The CIPR State of the Profession 2024 survey has some signs to be optimistic but also makes grim reading. However, I’m not convinced by all the figures and I’m not the only one.
The report includes a whole section on AI and four in 10 (38%) identify ‘artificial intelligence and its impact’ as the top challenge facing the PR industry. The second two are fake news / disinformation (32%) and the expanding skill set required of individual practitioners / loss of specialisation (30%).
All three of these top challeges are actually linked by AI and technology, which makes it even more important for every practitioner to get to grips with it by upskilling and learning.
Half of PR practitioners using AI
The good news is that more than half of respondents claim to use AI often or sometimes. The problem is this is totally at odds with our anecdotal experience of running AI workshops where it would be more like 10-20%. Although it’s anecdotal it is probably 300-500 PR and comms professionals, so not an insignificant sample. I think the reason for the discrepancy is it’s easy to claim to use AI in a survey, but putting your hand up in a face-to-face meeting in front of colleagues means you’ve got to be ready to explain it.
In-house beats PR agencies in adopting AI
This finding does fit our anecdotal experience. At Purposeful Relations we get leads from PR agencies and in-house teams. Both are keen to upskill and improve their skils and professional practice. The difference is that in-house really want to invest time and money. PR agencies often don’t.
I think there are a variety of reasons:
- In-house teams see colleagues elsewhere in the business exploring AI and know they have to innovate just to keep up.
- In-house aren’t looking for an immediate return and understand it’s really about change management rather than technology and that change and improvement will take time.
- Agencies want to see an immediate outcome. Investment in AI software and training to use it isn’t something they can charge to clients. They will only see the many benefits over a longer period.
- In-house accept that a lot of AI use is incremental benefits such as saving two to four hours a week of time and isn’t about a big bang change.
- Agencies want a shiny new toy they can brag to clients about – look at how many are investing in ‘building’ bespoke tools rather than benefiting from what’s aleady available. I love a quote from Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff: “You don’t DIY your AI”.
Our approach to introducing AI to clients can include shiny new toys, but only if they solve a real problem and need. More often it is a change management programme and training to get broad adoption of AI throughout a wide range of daily tasks and activities.
Massive AI in PR skills gap
Not surprisingly AI is identified as the area with the biggest skills shortage (36%). As well as all the training we’re doing directly with Purposeful Relations clients I’m also developing and delivering AI training for the CIPR. This includes developing a new AI in crisis management workshop and ensuring AI is embedded into all of the other courses such as: risk, issues and crisis management; PR strategy, content management; measurement and evaluation; social media strategy and LinkedIn for PR.
Despite the skils gap training is sporadic. Once again PR agencies and consultancies are lagging behind in-house teams. Overall a third (66%) claim to have received training on AI. However, behind that average the actual figures are 69% for in-house private sector and 68% for in-house public sector. Just 59% of consultancy/agency respondents claim to have received training.
I keep saying ‘claim’ because I’m sceptical. All these figures seem high and I’m intrigued to know what ‘Training received on AI’ actually means.
AI policy, what AI policy
The absence of AI policies might also explain why both in-house teams and PR agencies are sleepwalking into potential risks from AI.
Once again agencies are massively lagging behind in-house. Just over half (52%) of agencies say they have a workplace policy on AI. This contrasts to three quarters (74%) of in-house private sector and 67% of in-house public sector.
I suspect one reason why the in-house figure is so much higher is that they are referring to company wide policies on AI and it doesn’t necessarily mean they have policies for communications and public relations.
There is a curious gap between what in-house respondents and agency respondents say when it comes to talking about AI. The study shows 63% of in-house teams often or sometimes ask PR agencies to tell them if they use AI in work for them. In contrast, just a quarter (24%) of PR agencies say they are often or sometimes asked about their use of AI.
Something doesn’t add up.
PR training and development
The top topic people have received training on is AI (32%). The joint second look to cover generic topics as they are ‘advertising, marketing, branding’ (29%) and ‘digital PR, social media’ (29%).
What’s missing as seperate topics are measurement, evaluation, data and analytics. I suppose people who had that trainng witll list it under planning and strategy (or if they don’t they should!).
PR skills shortages
Can you guess what the top skills shortage is? Of course you can, it’s AI (36%).
What’s more interesting is that 74% of in-house teams and 60% of consultancy/agency teams say they are currently experiencing skills shortages.
I’m not surprised by the disparity between in-house and agency as it reflects the other findings. It’s not just that agencies are unwilling to invest in improvement as much as in-house teams are, but that they don’t understand how much they need to improve.
In last year’s Global CommTech report one of the most interesting findings was that agencies self-rated their comptenence with technology quite highly. Unfortunately, for them their answers to how they actually used technology pointed more to their lack of competence. On nearly every question asked in-house teams were using technology more effectively than agencies.
Salaries and stuff
The section on average salaries contains some puzzling data. It seems that the average salary across the public relations profession has fallen by over £3,000 in two years. But how do we reconcile that with 38% of PR professionals in agencies and consultancies saying their organisation is growing?
I’m not the only one to question the data. Nigel Charlesworth of the PR Cavalry asks says it’s: “hard to reconcile the reported increases in fees by a lot of agencies with a generally lower salary level. Are agency owners enjoying a profits boom?” He also questions if 16-24 year olds in PR really earning an average of £39,000 per year.
There is some welcome news as gender pay gap is £3,894, down from £7,074 in 2022.
PR’s reputation
There’s a section on the reputation of PR in-house. Taken at face value it looks positive. Nearly three quarters (72%) of in-house private sector respondents say “My organisation believes that PR makes a valued, strategic contribution” and “has an important impact”. I’m sceptical. And so is Stephen Waddington.
How does this square with an average salary of £53,052? Is that really the average salary for a senior level management advisor? How does it compare to other professions such as law or accountancy?
It’s not all bad because the discrepancy can possibly be explained by who responded. If the average salary for a ‘head of comms’ is £58,547 then clearly the most senior practitioners haven’t participated in the survey. It’s not hard to find £100k+ plus jobs for heads of comms. The UK prime minister’s heaf of communications earns £140,000 and that’s low considering the role.
There’s also a gap between the seven in 10 in-house PR professionals who say their organisations are positive about the strategic contribution of the role of public relations and how they measure success. The number who say their organisation believes it has clear measures of succes for organisational outcomes is just 59%.
I suspect the answers on PR’s reputation reflect as much hope as they do reality.
Reputation of PR in-house
CIPR State of the Profession Survey
The CIPR State of the Profession survey was conducted by Ben Verinder and his team at Chalkstream. It was last done in 2022. This year there were 1,093 valid respondents and the research was completed in April 2024. The survey was 80% in-house respondents from the private sector, public sector and not-for-profit and non-governmental-organisations. A third (29%) of respondents were from London. Just 5% were from outside the UK.
You can download the full CIPR State of the Profession report from the CIPR website.
