22-point lift in critical thinking about AI use and a 30-point lift in trust in agentic AI. When managers create psychological safety around experimentation, employees report higher AI readiness and value, and are more likely to be high-frequency users of agentic AI.

    The report also shows that Frontier Professionals tend to work in stronger managerial environments. Compared with non-Frontier Professionals, they are more likely to say their manager openly uses AI, sets quality standards for AI-assisted work, creates space for experimentation and encourages more ambitious work redesign. This supports the report’s broader argument: individual AI skill matters, but it compounds only when leaders create the right organisational conditions.

    5. What does the report mean by saying every firm must become a “Learning System”?

    The report uses “Learning System” to describe an organisation that captures what AI-enabled work is teaching it and turns those insights into shared, repeatable and improving practices. This is the report’s organisational endgame: the firms that win are not simply those with the most AI tools, but those that learn fastest from their own work.

    The evidence behind this claim comes from Microsoft’s AI Impact Analysis. The report finds that organisational factors — culture, manager support and talent practices — account for more than twice the reported AI impact of individual mindset and behaviour: 67% versus 32%. The top single factor is organisational AI culture, followed by talent practices and manager support. The methodology is careful to state that these are statistical associations, not causal effects, because the variables are self-reported at the same moment.

    The report argues that as agents become more active, they generate valuable signals: what worked, what failed, where quality drifted, which hand-offs broke down and where workflows need redesign. In weaker organisations, these signals stay local. In stronger ones, they are captured, shared and encoded into routines. This is what Microsoft calls “Owned Intelligence”: institutional know-how that compounds over time, is specific to the firm and is difficult for competitors to copy.

    The report identifies three questions every advanced organisation must answer:

    1. who reviews agent performance
    2. who has authority to update agent workflows
    3. and how local wins are captured and scaled.

    It also argues that this requires coordination across four roles: employees who redesign their work around intent and review; leaders who redesign processes around outcomes and agent autonomy; IT teams that manage agents as entities with identities, permissions and lifecycle controls; and security teams that build monitoring, auditability and policy enforcement into the system.

    The implication is clear: AI transformation is not finished when employees start using AI. It becomes strategically meaningful only when the organisation builds the infrastructure to learn from AI-enabled work, codify that learning and continuously improve how humans and agents work together.

  • 2025 PR Performance Report by Prezly

    2025 PR Performance Report by Prezly

    About the paper

    The report argues that effective PR performance depends on combining inbound discovery with outbound outreach, using platform data from Prezly newsrooms and campaign sends in 2025 plus a cited secondary analysis on AI citations.

    It is best described as a mixed-methods data report based mainly on large-scale proprietary behavioural data, but the exact number of campaigns, organisations, users, or countries covered is not clearly specified in the report.

    Its evidence appears to be drawn from Prezly platform activity, with some broader industry context added from external analysis; the geographic scope is not clearly specified in the report.

    Length: 10 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.prezly.com/insights

    Core Insights

    1. What is the report’s central argument about how PR performance should be understood?

    The core argument is that PR performance cannot be judged mainly through campaign metrics such as opens and clicks. Prezly argues that PR teams need to see inbound and outbound activity as connected parts of one system: a newsroom that attracts discovery through search and AI, and targeted outreach that drives engagement with the right recipients. The report repeatedly frames this as a shift away from narrow campaign reporting towards a broader understanding of how audiences actually find and use PR content.

    This matters because the report claims that much of PR’s real impact happens outside traditional email performance dashboards. Search visits, AI citations, and delayed direct visits may all reflect communications value, yet they are often omitted from standard reporting. Prezly’s perspective section makes this explicit by saying that teams measuring only opens and clicks are “measuring the smallest part” of the work.

    2. What does the report show about inbound PR and how people discover newsroom content?

    The clearest finding is that search is the dominant driver of newsroom traffic. The report says newsroom traffic grew 62% year on year, with 65% of traffic coming from search, 29% from direct traffic, 5% from social media referrals, and 1% from AI referrals such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity. It also notes that direct traffic includes pitch-email clicks because many email clients do not pass referrer data.

    The implication is that newsroom content increasingly serves discovery audiences beyond journalists receiving a pitch. On page 2, the report states that for every tracked click from ChatGPT, roughly 50 more people may have seen the content within an AI response, suggesting that visible referral traffic understates AI exposure. The chart on page 2 reinforces this broader discovery logic by showing Google far ahead of other referral sources.

    The report also argues that owned newsroom content is much more likely than syndicated PR material to appear in AI-generated answers. Citing a BuzzStream analysis via Search Engine Journal, it says 98.6% of relevant AI-cited PR content came from owned newsroom content, compared with 1.2% from wire services and 0.2% from syndicated PR. That is the basis for the report’s “450× more likely” claim. This is important because it supports Prezly’s case that publishing location now affects not only search visibility but also AI discoverability.

    A further practical point is device use. The report says 54.7% of newsroom visits are on mobile, versus 44.8% on desktop and 1.5% on tablet. So even if teams produce good content, the user experience may still fail if newsrooms are designed mainly for desktop behaviour.

    3. What does the report find about outbound outreach and what makes pitches perform better?

    The strongest pattern is that smaller media lists perform much better than large sends. On page 4, the report says pitches sent to lists of 1 contact achieve a 19.3% click-through rate, lists of 2–10 achieve 16.8%, lists of 51–200 achieve 5.8%, and lists of 200+ achieve 3.6%. The chart on that page shows a steady decline in CTR as list size increases. This underpins the report’s repeated argument that relevance beats volume.

