Working in PR: 14 reasons why in-house kicks agency butt
By Craig on Jun 3, 2010 in Careers in public relations, Public relations, Strategic communication
After having worked in PR for 16 years, both in-house and ‘in-agency’, I believe working in-house is clearly where one can make a more significant difference to an organisation and its stakeholders, as well as being a more rewarding environment in which to work: you write the strategy, pull the strings and don’t have the hideous ogre of new business to deal with.
But what do you think?
The advantages of in-house PR roles
1. You get to devise the overarching communication strategy and strategic approach. And if you don’t actually write it, you are closest to this particular coal face and, in theory, you get to contribute to and/or participate in its implementation in the most active way possible – rather than being at arm’s length with limited control.
2. You run the communication show. Consultants/agencies report to you. They are more often your arms and legs than a significant contributor to the central planks of your communication strategy.
3. When running the communication ‘show’, you are more likely to be able to prompt an organisation to implement two-way symmetrical communication, facilitating an organisation operating in a manner more in-line with its stakeholders’ needs and wants. This also leads to a more equitable society, which has a multiplicity of personal and professional rewards.
4. You get to immerse yourself more deeply in the widest possible range of issues and experiences relevant to an organisation, giving you the broadest possible perspective on the organisation. This helps you develop the best possible solutions to communication challenges and respond in a speedy way to them.
5. The fact that you consistently work on one client – your organisation – means that the impact of your work is likely to have a greater and more transparent impact than if you worked occasionally on this client.
6. If access to power is important, when working in-house you are more likely to have interactions with organisational leadership. This can make you feel good about yourself, but it can also mean your ideas are heard more easily by senior stakeholders, potentially giving you opportunities you may not have otherwise had. Mainly, however, it’s an ego thing!
7. As the work you do on your ‘client’, and the results your work delivers, is more visible, that should generate more job satisfaction than skipping across a range of clients.
8. It is a more stable environment to work in than agencies. Your job is less likely to be downsized. Agencies are more downturn-sensitive, which in business quickly equates to a redundancy. If agency billable hours are reduced then there is less money to pay the bills, so even if your performance is excellent, you may need to hit the road.
9. Professional development (e.g. university courses, short courses, conference attendance) is better funded in-house. You only need to look where most PR conference attendees come from. In-house totally dominates (although, and this is both hilarious and tells you something, it is agencies that often dominate the speaker line ups!). Non-agency organisations also tend to provide other support such as study leave to a much higher degree than agencies.
10. As working in-house is generally not as intense a vocational experience as working in an agency, you are given time to evolve your skill set and grow into your job. Billable hours is not normally a feature of working in-house, so ‘the work’ (i.e. public relations work) is far and away the focus. Whereas when working in an agency billable hours (i.e. profit) rules all other aspects and it can be troubling to have to balance the professional communication responsibilities with business efficacy responsibilities.
11. You don’t have to spend time on new business. That. In itself. Is. A. WIN. There will be some who find the process of scoping and securing new business for an agency rewarding. Most do not. I did a Masters of Communication, for instance, to help with my ability to practice public relations. I didn’t do a Masters of Sales. I find the process enervating and boring.
12. The strong focus on new business in an agency can generate a culture of fear. Not enough billable hours = my job is at threat = stress and uncertainty. In-house does not have this issue anywhere near as much.
13. Unless this is part of your specific role, you do not have to spend as much time on media relations as you typically do in an agency role. Media relations is rewarding, it often delivers ROI and helps achieve organisational objectives, but it is not the be-all and end all. PR is not media relations. Whilst extensive creativity, intelligence and tenacity is required to work effectively in media relations, so does it have a strong ‘sales’ (even telesales) dimension and it also becomes tiresome putting up with the scepticism and negativity of many journalists.
14. Organisations tend to have deeper support systems and processes in place for managing employees. This is purely a small business vs large business dichotomy, but is very relevant to PR. This means that performance reviews, counselling, support, leave provisions etc tend to be much more employee-centric when working in-house.
But what do you think?
Next week I’ll explore why working in PR agencies is an awesome, galvanising and rewarding experience.
What have I missed? What else is great about working in-house in PR? Is it better than working in an agency? And even though I will list my thoughts on the advantages of agency life next week, feel free to beat me to the punch and give me your list – I’ll include your thoughts (well, if I think they’re on the money!) in my post.
