IPR ‘Payment by Results’ Survey

A survey on ‘Payment by Results’ (PBR) carried out by the Institute of Public Relations (IPR) has revealed that 17% of the 530 survey respondents (324 in consultancy and 189 in-house) use some form of remuneration based on the attainment of specific PR objectives. 

However, the overwhelming majority of respondents (77%) use flat fee/retainer as their sole basis of contract.

Interestingly, where used, rather than being imposed by clients, PR practitioners themselves, most often through joint decision making with the client, are instigating PBR.

Proportions of PBR expressed as a percentage of current contracts reveal that the proliferation of PBR is limited. 79% of respondents stated that fewer than 50% of their current contracts were structured using a PBR system. Only 15% of respondents said that PBR contracts made up more than 50% of their current contracts.

Although 41% of respondents indicated that PBR contracts made up between 0-10% of their current contracts, the ratio between the frequency of flat fee/retainer and PBR contracts has remained relatively static over the last two years indicating that PBR is not a significant growth trend across the industry. This is corroborated by the fact that for 51% of consultancy respondents the percentage of annual income derived through PBR is between 0-10%. 

The survey results highlight that it is important to distinguish PBR measures that are usually perceived as having negative associations (e.g. column inches obtained, number of releases issued, number of interviews with journalists arranged) from more progressive measures. 

Among those using PBR, the most common contract criteria are the attainment of specific organisational objectives (76%) and the frequency & quantity (70%) and favourability of coverage (47%). While percentage shift in awareness (31%), favourability of coverage (20%) and change in market share (20%) are the most frequently cited criteria desired for future use.

Nevertheless, the flat fee/retainer system is deeply entrenched: 78% of respondents not currently using any form of PBR stated that they had no plans to introduce such systems in the future and only 21% said they would consider using a PBR system in the future.

However, despite low levels of adoption and broad resistance to PBR systems, this finding is at odds with consistent views among all respondents that PBR can have positive effects on some aspects of the client-consultancy relationship. Over 55% of respondents believed PBR to have a positive effect on evaluation, accountability and motivation. By comparison 50% of respondents believed PBR to have a negative impact on the flexibility of the client-consultancy relationship. 

Commenting on the survey, IPR Professional Practices Committee Chair, Chris Genasi said: 

“The continued dominance of traditional measures of PBR certainly contributes to scepticism about the use of PBR within the PR industry. The presence of these measures is impeding the application of more progressive PBR that when used strategically can add real value to the client and to the client/consultancy relationship. 

“Effective PBR can only be achieved if there is a method in place to evaluate results. For evaluation to take place is it vital to recognise the importance of setting realistic PR objectives that are related to business objectives, planning a detailed programme of activities and allocating an adequate budget and controlling it. This core message, evidenced by the PBR survey results, is consistent with the IPR’s Toolkit and PRE-Fix work”.

For a powerpoint presentation outlining key-features of the results, 
please click here