    Personalisation helps, but only within a sound targeting strategy. The report states that personalisation lifts CTR by 15%, with the strongest gains in lists of 2–25 recipients. Its interpretation is that personalisation amplifies a good list rather than rescuing a poor one. The chart on page 5 visually supports that point by showing the personalised version outperforming the non-personalised version most clearly in smaller list ranges.

    Pitch length also matters. Prezly argues against the common assumption that shorter is always better, saying the 201–300 word range nearly doubles CTR compared with shorter pitches. The chart on page 6 shows the 201–300 word band as the strongest performer at 6.25% CTR, clearly above other length ranges.

    By contrast, subject line length seems less decisive. The report says open rate “barely moves” with subject line length, while CTR peaks at 20–40 characters and very short subject lines underperform. So the report suggests that teams may spend too much time optimising superficial elements and not enough on list quality, relevance, and body copy.

    4. What assumptions and perspective shape the report?

    The report is clearly written from a platform-company perspective, and that matters to how its argument is framed. Prezly’s viewpoint is that PR teams undervalue the newsroom as a performance asset and over-focus on campaign-level metrics. The document consistently argues for seeing newsrooms, search visibility, AI discovery, and targeted pitching as an integrated workflow. That framing aligns closely with Prezly’s product positioning.

    Its underlying assumptions are that discoverability now matters as much as distribution, that owned content is strategically more important than wire-based distribution, and that behavioural data offers a better view of performance than legacy PR metrics alone. Those assumptions are plausible within the report’s evidence base, but they are still shaped by the lens of a vendor analysing its own ecosystem.

    Methodologically, the report is also selective. It relies heavily on aggregated platform data, but it does not clearly specify sample size, client mix, timeframe boundaries beyond “last year” or “2025”, sector spread, or geography. That does not invalidate the findings, but it does mean the report is more directional than fully transparent academic-style research.

    5. What are the main implications for PR teams and communications leaders?

    The biggest implication is measurement. If teams continue to report mainly on opens and clicks, they may systematically understate communications impact. The report suggests that leaders should expand dashboards to include newsroom traffic, search visibility, AI discoverability, and post-campaign engagement beyond the original send.

    The second implication is strategic. PR teams may need to treat their newsroom as a discoverability engine rather than simply a repository for press releases. Because search is the top traffic source and owned content dominates AI citation patterns, publishing discipline, structure, and content freshness become more important. The report effectively reframes the newsroom as infrastructure for earned, search, and AI exposure.

    Third, the report points towards a more selective outreach model. Smaller, more targeted lists, better personalisation, and stronger pitch construction outperform scale-based blasting. For PR leaders, that implies a capability shift away from volume and towards segmentation, judgement, and relevance.

    Finally, there is a practical user-experience implication: mobile cannot be treated as secondary. With more than half of newsroom visits coming from phones, weak mobile experiences risk undermining otherwise strong content.

    Taken together, the report’s conclusion is that the best PR teams will be those that connect content publishing, discoverability, outreach, and measurement into one coherent operating model rather than treating them as separate tasks.

  • 2026 Global Communication Report by USC Annenberg

    2026 Global Communication Report by USC Annenberg

    About the paper

    This report examines how political and social polarization is reshaping corporate communication and the PR profession, arguing that the industry is undergoing “a quiet shift” from expansive purpose-led speech to a more cautious, situational approach.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on an online survey of 704 PR professionals, a parallel online survey of 1,011 U.S. adults, and qualitative research involving six individual CCO interviews plus a focus group with eight senior communications professionals; the PR sample was global in reach but heavily U.S.-weighted, while the public survey was U.S.-only.

    The methodology is clearly stated, though the PR professional survey used non-probability sampling, which limits how broadly those findings can be generalised.

    Length: 50 pages

    More information / download:
    https://annenberg.usc.edu/research/center-public-relations/global-communication-report

    Core Insights

    1) What is the central argument of the report about polarization and the communications profession?

    The report’s core argument is that polarization has become a persistent condition rather than a temporary phase, and that this is fundamentally reshaping the communications function. Instead of treating polarization as a passing disruption, the report frames it as a structural reality that is changing how companies decide when to speak, what to say, and what risks they are willing to take.

    That is what the title phrase, “a quiet shift,” is meant to capture. The shift is not presented as a dramatic collapse of corporate communication, but as a strategic recalibration. Companies are not necessarily speaking less overall; rather, they are becoming more selective, more conditional, and more defensive in their communications choices. The report suggests that the profession is moving away from broad purpose-driven dialogue and toward a more situational model of corporate speech shaped by risk, scrutiny and backlash.

    Importantly, the report does not portray this as a decline in PR’s relevance. In fact, it makes the opposite case: polarization may be socially harmful, but it has increased the strategic importance of communications inside organisations. PR professionals increasingly see themselves as advisers navigating reputational landmines, internal tensions and stakeholder expectations in a climate where one misstep can trigger immediate consequences. That is why the report repeatedly returns to the tension between PR as “trumpet” and PR as “shield” — between amplifying positive narratives and defending organisations in hostile conditions.

    So the central argument is twofold: polarization is pushing companies towards caution, but that same volatility is making PR more indispensable. The profession is becoming less about confident public positioning and more about judgement, risk management, counsel and selective engagement.

    2) How do PR professionals and the U.S. public differ in how they perceive polarization and its consequences?

