Why do many PRs consider in-house a safer bet than agency roles? It’s something I’ve been thinking about more and more recently, as I see many PRs seek out in-house jobs.
The benefits might seem clear, working for a brand you love, focussing solely on that brand, less stress, and more responsibility for your day-to-day.
But we’re (as ever?!) in very uncertain times. And in-house PR roles are often the first thing to be cut when the purse strings are tightened.
Agencies might ask longer hours, and more to juggle, but there’s arguably greater job security in a business that’s built for one function, offering PR services. Where an agency loses a client, it can seek out another.
Looking at the current volatility from brands across the spectrum - Facebook, Made.com, Joules to name a recent few - it’s a tricky time to know where job security for in-house roles might lie.
It’s definitely a time for candidates to be doing their research on how different sectors are faring. If a dream role for a dream brand comes up, it’s hard to advise someone not to go for it. But if it’s a brand you could easily represent agency-side as a client, my gut says agencies are the ones offering real security at the moment.