Comments on: Working in PR: 17 reasons why agencies fly, in-house sighs

By: Interview with Jessica Ben-Ari, Account Manager at Bite Communications « that PR dude

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:20:48 +0000

[...] Craig Pearce, an Australian communications professional, wrote two great blog posts comparing agency roles versus in-house roles. As someone whose worked in PR agencies their whole career, what would you [...]

By: Sole operator PR pros are best of PR breed | Public relations and managing reputation

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 02:34:31 +0000

[...] options we have in public relations. Others are being an in-house PR professional or working for a PR agency. Each have their positives and negatives, with the overarching main benefit of working for yourself [...]

By: When Agencies Can’t be Transparent | davefleet.com

When Agencies Can’t be Transparent | davefleet.com — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:31:45 +0000

[...] agency / client dynamic is one that varies, dependent on the brand. Agencies can be completely different than in-house PR. Some utilize their agency as a partner; while others utilize their agency as a tool. The [...]

By: morosiaka

morosiaka — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:01:04 +0000

“With PR, if you intend to work in-house, begin first within agency.” This is what my talented teacher says!

I am neither working in-house, nor in agency yet. In fact I am excited to start @ agency.

Quality in PR comes from there as you already cited them ( fast and dynamic, diversity of communication problems and excellent human resources).

Moro

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:30:46 +0000

Thanks for your comments Jessie and Sean. It is great to get the perspective of a practitioner in the earlier stages of their career, Jessie. Your point about diversity of industries, not just clients, is certainly a good one.

Your comment about the need to adapt writing style (and other tactics to client/organisation approaches) is an interesting one, Sean. I fully agree with you, but I have also found that a good consultant influences both the strategy and communication ‘voice’ or ’style’ of an organisation. So I guess, as with many things, there are shades of grey in the mix here.

By: Jessie Morris

Jessie Morris — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:52:17 +0000

Love this post Craig! But then I’m biased, as my PR experience has only been agency-side. I would add that working in an agency provides a great opportunity (especially for those just starting their career) to work on a range of clients. I love that I am able to work with not-for-profit, tourism, corporate and consumer business on their communications strategies, and believe that this has helped strengthen my skills and adaptability as a PR professional.

By: Sean Williams

Sean Williams — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:05:35 +0000

Craig – great pair of posts. I’ve been much more on the in-house side, so am a bit biased. When I consulted before (2001-2003) I was a trainer as well as strategic facilitator. Many times, I just dropped my bombs and left, never to know whether my wisdom simply trickled out the door after me.

I liked having a multi-month time horizon for projects as an in-house guy!

The deal with agencies is bringing them deep enough into the company that they do more than just spout their stock material. That takes a lot of work. Even something as simple as writing — when an agency does it, it reflects more of the agency style than the client’s style, except in certain cases.

And, I had much more balance in my life in-house — especially now, as an entrepreneur – I don’t eat if I don’t win business!

Good stuff!
S.

By: Craig

Craig — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:33:15 +0000

Yeow, harsh but, I have to say, pretty pragmatic re the approach some agencies take, Catherine. So much of their work is project – not holistic strategy – driven that forcing work over the line that may not be 100% on the money is something, commercially speaking, they have little choice in doing.

I have worked in and around agencies a lot, however, and this is not a common occurence.

What do agency people reading this think?

By: Catherine Sweet

Catherine Sweet — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:28:52 +0000

OK, time to admit I’ve sat on both sides of the fence, too. Like Paul, if being able to see the plus sides of both roles makes me a hypocrite, then so be it. I agree that too often external agencies talk external PR (because they get it), but one thing worth mentioning is that it depends on the agency. Some are obsessed with a particular business model, and can’t be flexible enough to match their product to client need. The pursuit of profit adds a different pressure to the advice. In-house should be more objective, because it isn’t tainted by the need to feed lots of other mouths back at the agency. Further to my comment on your “in-house kicks butt” post, that’s where I decided that being in-house meant I could look a CEO in the eyes and say “no, that’s not a good idea”. No kissing up to win pitches and earn retainers.

By: Craig

Craig — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:53:46 +0000

Thanks Brad and Paul for your thoughts.

Actually, Brad, I am often frustrated at the profession as a whole as it seems fixated on communicating ‘out’ and does not work hard enough to identify organisational stakeholders’ perspectives, then communicate those perspectives ‘in’ to the organisation.

When this occurs, we act as advocates for stakeholders and prompt our organisations to operate more in line with stakeholders’, and by implication society’s, needs and wants.