    One of the report’s most important findings is that PR professionals perceive polarization as more intense, more damaging and more enduring than the general public does. Among PR professionals, 81% say the current level of political and social polarization in the United States is extremely high or high, compared with 69% of the general public. That gap matters because it helps explain why communicators may act with more caution than many audiences expect.

    The two groups also differ over which issues are seen as most polarizing. Both groups rank immigration highly, and crime is another area where views are relatively aligned. But beyond that, the divergence becomes more pronounced. PR professionals are much more likely than the public to describe issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and climate change as highly polarizing, while the public places greater emphasis on inflation and affordable housing. In other words, PR professionals appear more attuned to culture-war fault lines, while the general public is somewhat more focused on economic pressures.

    The same pattern shows up in perceptions of impact. PR professionals overwhelmingly believe polarization is harming quality of life, affecting mental health and is unlikely to decrease any time soon. The public agrees on the direction of impact, but less intensely. The report explicitly raises the possibility that communicators may be “oversensitized” to polarization. That does not necessarily mean they are wrong; it means they experience the issue through a professional lens in which reputational risk is more visible, more immediate and more consequential.

    There is also a generational dimension within the PR sample. Gen X and Baby Boomer practitioners are more likely than Gen Z and Millennials to see current polarization levels as severe. Younger professionals, having entered the workforce in a more polarized era, seem more likely to treat these conditions as normal rather than exceptional. That generational difference is significant because it suggests that the profession’s internal culture may continue to evolve as younger cohorts move into leadership roles.

    Overall, the report shows that PR professionals do not merely mirror public sentiment. They interpret polarization through a heightened risk lens, which shapes how they counsel leaders, prioritise issues and recommend communication strategies.

    3) How is polarization changing expectations around corporate speech, corporate purpose, and the role of business in social issues?

    The report shows a marked retreat from the expansive expectations placed on corporate speech in recent years. Since 2020, the USC team has asked whether companies should engage in social issues even when those issues are not directly related to the business. In 2023 and 2024, nearly nine in ten PR professionals said yes. By 2025 that fell to 52%, and in 2026 it stands at 55%. Among the general public, only 42% agree. That is one of the clearest indicators in the report that corporate purpose, at least in its more outward and activist form, has lost momentum.

    The report does not suggest that social responsibility has disappeared. More than half of PR professionals still believe business has some responsibility to advocate or support social issues, and younger practitioners are especially likely to hold that view. But the dominant mood has shifted from confidence to caution. The report links this to increased political scrutiny, a more punitive public environment, and a broader sense that speaking out now carries higher downside risk.

    That change is reinforced by another finding: both PR professionals and the public assign only a limited role to large public companies in reducing national polarization. Just 30% of PR professionals and 29% of the public say large public companies have a great deal of responsibility here. By contrast, most of the responsibility is placed on political parties, elected officials, social media companies and news media. This is a notable re-scaling of corporate expectations. Business is no longer widely seen as a primary agent for solving societal division.

    The report also uses examples and third-party analyses to show how this shift plays out in practice. It contrasts the broad corporate response after George Floyd’s murder in 2020 with the much more muted response to later killings in Minneapolis in 2026. It also presents secondary analyses from Cometrics.io and Meltwater suggesting that corporate and executive communication has shifted away from environmental and purpose-led themes and towards more corporate topics, especially AI. Even when the overall volume of communication remains steady, the content mix has changed substantially.

    In effect, the report argues that business is moving from public moral positioning towards narrower, lower-risk communication. Companies may still engage on issues, but they are increasingly likely to do so only when there is a clear fit with business priorities, stakeholder expectations or operational relevance. The era of broad-based corporate commentary appears to be giving way to a more selective and defensible model.

    4) How is the day-to-day practice of PR changing in response to this environment?

    The report suggests that the everyday practice of PR is becoming more controlled, more tactical and more risk-conscious. This is visible both in the recommended strategies and in how practitioners define their role. The strongest consensus is around restraint and preparation rather than boldness. Large majorities say relationships with influencers and external organisations should be vetted more carefully, scenario planning should happen more often, internal communications should be prioritised, and messages should be more thoroughly pre-tested. Higher approval thresholds for public statements also receive strong support.

    This does not mean the profession has become uniformly silent or passive. On the question of posture, practitioners are split. Nearly half favour the idea that “a good offense is the best defense,” while a substantial minority prefer a more defensive approach. Agency professionals lean more towards proactive communication, whereas in-house professionals are more likely to favour defence. That split makes sense: agencies may be structurally more inclined to push outward-facing strategies, while in-house teams bear more direct responsibility for internal risk, leadership exposure and organisational fallout.

    The report also shows that protecting corporate reputation has become a central responsibility of PR in this environment. Communicating company values, addressing issues important to stakeholders and providing counsel to the C-suite all rank highly. By contrast, acting as the conscience of the organisation and building the business rank lower. That is revealing. It suggests a profession that still sees itself as strategically important, but less in terms of moral leadership and more in terms of judgement, alignment and protection.

    Silence, notably, has become a legitimate tactic. Forty-one percent of PR professionals agree that silence should be employed as a defensive communication strategy in some cases, and the figure rises above half among in-house respondents. That does not mean silence is always preferred, but it does show how much the communicative norm has changed. In a more volatile environment, saying nothing is no longer automatically seen as failure; it can be framed as disciplined judgement.

    The report also points to changes in media strategy. Trust is highest in major newspapers, financial media and trade publications, while influencers, social media, paid media and AI platforms attract much less trust overall. This reinforces the report’s broader argument that communicators are becoming more selective not just about messages, but also about channels and partners. The profession is tightening control: fewer risks, fewer loose affiliations, more testing, more filtering, and more reliance on trusted or controllable environments.

