If you want more structure, work in-house. If you thrive on stress, work in an agency…

It takes all sorts to work in PR, as there are so many different types of roles available, and in such a variety of organisations. According to the CIPR, some 48,000 people currently work in PR in the UK, and the majority (82 per cent) work in-house, with health, public and not-for-profit being the most popular sectors.

Most of those interviewed for this feature have worked on both sides of the fence, with some deciding to choose in-house life, and others consultancy. Tristan Garrick, PR manager of industry body the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is someone who is happy to be back in-house. His current position is his second in-house role, after spending a year working for an agency while living in Sydney, Australia. Before that he worked for four years in a busy comms office at a major FTSE 250 company. He explains that even though this was a commercial environment, and at times high-pressured, work rarely ate into out-of-office life. He also found there wasn’t a rapid turnover of staff, and that being dedicated to one industry sector meant everyone knew their stuff and had excellent relations with key journalists.

Comparing this to his sojourn in an agency, Garrick says: “I found that I was expected to manage accounts in sectors as diverse as education, online businesses, sustainable development and construction. Flitting between these accounts meant that I found it near impossible to master my brief, as well as building and maintaining decent media contacts.

There was a considerable churn of staff and very little camaraderie, even though everyone was perfectly friendly. Ultimately, the real killer for me were the unduly long hours, the sheer volume of admin, and the fact that I spent more time handling the business side of my accounts than actually doing PR work.”

Louise Caldicott, who is now happily working at PR consultancy Fleishman-Hillard as an account manager, also agrees that working in-house is less exhausting. However, she enjoys agency life, as “the fast pace and pressure is exhilarating”, although she admits that, “it can also be stressful and difficult to manage at times”, (see case study below). Caldicott found that when she worked in-house at Tube Lines, the private engineering company upgrading the Tube, there tended to be longer lead times on projects. She also found that the pressure and demands were more manageable, people were more relaxed and had time to plan things in more detail. But there were drawbacks: “Sometimes, there was bureaucracy and some thought of PR as an unnecessary cost, but it just meant you had to convince them otherwise!”.

Agency people often claim to prefer the excitement of their roles. For example, Yvette Venable, director in Edelman's Health team, joined Edelman earlier this year after a stint in-house, as she found that this lacked the buzz of an agency environment. She says: "I missed the dynamic environment of an agency – being in a team of individuals who understand the creative process that goes into our work and also that it is the job to pursue new ways of thinking about how communications can help clients."

You don’t have to be an adrenaline junkie to work in an agency environment, but it may help. Agency people claim that their jobs are more stimulating as their clients demand flexible attitudes and swift thinking, but in-house PROs consider their roles, being less frenzied, offer them greater chance to develop their skills.

DMA’s Garrick, for one, believes that in-house PROs have the edge on their agency counterparts. He explains: “the intrinsic differences between in-house departments and agencies means that in-house PROs have a huge professional advantage over agency staff. They have the time and resources necessary to build up their knowledge of the organisation they represent, as well as developing close relationships with the organisation's key personnel, the media and other stakeholders. When it comes to performing vital functions such as crisis management, in-house teams undoubtedly are far better equipped to do the job.

I've also noticed a stronger level of trust between journalists and in-house PROs than with agency staff. I've lost count of the number of journalists I've heard remark that they're fed up of speaking to agencies that know less about the organisations they represent than they do, so treat them as though they were just sales people. I encountered this first hand in an agency, but I've yet to do so during my in-house career.”

Jed Hallam, senior project developer at PR consultancy Wolfstar, agrees that being in-house means that you handle media enquiries personally and so have a direct line with journalists, but he points out that in an agency environment, as there is more distance from this, there is more time to focus on pro-active, creative campaigns. He adds: “Agencies can be a lot tougher as you have to shift focus throughout the day, switching from a report for one client, a call with another and a sell-in for another. It is more varied, but can also be a lot more challenging.”

To gather the ultimate range of skills, perhaps a PRO should consider stints working in- house as well as in an agency. If so, it may be best to start in an agency. Chris Cooke, editor of esPResso, the explains: "Career- wise, people move between agency and in-house roles all the time, though it is probably easier to move from the former to the latter than the other way round, especially if the agency role requires new business or client relations experience, which many in-house PROs won't have. That said, if you work in the communications department of a big player within a certain sector, then you may be an attractive hire for any agency or consultancy that specialises in that area". This is certainly true of Amanda Pierce, who joined Burson Marsteller last year as a director in the corporate, issues and technology practice. Before this, she was head of media and internal communications at McDonalds UK, where she had worked for 16 years. She explains her decision to move to an agency: “For me, the choice was not about in-house versus agency, but more about finding a company with the right leadership, environment and approach. After working in-house for 16 years at one of the world’s biggest and possibly highest profile brands, Burson Marsteller was the obvious choice to encourage me to jump ship, as I could continue to use the full gamut of my experience as well as business acumen across a wide range of international clients.”

If you are considering making a career move now, and are torn between agency and client work, Wolfstar’s Hallam advises following your heart: “I think the most important thing to think about when deciding which role best suits you is simple; do you love the brand? This should be applied to both agency and in-house life – if you love the brand that you're the in-house PRO for – then chances are you'll love your job. If you love the brands that your agency works with, then you'll have a great time.”

Case studies

Two PROs, one in-house and one agency, describe their roles.

Louise Caldicott, account manager at PR firm Fleishman-Hillard:

“Working at Fleishman-Hillard gives me exposure to different clients and industries, from food and retail, to finance and sport, so every day is different.