Craig, you are spot on with this list. I made the switch to in-house last Fall and it really is a world of difference. There are benefits to both and I’d recommend that any enthusiastic young PR buck get their start in an agency, but after 6 or 7 years, in-house is great. One thing I’d add to your list above is access to resources. Large(r) companies can have so many more resources than small(er) agencies, from HR and tech support down to extra chairs and packing tape.
Looking forward to next week’s list! High up I’d put having people around you to share your love for PR. You might get all the credit, but it can also get a little lonely in-house when no one else gets quite as excited for PR related success as you do.
MadeTheSwitch | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Great thoughts Kristy. You have gazumped me on young bucks getting a start in an agency and the empathy and support you get from peers in an agency – they are both in the ‘flipside’ post!
And thanks also for the valu-add re in-house resources. I agree with you totally, even as far as having a decent photocopier around the place!
Craig | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Love it, Craig! I’ve actually spent more of my career in-house than in-agency, and I gotta say I love it. It’s true, it can be lonely (it’s usually “just me” or a “party of two”), but nevertheless, I’m quickly able to garner lots of support in-house and people learn to trust my judgement & guidance regarding communications (I find there’s less having to “educate” which is seems is 90% of the job with new clients in-agency!) In-house, I’m the trusted expert, the go-to person, the creative “genius” – not my words, but I’ll take the praise, haha! Not a bad place to be!
Pamela Vozza | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Craig, having worked as a consultant for 21 years I read with interest your points about working inhouse and look forward to your points about working as a consultant.
I have a question regarding your comment about the speaker line up at conferences. Having worked both sides do you think it is because consultants are perceived as ‘experts’ in their field, or is it because it is seen by consultants as a great marketing opportunity and a good way to profile themselves and the agency?
Craig Badings | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Pamela and Craig, you guys are out to beat me to the punch with points for my next post aren’t you!? Well, I brought it on myself.
The ‘lonely’ theme obviously has resonance, Pamela. I already have it flagged in the next post, but I did so with a little dubiousness. Obviously, that caution was unwarrented as a number of people have commented on it.
And yes, Craig, I totally agree agency employees tend to outnumber in-house speakers at conferences because they are perceived as experts. Perhaps partially because agency employees tend to specialise in a certain area whereas in-house employees tend to be generalists. That is not entirely correct, but I think it is part of the answer.
Yes, I think any agency employee with an ounce of chutzpah will want to use conferences as a mareketing opportunity, but I have spoken at many conferences as an in-house operator because I wanted to market myself from a career perspective and I wanted to share my knowledge. Hopefully, agency employees have that that last desire in common with me as well.
Craig | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
I too have worked on both sides of the fence and right now am working in agency. I agree that in a utopic company all of this is true. Unfortunately my in-house experience was largely not ideal. I worked in-house for 12 years spanning three organisations and at all of them I struggled for support and understanding of the PR role. For two of those years I was with a very large and high profile ASX-listed company and they were the worst two years of my working life!
Nicola | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Hi Craig,
Good post. I made a switch to in-house last year. Though my profile is the same but I find that information is more accessible in ‘in-house’ as compared to ‘in-agency’.
Kavita
Kavita | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Hi Craig,
Having been on both ’sides’ I prefer in-house. A lot of that is due to getting a really deep understanding of what the organisation works on.
I’m not sure about 2 and 6 though. In my experience (both in house and as a consultant) the consultant often has more access to decision makers and makes strategic calls.
I think there are pros and cons with this – for e.g. sometimes consultants can cut through road blocks. Other times consultants can take in-house knowledge, repeat it and get the credit!
Joss | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Great response, Joss. And your light-hearted perspective of taking the consultant’s credit has a serious side, too (if you just flip it around). Sometimes consultants get upset if they don’t get their ‘due’ credit for a contribution.
For me, working as a consultant, the more a client takes credit for my contribution the more successful I judge I have been. This means that the money they have paid you is something they are happy to do, it means you have influenced the organisation and, actually, it means you will probably get to work more with the organisation at hand.