    5) What does the report suggest about the future direction of the profession over the next five years?

    The future described in the report is not one of decline, but of reallocation and adaptation. PR professionals expect resources to move away from DEI, sustainability and purpose-driven initiatives, and towards areas more directly connected to resilience and organisational survival. The highest expected increases are in AI innovation and ethics, crisis communications, government relations/public affairs, influencer engagement, and measurement and evaluation. This is a clear signal that the profession expects its future value to be judged more on operational usefulness than on symbolic positioning.

    AI sits at the top of that list, which is striking. The report treats AI not as a peripheral tool but as a major strategic priority. At the same time, it suggests that communications leaders will need to claim that terrain quickly if they want to shape the transformation rather than have it defined by other functions. That is part of a broader message running through the report: PR’s future influence will depend less on visibility and more on demonstrable business contribution.

    That is why one of the strongest future-facing findings concerns measurement. Asked what would have the strongest impact on addressing the profession’s challenges if polarization continues, respondents put aligning communication measurement with business objectives at the top. Creating stronger partnerships with other C-suite executives also ranks highly. Together, those findings suggest a profession trying to secure its future not mainly by asserting its importance rhetorically, but by proving it in business terms.

    The report also anticipates structural change. More than two-thirds of in-house communicators say their organisations are likely to restructure the communication function in the near future. That implies that PR’s role inside organisations is still unsettled. The profession may gain status, but it will also face pressure to redefine its remit, integrate more closely with other functions and show clearer returns.

    At the same time, the tone is not pessimistic. Personal satisfaction among PR professionals remains high, and 72% say the outlook for future growth of the profession is positive. The concluding argument is that PR will remain essential, but it will become more pragmatic: more focused on trust, risk, business alignment, public policy, finance and AI, and somewhat less driven by idealism, creativity and broad-purpose storytelling. In that sense, the future of the profession is not simply more cautious. It is more hard-edged, more accountable and more explicitly tied to organisational resilience.

  • Global Connectedness Report 2026 by DHL and NYU Stern

    Global Connectedness Report 2026 by DHL and NYU Stern

    About the paper

    The paper is a data-driven globalization report by Steven A. Altman and Caroline R. Bastian of NYU Stern, produced in partnership with DHL.

    It is not survey-based; it is a secondary-analysis and index report using more than 9 million country-to-country data points on trade, capital, information and people flows, ranking 180 countries globally.

    Its geographic scope is worldwide, with country profiles and regional analysis across major world regions.

    Length: 320 pages

    More information / download:
    https://www.dhl.com/global-en/microsites/core/global-connectedness/report.html

    Core Insights

    1. Is globalization actually reversing, or is the report arguing that deglobalization is overstated?

    The report’s central argument is that deglobalization is overstated. It does not deny that geopolitical risk, tariffs, war, policy volatility and public scepticism have increased. But it argues that the actual data on cross-border flows do not show a broad retreat from international to domestic activity.

    The DHL Global Connectedness Index reached a record high in 2022 and has remained broadly stable through 2025. The report’s key measure of “depth” — international activity relative to domestic activity — sits at around 25%. That means globalization is historically high, but still limited: the world is far from “hyperglobalized”. Most economic and human activity still happens within countries rather than across borders.

    This distinction is central to the report’s logic. The authors are not saying that globalization is smooth, frictionless or politically uncontested. They are saying that globalization is being reshaped rather than reversed. The world is more volatile, but not meaningfully less connected.

    2. What evidence does the report give that global flows remain resilient?

    The report examines four broad types of flows: trade, capital, information and people.

    On trade, the report finds that goods trade grew faster in 2025 than in any year since 2017, excluding the post-Covid rebound. Part of this was driven by U.S. importers front-loading goods before tariff increases, but China’s exports to non-U.S. markets and AI infrastructure investment also supported growth. AI-related goods reportedly accounted for a large share of goods trade growth in the first three quarters of 2025.

    On capital, the picture is more mixed, but not one of retreat. Foreign direct investment and M&A activity remain broadly in line with historical patterns, even though greenfield FDI announcements weakened in some areas. The report emphasises that companies continue to invest abroad and that multinational firms still conduct close to record shares of activity outside their home markets.

    On information, the report is more cautious. Information flows have been the fastest-growing part of globalization over the past two decades, but some indicators have plateaued or weakened since 2021. International patenting has slowed, scientific collaboration has declined slightly, and cross-border intellectual property flows have eased. The report suggests that geopolitical tensions and data restrictions may now be constraining this part of globalization.

    On people, the report finds that international travel has recovered from the Covid-19 collapse, while international student mobility and migration remain on longer-term rising trends. However, people flows remain the least globalized category: only a small share of the world’s population lives outside its country of birth.

    3. How serious is geopolitical fragmentation, especially between the U.S., China and Russia?

    The report treats geopolitical fragmentation as a real risk, but argues that its global effects remain limited so far.

    The clearest evidence of fragmentation is in U.S.–China ties. Since 2016, the share of U.S. trade, capital, information and people flows involving China has fallen substantially, while China’s share involving the U.S. has also declined. Direct U.S. imports from China fell from a peak of 22% in 2017 to 13% in 2024, and then to 9% during the first three quarters of 2025.

    However, the report adds an important complication: the U.S. has not necessarily reduced its underlying reliance on Chinese content. Goods imported from third countries may still contain Chinese inputs. When looking at direct and indirect China-origin content, the report says there is no clear evidence of a major decline in U.S. reliance on goods from China through 2024.

