Having spent well over 20 years in comms, on both sides of the agency and in-house fence, I would like to think I have a pretty informed view on both the explicit, and more subtle, differences in these two PR worlds.
At its most simple, one of the main differences seems to be about breadth versus depth.
Specifically, agencies value broad thinking and a range of skills and perspectives, while in-house is about focus. This is for good reasons, as agencies have a range of clients (even in apparently specialist teams), each one of which has its own unique charms, challenges, possibilities and pitfalls. So overall, the work is broad, the stakeholders are broad, the media-targeting is broad, and even the client relationships are broad.
Conversely, in-house you view the world through a narrower lens – one that is largely shaped by the sector, the culture, the (often pretty lean) team, and the particular business environment in which you operate. The in-house structure forces you to go deep – not just into the particular business and sector you are sitting in, but also deep into other functions around you.
This might include legal, marketing, tech/engineering, operations, regulatory, people and talent, and of course the C-suite. The common language is whatever product/service/dream the business is selling, and the internal uniformity of this ‘north star’ is very powerful.
All this means that the way comms manifests in-house really is different to that in agency-land.
So far, so relatively unsurprising.
Measurement predictability vs variety
Yet the thing that did surprise me when I moved from PR agencies (initially Teneo, back when it was called Blue Rubicon, followed by Golin) to the world of in-house (Gumtree then eBay and today at global fintech Airwallex), was how disrupted and unpredictable the measurement playbook is in-house.
In agencies, measurement tends to be viewed as something that is typically defined by the client, which means there is a core approach offered, but it flexes to whatever the client need is. This might be an enlightened view which follows the 'best in class' AMEC (International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) measurement framework to include elements such as pre- and post-campaign research, alongside more standard metrics such as volume of coverage, sentiment, share of voice and key message penetration. (Please, no one mention the dreaded AVE [Advertising Value Equivalent].)
However, in-house measurement tends, in general, to be less predictable and more varied. Sure there are often some of the must-haves as mentioned above, but in-house measurement could mean almost anything. It could mean how many widgets you are helping the business to sell, it could mean proving that one particular campaign was worth the budget you found for it, or it could mean proving that you really are driving ‘lower funnel’ commercial leads with earned media, and/or shifting the needle on ‘upper funnel’ brand visibility.
Each brand and business will have its own internal reporting and systems, with the particular data streams that matter being set by the finance team, the CEO or founder, or even by marketing. Even without considering the implications of AI, this means that there is no one-size-fits all playbook, which of course also means that everyone – including in all those different teams – has a different interpretation of what matters.
Turning a challenge into an opportunity
In theory, this inconsistency is a challenge, as it means there is no default for in-house comms measurement, which in turn means there is no established way of proving that the function is adding value. (Unlike marketing, which excels at showing how audiences can be reached with paid messaging.)
The flip, of course, is that it is an opportunity to define how comms acts as a strategic level for the business, driving long-term brand goals such as reputation management, brand equity and alignment with company-wide KPIs like sales, recruitment or customer retention.
While it is tricky to get this right – particularly in the first few months of any new in-house role – if and when you do get it right, it can really pay off. This is because comms can turn itself to any and all business challenges, but it can also influence audiences in incredibly powerful ways.
For example, a sustained campaign can totally transform or even flip an organisation’s perception, while a single piece of tier-one trophy coverage can introduce a new business or a product to a specific community. Similarly, a steady stream of trade press hits can embed a new set of vocabulary in a sector, while a range of creative social posts can build a member of the C-suite into a credible voice on a given topic for a specific community of followers.
The agency and in-house partnership is critical
The best agencies are able to deliver against both the table-stakes measurement requirements, but also read what the in-house team needs, and help deliver it.
This ‘it’ is not always easy to define – and for sure, it evolves and changes over time – but when it is done right, it can change how a business shows up, and the impact it has. Whether you are in an agency or in-house, comms is vital for any business.
Now, if only we could prove it somehow.
Fergus Campbell is director of corporate affairs, EMEA, at Airwallex