Strategy has always been the heartbeat of corporate PR

The recent Financial Times feature on ‘London city PR firms’ “pivoting” to strategic consultancy has sparked plenty of industry commentary. But while the headlines point to a shift, the article arguably reveals something more familiar: a narrow view of the industry catching up with what many teams have been doing for years.

Yes, the IPO drought has changed the dynamic in financial PR. And yes, firms that once focused tightly on dealmaking are broadening out. But the notion that offering serious, board-level communications advice is somehow new feels disconnected from the reality experienced by many practitioners across the UK.

Strategic counsel, stakeholder insight, reputation management, crisis preparedness – these aren’t new service lines. They’re what good corporate PR has always been about when done properly.

Crisis communications is one example. The piece suggests this is a recent evolution, but for many agencies, it’s not a new focus; it’s a core discipline. Corporate communications teams need to be embedded early, understand the dynamics, and have the confidence to help leadership teams make difficult calls. That’s not a trend, that’s experience.

Likewise, the references to artificial intelligence and the adoption of new tools may reflect what’s happening in some corners of the market, but they overlook the work many firms have already done to integrate this thinking. The questions around how content is interpreted, surfaced, and valued by search and AI systems are well established in many comms strategies, not as experimentation, but as part of how we measure impact and build presence.

What the FT article surfaces, perhaps unintentionally, is something more revealing. It’s not that the industry is changing direction; it’s that certain parts of it are catching up. The assumption that the world begins and ends in EC2 overlooks the range of leadership, innovation, and strategic work that has been delivered elsewhere for years.

That doesn’t mean the article wasn’t welcome. It’s good to see communications being covered seriously, and the shift away from tired stereotypes about lunches and press lists is long overdue. But we should be careful not to confuse a change in one corner of the market with a redefinition of the profession.

If strategic corporate communications is now being valued properly by more boardrooms, that’s a good thing. But let’s not make the mistake of looking backwards to describe the future.