    Russia is the more dramatic case. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s flows with the EU have collapsed across trade, investment, information and people flows. Russia’s exports have become less diversified and more dependent on a few destinations such as China, India and Türkiye.

    But the report’s broader conclusion is that these cases do not amount to a global split into rival blocs. Only a small share of global trade and investment has shifted away from geopolitical rivals. Most international business already takes place among friendly or neutral countries, which limits the likely impact of “de-risking” on globalization as a whole.

    4. Is globalization being replaced by regionalization or nearshoring?

    The report’s answer is: not yet, at least not in the data.

    Despite widespread discussion of nearshoring, friendshoring and regional supply chains, the report finds that many international flows are crossing longer, not shorter, distances. The average distance traversed by flows in the DHL Global Connectedness Index reached a record high in 2024. Goods trade and greenfield FDI crossed record average distances in 2025.

    This directly challenges the idea that globalization is giving way to regionalization. If international activity were becoming more regional, the average distance covered by flows should be falling. Instead, the report finds the opposite for several major flow types.

    That said, the report does not dismiss regionalization entirely. It notes that many governments and companies are interested in nearshoring and supply-chain resilience, and that such changes can take years to implement. It also acknowledges that international flows are already highly regionalized: roughly half of global trade, capital, information and people flows occur within major world regions. The report’s point is not that regionalization is irrelevant, but that there is not yet robust evidence of a major new shift from global to regional patterns.

    5. Which countries are most globally connected, and what does that reveal about globalization?

    Singapore ranks as the world’s most globally connected country, followed by Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Hong Kong SAR, the United Arab Emirates, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Denmark.

    The report distinguishes between two dimensions of connectedness: depth and breadth. Depth measures the size of international flows relative to domestic activity. Breadth measures how widely a country’s flows are distributed across the world.

    Small, wealthy economies tend to score highly on depth because their domestic markets are limited and they rely heavily on cross-border trade, capital, people and information flows. That explains the strong performance of places such as Singapore, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Ireland and the UAE.

    Larger economies often score higher on breadth than depth. The United Kingdom ranks first on breadth, followed by the United States, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Israel, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Australia. These countries have flows that reach widely across the world, but their large domestic economies mean that international activity can still represent a smaller share of total activity.

    This country-level analysis reinforces one of the report’s core themes: globalization is uneven. Some countries are deeply and broadly connected, while others remain peripheral. Wealth, peace and security, openness, regional integration, infrastructure and domestic business conditions all shape how connected a country becomes.

  • State of AI in PR 2026 by Muck Rack

    State of AI in PR 2026 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The report is an original research survey about how PR professionals are using, governing and judging generative AI and emerging AI agents in their work.

    It is based on a survey of 564 PR professionals fielded from 5 December to 24 December 2025 and distributed primarily via email; responses were reviewed for low-effort patterns and outliers.

    The geographic scope is not clearly specified in the report, and the methodology is useful but relatively thin on sampling detail beyond distribution method and data cleaning.

    Length: 28 pages

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

    Core Insights

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

      The core argument is that generative AI has moved from novelty to normal practice in PR, but that adoption has now largely plateaued. The report says AI use has “peaked” at around three-quarters of PR professionals, with 76% already using generative AI in their workflow and only modest shares still undecided or resistant. In other words, the market now appears split between a large majority who have already incorporated AI and a smaller minority who are unlikely to change their minds soon.

      The report also argues that this is no longer just an individual experimentation story. Organisations are adapting to AI institutionally: 51% of respondents say their company has an AI use-case policy, and 43% say their workplace offers AI training. That suggests AI in PR is becoming formalised, governed and embedded in workplace practice rather than remaining a purely ad hoc tool used by curious individuals.

      At the same time, the report draws a clear line between generative AI and agentic AI. While text-generation and workflow support are mainstream, AI agents have not yet crossed into broad professional adoption. Only 12% say they use AI agents in their work, and most respondents remain uncomfortable with autonomous action without human review. So the report’s bigger message is not “AI is coming”; it is “AI is here, but autonomy is not yet trusted.”

      2. How are PR professionals actually using AI, and where do they see the most value?

      The report shows that PR professionals are using AI mainly in mainstream knowledge and writing tasks, not in highly specialised or fully automated ways. The most common use case is editing and refinement, cited by 86%, followed by research and insights at 76%, writing and content creation at 74%, and strategy and planning at 68%. Administrative tasks are also significant at 51%, whereas media outreach, measurement and creative asset production remain much less central.

      That distribution matters because it shows where AI currently fits the profession best: it acts primarily as a cognitive and editorial assistant. It helps polish drafts, speed up background work, support ideation and assist with planning. The report says PR pros use AI in an average of four distinct work areas, which reinforces the idea that adoption is broad across tasks even if it is not yet deep in every part of the workflow.

      Perceived value is also very strong. Eighty-two per cent say AI has improved the quality of their work, while 93% say it helps them complete projects more quickly. When asked where the greatest time savings occur, respondents again point to core communication work: editing and refinement, research and insights, and writing and content creation. This suggests AI’s practical value in PR is currently less about replacing judgement and more about compressing routine labour around producing and shaping communication.

      3. What does the report suggest about trust, oversight and the limits of AI in PR practice?

      A key theme running through the report is that PR professionals are using AI extensively, but they do not trust it enough to leave it unsupervised. The clearest sign of this is editing behaviour: 98% say they always or often edit AI-generated text before using it. Although the extent of editing has decreased over time, the human review step remains almost universal. That implies AI is accepted as a draft partner, not as a final author.