Craig | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
I enjoy both sides of the line, but I recommend most young people start their career in-house, as long as it is a good organisation and one where they will find a good mentor. They get the opportunity to experience the scope of PR, understand the politics of PR within an organisation and see how PR really fits into the overall success of an organisation. Working as a consultant often you are required to work on a one-off campaign or deliver specific PR services to a client, so I don’t believe it gives you as much breadth and depth of understanding how PR benefits an organisation. Experience working in-house gives you invaluable insights as a consultant. Consultants with in-house experience tend to think about the greater good of the Company and how their specific tasks can add to the broader objectives of the in-house PR team. I find collegaues with a purely agency background treat consultancy projects markedly differently and tend not to think as much about the longer term benefits of the client, focusing purely on the task at hand. Working purely in-house has its drawbacks too. As PR practitioners I think it is important professional development to experience both.
Elizabeth Flaherty | Jun 5, 2010 | Reply
Thanks Elizabeth for your thoughts. All good points. I like the ‘understanding of organisational politics’ perspective in particular.
You view that in-house is good for a grounding in PR is interesting. I think many, including myself, believe that the best possible grouding is actually in an agency as it forces you to really focus on an issue or tactic and you are pressured to deliver more than you are in-house. But I certainly think both are invaluable.
Craig | Jun 5, 2010 | Reply
And the salary in house is usually more “stable”. I just had a consultancy offer me $30k less than I get now. Bloody insult.
Greg Smith | Jun 6, 2010 | Reply
Hey. At least it was an offer. The more offers the better. Lets you know you are ‘desirable’…
Craig | Jun 6, 2010 | Reply
On the one hand…I could have written that list myself, and it is weird to find a doppleganger on the other side of the world from me, whose experiences and insights so closely match my own views! The only three things I would add to the list are a) generally speaking, in-house senior positions in big corporate organisations are better paid than agency, unless you own equity in the agency. B) in-house teams are smaller, so you will get more of a chance at a younger age to put your hand up and say “I can do that”, even if it’s new to you. And, c) there is something exciting about sitting in a board room full of directors who run the business, but they turn to YOU as the expert in communication. It’s what I describe to my students as “super hero PR moments”, when single-handedly you can stop a business from doing soemthing incredibly damaging to stakeholder relations or make a significant intervention that changes corporate communication strategy, because you are the only one who really hears what the external stakeholders are saying- and can translate it for an incredulous senior management. Your persuasive skills are tested the limit, but you know them all, they know you. It’s a matter of trust, having built up credibility over the years that means the CEO and board take your advice seriously.
On the other hand, that kind of “high octane” comms all depends on you being part of the dominant coalition inside the organisation. Alas, a lot of really good in-house professionals never get a look in to the board room; instead they are relegated to the “PR department ghetto”, and don’t get to play at top levels. It’s a shame, because that is where the real action is.
Like many of your commentators, I have been on both sides of the business, and sometimes the senior management just want to won’t listen if it comes from inside; they have to hear it from outside the organisation.
So, my answer to your question? It all depends on who YOU are! In-house rocks for those able to talk their way into the boardroom; otherwise it’s a lonely business. Agency works if that’s what it takes to get heard in the boardroom. But, if you are stuck in an agency chasing every bit of new business and not getting paid for much more than extra “arms and legs” work thrown to you by a harassed and overworked in-house department- well that’s not much fun, is it? WHO you are as a communicator is more important than WHERE you are!
Catherine Sweet | Jun 10, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the generous comments, Catherine. I have checked with my department and team (um, that would be a department and team of one…) and they all agree with you!
Craig | Jun 10, 2010 | Reply
The grass is always greener, but I am an in-houser at heart. I have to say though, I think that it’s great to start out at an agency. You have to pay your dues and you get so much experience at an agency. I agree with so many folks on here that working at both is best to experience what each has to offer. At an agency, if you start out there, you can gain so much experience in different roles that you can bring in-house. It’s more desirable for employers to see that you have worked for an agency b/c sometimes you will be working WITH and agency (creative, PR, etc.). It does get lonely sometimes, and you miss working with other communications professionals, but you set the agenda and scope of work and that is a beautiful thing that is worth its weight in experience alone. In-house offers so much when you’re ready for it and mature enough to appreciate it. You can build something amazing for a company and put yourself and your organization on the map!
Michelle | Jun 17, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the contribution, Michelle. Your point about working in an agency is handy for when you work in in-house and use agencies yourself is an excellent one. I agree it certainly helps having worked on both sides of the fence.
You can empathise with the challenges of working in an agency better and it helps extract the best ROI from an agency.
The lonliness issue is discussed in this post’s sequel, extolling the virtues of working in an agency.
Craig | Jun 17, 2010 | Reply