Sanjay Rammoorthy on PR’s Post-WPP Future

The recent restructuring within the WPP group has once again reignited a long-standing debate: where does PR truly sit in the communications hierarchy? By subsuming PR within broader creative and advertising structures, the signal is unmistakable — PR risks being repositioned from strategic counsel to campaign support.

In a performance-driven environment obsessed with measurable outcomes, earned media becomes harder to defend. When PR is folded into creative ecosystems dominated by advertising logic, its value risks being judged by metrics it was never designed to win on.

The implications are structural. PR may increasingly sit below advertising in the pecking order and cease to be sold as a standalone discipline. For clients who view PR as a strategic lever, this could be a red flag. For senior practitioners
used to owning client relationships and shaping corporate narratives, it marks a clear erosion of influence and autonomy.

This is not an isolated development. Even within networks like Dentsu, PR is being absorbed into broader creative constructs. The trend reflects a deeper industry shift — and a deeper misunderstanding.

PR vs Marcom

Public relations and marketing communications are often framed as two sides of the same coin. Both deal with messaging, perception, and audience engagement. But this comparison oversimplifies reality. Marketing is one function within the corporate engine, designed to drive sales and market share. PR, by contrast, operates across the entire enterprise, shaping credibility, trust, and institutional legitimacy.

Yet Marcom finds a seat at the boardroom table while PR is frequently reduced to a footnote.

In today’s business environment, PR deserves a far broader mandate. Investor relations, internal communications, employer branding, and crisis management are all fundamentally PR disciplines. From capital markets to talent pipelines to community license-to-operate, reputation is the common currency — and reputation is PR’s domain.

This imbalance stems from a flawed value equation. Marketing delivers visible short-term returns. PR delivers long-term resilience. A well-managed crisis can preserve billions in market value, yet this preventive value rarely shows up in quarterly dashboards.

At its best, PR is not a marketing tool but a corporate function. It ensures consistency of voice across stakeholders — employees, regulators, investors, customers, and society. Marketing builds brands; PR builds institutions.

The impact of the reporting structure of PR

Organizational design plays a critical role here. In many companies, PR reports into marketing, narrowing its scope to campaign support — press releases, product launches, and media coverage tied to sales cycles. The broader responsibilities — reputation stewardship, stakeholder trust, and risk anticipation — get diluted. Without independence, PR loses its ability to balance commercial ambition with institutional responsibility.

Budget asymmetry reinforces this imbalance. Marketing commands larger allocations due to its visible link to revenue, while PR is often underfunded because its impact is diffuse and long-term. But this logic is increasingly outdated.

Marketing drives transactions; PR builds trust.
Marketing speaks to customers; PR speaks to stakeholders.
Marketing runs campaigns; PR sustains credibility.

In an era where reputational shocks can erase decades of value overnight, PR cannot remain a sub-function of Marcom. It must be recognised as a core strategic discipline — one that safeguards legitimacy, resilience, and long-term enterprise value.

Sanjay Rammoorthy is a veteran communications and a former Ketchum Sampark staffer.