      The report also reveals a selective approach to data input. Large majorities say they avoid entering financial data, personally identifiable information and proprietary or strategic material into AI systems. Yet far fewer avoid entering client or brand names and internal communications. This points to a practical but uneven data-risk mindset: many PR professionals recognise serious information-governance risks, but boundaries around what is safe to share with AI are still inconsistent.

      Trust drops even further when the report turns to AI agents. Only 7% say they would be comfortable allowing an AI agent to send messages or publish updates without human review, while about nine in ten are uncomfortable. The main conditions for greater trust are strong evidence of reliability, explicit human approval before publishing or sending, strong privacy and security safeguards, and transparent records of what the agent did. The report therefore implies that the profession is not rejecting automation outright, but it wants clear guardrails, accountability and a human in the loop.

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

      The biggest concern in the report is not that AI will immediately destroy PR jobs, but that it could erode professional formation. Seventy-seven per cent say the main risk is that younger or newer PR professionals will fail to learn the principles of the profession and rely too heavily on tools. That is a profound concern because it goes to capability-building, judgement and the long-term health of the field.

      Other major concerns are also closely tied to quality and professional standards. Sixty-three per cent worry about unscrutinised AI output lowering the quality of communication, while 61% fear content becoming less original or creative and 61% think audiences may be overwhelmed by rising volumes of content. There is also concern that clients or firms may conclude they no longer need content creators. Together, these findings show that respondents fear AI may devalue craft, raise noise levels and weaken the human distinctiveness of communication work.

      Among non-users, the resistance is often principled rather than merely practical. The report notes that the 7% who do not plan to explore generative AI often cite environmental impact, plagiarism and broader ethical concerns. Many of them do not appear persuadable: 80% say they do not see themselves using AI in the future no matter what. That is important because it means non-adoption is not simply a training gap for everyone; for some, it reflects a deeper values-based objection.

      5. What are the report’s main implications for the future of PR work, capability-building and organisational practice?

      The report points towards a future in which the competitive edge in PR will come not from whether someone uses AI, but from how well they use it under proper governance. Since adoption has already stabilised at a high level, the next differentiator is likely to be capability. Respondents say the most important new skills are prompt writing or engineering, ethical decision-making, AI tool evaluation and selection, and data literacy. That suggests the profession is shifting from simple tool familiarity to a broader blend of technical fluency, judgement and governance awareness.

      There is also a strong implication for employers. Training and policy appear to matter. Among those open to AI but not yet using it, 60% say training or proven examples would help them start. At the same time, the growth in workplace policies and training since 2024 suggests companies are beginning to respond to that need. So the report implies that organisational maturity around AI is no longer optional; it is becoming part of professional infrastructure.

      Finally, the report suggests that PR is heading towards a hybrid future rather than a fully automated one. Paid AI use is rising rapidly, and everyday AI-supported work is now common, but agentic AI remains marginal because trust, accountability and reputational risk still demand human control. The underlying conclusion is that PR professionals are prepared to augment their work with AI, but not to surrender authorship, responsibility or final judgement to it. That is probably the report’s most important strategic implication.

    1. A.I. Radar 2026 by BCG

      A.I. Radar 2026 by BCG

      About the paper

      BCG AI Radar 2026 is a survey-based report on corporate AI investment, CEO ownership of AI transformation, and the rise of agentic AI.

      It is based primarily on BCG’s 2026 AI Radar Survey of 2,360 executives, including 640 CEOs, across multiple industries and markets including the US, Europe, India, Japan, Greater China, the Middle East and Africa.

      The methodology is original survey research, supplemented in places by BCG analysis, BCG client experience, and a separate BCG–MIT Sloan Management Review dataset.

      Length: 29 pages

      More information / download:
      https://www.bcg.com/publications/2026/as-ai-investments-surge-ceos-take-the-lead

      Core Insights

      1. What is the central argument of the report?

      The report argues that AI has moved from experimental technology investment to a strategic, CEO-level transformation agenda. BCG’s core claim is that corporate AI investment is not only increasing sharply, but is also becoming more durable: organisations are planning to keep investing even if near-term financial returns disappoint.

      The clearest evidence is that projected AI investment has roughly doubled from 2025 to 2026, rising from around 0.8% to 1.7% of organisational revenue. At the same time, 94% of organisations say they will continue investing even if their AI initiatives do not pay off in 2026. Only 6% say they would pull back.

      The deeper message is that BCG sees AI no longer as a CIO-led technology programme, but as a broad business transformation. This is why the report places so much emphasis on CEOs: 72% of CEOs surveyed say they are now the main decision maker on AI, twice the share reported the previous year.

      2. What evidence does BCG provide that AI investment is becoming more serious and sustained?

      BCG provides three main pieces of evidence.

      First, AI investment as a share of revenue is projected to double in 2026. The report shows AI investment rising from about 0.6% of revenue in 2024, to 0.8% in 2025, and then to 1.7% in 2026. That is a significant escalation, especially because BCG notes that the average base revenue of the underlying companies has remained almost the same.

      Second, the increase is broad-based across industries. The chart on page 7 shows all industries planning higher AI investment in 2026. Technology leads at 2.1% of annual revenue, followed by financial institutions at 2.0%, insurance and energy/utilities at 1.9%, consumer at 1.7%, and healthcare at 1.6%. Industrials and real estate are lower at 0.8%, but still show an increase.

