Agencies are an expensive luxury of questionable value, or they bring skills and experience to the table that organisations simply don’t have, depending on your point of view.

There are clearly pros and cons for contracting out PR to specialist agencies. While external expertise that may not exist in-house can be bought in on demand, outsiders will not have the same knowledge of – and loyalty to – the company concerned.

A desire to take back control of comms has led a number of organisations to bring PR back in-house since 2024. L'Oréal-owned IT Cosmetics, soft toy brand Jellycat, The Bookseller’s Association and sports specialist production company Buzz 16 are among those to have taken this step.

Malmaison and Hotel du Vin took the decision to axe their agencies in 2024. Niamh Richardson, as the group’s brand communications manager, said in a post on LinkedIn earlier this year: “It’s been one of the best decisions we’ve made.” Bringing PR in-house “made us nimble in a way we couldn’t be before, and has really allowed us to build stronger relationships with the media and our audience.” Richardson, who recently left the company, commented: “This is by no means a discredit to the agencies we’ve worked with. They’ve been incredible and taught me so much during the process. But taking this on ourselves has brought a whole new level to the value of PR at MHDV.”

Lingerie brand Agent Provocateur also brought its PR in-house in 2024. Ben Banks, the company’s chief executive, told In.Comms that it was “a strategic decision driven by the need for tighter integration and a clearer line of sight across all areas of branding”. In his view, when comms is “within the heart of the business, messaging becomes more consistent, agile and on-brand”.

Banks added that agencies “often dilute brand direction if they’re not fully embedded. Ultimately, it’s about being close to the brand and ensuring the communications reflect the wider vision.”

Pangaia, a B Corp-certified clothing company, took its PR back in-house earlier this year. Maria Srivastava, the company’s chief impact officer, told In.Comms: “Having an in-house communications team working closely with our Impact, design and commercial teams means we can align messaging with both our creative vision and our environmental and social commitments from the start.” It also allows the company to “adapt fast, shape strategy in real time and make sure PR is never an afterthought”, according to Srivastava.

While a number of companies are bringing PR back in-house at the expense of agencies, it’s worth pointing out that these are almost certainly balanced out by those that are seeking agency help.

In.Comms canvassed some industry experts for their take on whether there is a wider move to take PR in-house

Sarah Waddington CBE, chief executive, PRCA

“There may be examples of brands bringing PR in-house but there's no data to suggest an industry shift. The volume of agency appointment stories in PRWeek is far higher. Organisations decide resourcing based on sector, scale and strategic priorities. In many cases the hybrid model remains popular: a blend of in-house specialists working with agency partners, offering best of both worlds."

Michael Murphy, senior partner, advisory firm Michael Murphy &

“I think it is wrong to say that companies are ‘bringing communications functions back in-house’. However, when the global economic situation is difficult it has always been the case that companies tend to strengthen and rely more on their in-house functions and, as a result, reduce external agency expenditure. I am convinced that this is not the right answer and tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to economic pressures.

“The best-performing organisations from a communications point of view have strong, experienced in-house teams who can rely on and tap into the right agency partners to support them in dealing with the multiple stakeholder groups and myriad of issues they face in what is an increasingly complex world. It is virtually impossible and impractical to have an in-house team which can provide every skill set and experience required and an external perspective, and additional resources have never been more valuable.” 

Alastair McCapra, chief executive, CIPR

“The balance between in-house teams and agencies always goes in cycles. Cutting internal headcount and leaning on agencies delivers quick wins, lower costs and fast results. But managing agency relationships is more time-consuming than many expect and over time priorities shift, people move on and partnerships can fray. 

“When a new comms head arrives, agency spend is often the easiest cut to make. The rise of AI has now allowed in-house teams to take on tasks they would once have outsourced, and it’s clear agencies must adapt their offer to stay relevant. A strong in-house function is no bad thing for agencies. Teams that truly value PR know they still need agencies for campaigns, launches, events, media opportunities, and the external perspective and expertise only a partner can bring.”

Alison Clarke, founder, Alison Clarke Consulting

“There may be examples of companies taking their PR and Comms in-house but I don’t see this as a trend. Maybe it makes more sense for smaller, niche players, but the vast majority of corporations see the benefit of an in-house team working in partnership with an external consultancy or roster of agencies. 

“Content and social channel management may sit better in-house but the smart corporation values the breadth and objective strategic counsel of a consultancy. 

“None of the agencies that I work with have lost a client due to the remit being taken in-house. I hope corporations and consultancies can continue to work together in constructive partnership.” 

Stephen Waddington, director, Wadds Inc, and ex-president, CIPR

“Organisations turn to public relations agencies for specialist expertise, capacity and flexibility. If any of these factors change, they may instead choose to build internal capability.

“Corporate communications and public relations is an important management function that underpins reputation, trust and stakeholder engagement in many forms, from internal communications to sales and marketing. It’s natural for organisations to invest in in-house resource as they grow or change strategy, just as they would in any other management or operational function. The counterpoint is that many organisations continue to recruit and invest in agencies, precisely for the expertise, flexibility and reach they provide.”

Andy West, managing consultant, Westofcenter Consulting

“There’s always been movement to take PR in-house, with some organisations believing it provides greater focus; and some doing it for cost reasons. What I’ve found is that unless companies can afford to hire a full in-house comms team with specialists across all channels and comms disciplines, they soon realise they need expertise in specific areas. And with the scope of comms getting ever-wider, I think this will ensure agencies and in-house teams will continue to work together in harmony for the foreseeable.”