      Third, the commitment appears resilient. On page 5, BCG reports that 70% of respondents would “stay the course” or make strategic changes if AI does not deliver the desired financial impact in the next 12 months, while 24% would ramp up resourcing or invest in outside experts. That means disappointment would not necessarily reduce investment; for many organisations, it could trigger more disciplined or more aggressive implementation.

      3. How is leadership of AI changing inside organisations?

      The report’s second major argument is that AI transformation is becoming CEO-led rather than CIO-led. This is one of the most important shifts in the deck.

      BCG reports that 72% of CEOs say they are the main decision maker on AI in their organisation, twice the level from the previous year. It also reports that 82% of CEOs are more optimistic about AI’s ability to deliver ROI than they were 12 months earlier.

      The report goes further by linking AI success to CEO job security. Half of surveyed CEOs believe their job stability depends on getting AI investments and strategy right by 2026. That is a striking framing: AI is not presented merely as a productivity tool, but as a defining test of executive leadership.

      BCG also shows that CEOs express stronger conviction than other executive groups. On page 13, CEOs are slightly ahead of CIOs/CTOs in saying they are ready to lead an AI transformation, confident AI will pay off, and expecting major role disruption by 2030. The implication is that AI is becoming a top-management issue because it affects operating models, workforce design, competitive advantage, and future business models.

      4. What role does agentic AI play in the report’s argument?

      Agentic AI is presented as the next major mechanism through which organisations expect to see measurable value from AI. BCG reports that around 90% of CEOs believe AI agents will enable their organisations to report measurable ROI in 2026, and that CEOs have committed more than 30% of their organisation’s 2026 AI investment to agentic AI.

      The report describes agentic AI as both an opportunity and a risk. On cybersecurity, for example, 59% of leaders see AI agents as both a threat and an opportunity. The same capabilities that make agents useful — automation, scale, system access, continuous learning — can also make them dangerous if misused, hacked, or poorly governed.

      The report also uses BCG–MIT Sloan Management Review data to show that AI applications are expected to take on broader roles in organisations. Currently, 26% of organisations say AI acts as an assistant; in three years, that rises to 61%. The expected role of AI as colleague, coach, mentor, rival, and even boss also increases substantially. This supports BCG’s point that agentic AI is not just a software upgrade; it changes how companies organise work, decision-making, and governance.

      5. What does BCG believe separates leading CEOs from the rest?

      BCG identifies three CEO archetypes: Followers, Pragmatists, and Trailblazers.

      Followers, around 15% of CEOs, recognise AI’s potential but lack full conviction and make cautious early investments. Pragmatists, around 70%, are excited and confident but invest when they see clear value and lower risk. Trailblazers, around 15%, are the most committed group: they invest more heavily, upskill more of their workforce, spend more time deepening their own AI expertise, and are more confident that AI will deliver ROI.

      The report’s most important distinction is that Trailblazers create a “positive flywheel”. They make AI and agentic AI a top priority, deepen their own AI literacy, commit capital at scale, upskill the organisation, and track measurable ROI. For example, Trailblazers spend around 60% of their AI budget on agentic AI, compared with 25% for Pragmatists and Followers. They also allocate around 60% of their AI budget to upskilling and retraining the current workforce, and report that around 70% of their workforce has been upskilled or reskilled on AI.

      BCG’s practical conclusion is therefore quite direct: CEOs must act decisively. The final recommendation is a five-part agenda:

      1. Make AI a key priority
      2. Deepen AI literacy
      3. Commit investments at scale
      4. Upskill the organisation
      5. Track measurable ROI.

      The report’s underlying assumption is that AI advantage will not come mainly from adopting tools, but from executive commitment, organisational redesign, workforce capability, and disciplined measurement.

    2. State of PR 2026 by Meltwater

      State of PR 2026 by Meltwater

      About the paper

      The paper is a global survey-based industry report on how PR and communications professionals are navigating resourcing pressure, measurement, AI, media relations, collaboration and future skills.

      The report is original survey research based on more than 1,100 international PR professionals, including almost 500 from the United States, 100 from Canada and respondents from across the world, with Europe described as particularly well represented.

      The fieldwork method, sampling approach and timeframe are not clearly specified in the report.

      Length: 56 pages

      More information / download:
      https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/state-of-pr

      Core Insights

      1. What is the central picture the report paints of the PR industry in 2026?

      The report presents PR as an industry caught between familiar old pressures and a new wave of technological disruption. On the one hand, many of the profession’s core challenges remain highly recognisable: lack of resources, difficulty measuring impact, managing stakeholders, getting journalists to respond and doing more with less. On the other hand, AI, social media, data and changing audience behaviour are reshaping the environment in which those classic challenges now have to be solved.

      The report’s strongest overarching argument is that PR is becoming more strategically important, but still struggles to prove that importance in business terms. It explicitly links this to generative AI: as LLMs increasingly influence how brands are described and discovered, earned media and public narratives may become even more central to brand visibility. In that sense, the report positions PR not as a shrinking discipline, but as one whose relevance could grow if it can modernise its tools, metrics and internal influence.

      At the same time, the report is clear that the profession has not fully made the shift from activity-based communication to business-aligned communication. Many teams are still judged by volume and reach of media placements, while challenges around ROI, business KPIs and leadership understanding remain persistent. The conclusion frames the core issue as one of alignment: between PR and leadership on strategy and metrics, between PR and marketing on execution, and between human creativity and AI in daily workflows.

      2. What are the main operational challenges facing PR professionals?

      The most frequently cited challenge is insufficient resources, named by 24% of respondents. Measurement follows closely, with 21% identifying measuring impact and ROI as a top challenge. Managing stakeholder expectations comes next at 16%, followed by getting responses from journalists at 12% and adopting new technologies at 10%.

      This distribution matters because it shows that the profession’s biggest pressures are not only external. The difficult media environment is part of the story, but the larger picture is organisational: PR teams are under-resourced, expected to prove impact, and often dependent on leaders who may not fully understand the value or mechanics of communications work.

      The report reinforces this with budget data. A majority expect PR budgets to stay flat, while only 21.3% expect an increase and 17.3% expect a decrease. Budget decisions are also often made outside the PR function: 36.7% say the CEO decides PR spending, while 19.2% say a C-level marketing leader does. Only 32.6% say a C-level PR or communications executive makes these decisions.

      Time pressure is another recurring theme. The biggest time sinks are reactive work such as crisis response and urgent requests, cited by 27.9%, and content creation, cited by 27.5%. Measurement and reporting account for another 20.3%. The report’s implied diagnosis is that PR teams are stuck in a reactive operating model, spending too much time on urgent execution and too little on strategic, higher-value work.

      3. How mature is the industry’s approach to measurement and business impact?

      The report suggests that PR measurement remains stuck between aspiration and reality. Many teams understand that they need to connect communication to business outcomes, but their most common metrics still lean heavily towards activity and visibility.

      The most important metrics for evaluating PR success are the number of media placements and reach/impressions, both at 20.9%. Social media engagement follows at 11%, while more business-relevant or interpretive metrics such as website traffic/conversions, message pull-through, share of voice and sentiment analysis rank lower. This supports one of the report’s central criticisms: the industry is still often measuring what is easiest to measure rather than what best demonstrates business value.

      The measurement section makes this even clearer. When asked about challenges, 34.7% cite aligning metrics to business KPIs, and 27.8% cite proving PR’s value to leadership. Another 22.4% point to over-reliance on outdated metrics such as impressions and AVE. Although nearly three quarters say they have at least some of the tools needed to connect PR activity to wider business outcomes, only 32.1% say they fully have those tools; 39% say they only partially do.

      The report’s perspective is therefore not that measurement is impossible, but that PR measurement is underdeveloped and uneven. It implies that the profession needs more sophisticated reporting, closer linkage to business objectives and better executive-facing narratives about what PR contributes.

      4. How is generative AI affecting PR work, and what concerns does it raise?

      Generative AI is presented as both a practical tool and a major strategic disruptor. A majority of respondents say AI is already integrated into communication workflows: 13.3% describe it as highly integrated and 42.1% as somewhat integrated. Only 9.8% say it is not integrated at all.

      Current use is heavily concentrated around content work. The most common applications are external content creation, content optimisation and review, campaign brainstorming, internal content creation, writing press releases and crafting media pitches. Measurement and reporting are much lower at 2.1%, which suggests that many teams still use AI primarily as a production assistant rather than as a strategic analysis or intelligence tool.

      The report also highlights a gap between adoption and governance. While 36.2% say their organisation has a formal AI policy and 26.4% say one is in development, 31.4% say they do not have one. This makes AI governance one of the more practical risks in the report: usage is becoming normal before policies, training and operating models are fully mature.

      The biggest concern about AI is that it may reduce the need for human talent, cited by 28.6%. Other concerns include shrinking communications budgets and reducing PR’s seat at the table. Interestingly, concerns about accuracy and content quality appear very low in the report’s results, which may suggest either that respondents are less worried about quality than job security, or that the survey options did not fully surface deeper concerns around misinformation, ethics and brand risk.

      Looking ahead, AI dominates the future-facing findings. AI integration is the top skill PR professionals believe they will need over the next five years, and navigating new technologies such as AI is seen as the biggest future challenge. AI as a tool for content creation and data analysis is also identified as the emerging trend likely to have the greatest impact on PR.

      5. What are the most important implications for PR leaders and communication teams?

      The report’s main implication is that PR teams need to become more strategically aligned, more data-literate and more operationally efficient. The conclusion explicitly argues that success in 2026 and beyond will depend on using powerful new tools without losing the human skills that make PR valuable: storytelling, relationship-building and creativity.

      For PR leaders, the most immediate implication is the need to speak more directly in business language. Since resources and budgets are major concerns, and since budget decisions often sit with CEOs or marketing leaders, PR teams need to show clearer links between communication activity and organisational outcomes. The report repeatedly suggests that better reporting and business-aligned metrics are essential not only for measurement, but for influence.

      A second implication is that PR needs stronger collaboration across the organisation. Respondents already collaborate most often with executive leadership and marketing, but they want more involvement from leadership, customer experience, marketing and product development in communications strategy. The main barriers are misaligned priorities, departmental politics or silos, and lack of communication. This points to a broader strategic role for PR, but also to the difficulty of securing that role inside complex organisations.

      A third implication is that AI cannot simply be treated as a content shortcut. The report encourages teams to operationalise AI, formalise policies, invest in tools and training, and use AI to reduce time spent on repetitive or low-value tasks. The opportunity is not just faster content production, but freeing up capacity for more rewarding and strategic work.

      Finally, the report implies that the human fundamentals of PR remain durable. Media relevance, timeliness and reporter relationships are still the most important factors in securing coverage. Individual email remains by far the most effective pitching channel. LinkedIn is the most valuable professional social platform. These findings suggest that while the tools are changing rapidly, the profession’s underlying value still depends on judgement, relationships, relevance and trust.