By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Some of the most useful PR stories inside a professional-services business never arrive as a formal company announcement.
They appear in ordinary conversations.
An accountant notices that more small-business clients are asking the same question.
A recruiter sees employers changing the skills they request for a particular role.
A consultant repeatedly encounters the same operational problem.
A financial adviser notices a recurring concern among clients approaching retirement.
A moving company identifies a change in where its customers are relocating.
On their own, these observations are not necessarily news.
But they can be the beginning of something journalists find useful.
The important distinction is this:
Noticing a pattern is not the same thing as proving a trend.
That may be the single most important rule when professional-services firms start using their own client knowledge for PR.
A business that has seen something interesting should investigate it.
It should not immediately turn a handful of conversations into a headline claiming that the entire country is behaving differently.
At Fair Public Relations, we have used internal surveys, customer results, client patterns and operational information in PR campaigns across a number of sectors, including international moving companies and businesses working around astrology and AI.
The strongest results normally come when the underlying information is credible, limitations are clear and the business can explain why the finding matters.
And journalists will often want something else too:
a person or case study that brings the data to life.
That is where data-led PR moves beyond numbers and starts becoming journalism.
Why do professional-services firms often overlook their most interesting stories?
Professional-services businesses sometimes assume PR requires traditional company news.
A new office.
A senior appointment.
An acquisition.
A funding announcement.
A rebrand.
Those can all become legitimate stories where the development is substantial enough.
But consultants, advisers and specialists also sit on something potentially more valuable:
knowledge generated through the work itself.
Imagine a consultancy has no announcement whatsoever.
Nothing has launched.
Nobody has been promoted.
There is no acquisition.
But over the previous six months, its advisers have repeatedly helped small manufacturers solve the same unexpected supply-chain problem.
That pattern may be more interesting to a trade journalist than the consultancy’s tenth anniversary.
Why?
Because it potentially tells the journalist something about the industry rather than merely something about the consultancy.
That is often the editorial shift professional-services firms need to make.
Instead of asking:
What do we want to announce?
ask:
What do we know that could help somebody understand what is happening?
Company news, expert opinion, client patterns and research are different things
These categories often get mixed together.
Company news is about the organisation itself.
For example:
A consultancy opens a second office.
Expert opinion is the professional’s interpretation of an issue.
For example:
A recruitment specialist explains why experienced candidates are rejecting certain roles.
Client or customer patterns are observations arising from actual work.
For example:
A moving company notices an increase in enquiries involving a particular destination.
Data-led stories involve measurable information.
For example:
The company analyses 2,000 enquiries over 12 months and finds a defined change.
Original research is deliberately designed to answer a question.
For example:
A firm commissions a representative survey of business owners on a particular issue.
All of these can potentially support PR.
They require different evidence.
What counts as a useful industry trend or business insight?
A professional-services business can find potential media material in many places.
| Information source | Potential story | What needs verifying | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recurring client questions | Emerging concern or misunderstanding | How often it actually occurs, over what period and among whom | Memory can exaggerate frequency |
| Change in service enquiries | Shift in customer demand | CRM/enquiry data and comparable time periods | Your clients may not represent the wider market |
| Operational records | Behaviour or market pattern | Definitions, completeness and consistency of records | Internal data may have commercial/privacy restrictions |
| Customer outcomes | Evidence of a recurring problem or result | Consistent methodology and permission where cases are identifiable | Selection bias |
| Regional differences | Geographic variation | Comparable sample sizes and location data | Small regional groups can distort percentages |
| Public statistics | Wider established trend | Original source, date and methodology | Your expert interpretation still needs to add something |
| Original survey | New research-led story | Sample, question design, recruitment and methodology | Poorly designed surveys can create misleading findings |
| Specialist experience | Expert interpretation | Professional relevance and boundaries | Observation is not automatically data |
Often, the most interesting story combines several of these.
For example:
A recruiter notices a pattern in client conversations.
They check their vacancy data.
They compare it with an established external labour-market dataset.
Then they explain what may be driving the change.
Now the journalist has:
an observation
evidence
external context
an expert who can interpret it
That is much stronger than:
“Recruitment expert says businesses are worried.”
An observation is not automatically a trend
Suppose a consultancy works with 11 small businesses.
Seven of those businesses mention cash-flow concerns.
Seven divided by 11 is roughly 64%.
It would therefore be mathematically possible to write:
64% of clients surveyed are concerned about cash flow.
But writing:
64% of UK businesses are concerned about cash flow
would be completely different.
The consultancy has not surveyed UK businesses.
It has observed a pattern among 11 of its own clients.
Those clients may come from one sector.
One city.
One size of business.
They may have come to the consultancy specifically because they were already experiencing a problem.
The sample may therefore be heavily biased.
A responsible PR angle might instead say:
Seven of 11 small-business clients recently advised by X consultancy raised cash-flow concerns, prompting its advisers to warn that many owners may be underestimating the effect of delayed customer payments.
Even that needs context.
But it describes what actually happened.
How can you tell whether an observation is newsworthy?
I would look at six questions.
Is there a recognisable audience?
Who cares?
A journalist needs readers.
If the insight only matters internally to your operations team, it may not be a media story.
Is it timely?
Why now?
Has something changed?
Is there a news event, seasonal moment, regulatory development, economic pressure or emerging behaviour that makes the insight useful?
Is anything genuinely new?
“Small businesses care about costs” is not particularly surprising.
“Manufacturing clients are cancelling software projects because insurance costs have risen faster than staffing costs” is much more specific.
How strong is the evidence?
What actually supports the claim?
Internal data?
A survey?
Customer interviews?
Public statistics?
Professional observation?
The weaker the evidence, the more carefully the claim needs framing.
What is the consequence?
Why does this matter to somebody?
What happens next?
Does it change a business decision?
A household decision?
A recruitment strategy?
A cost?
A risk?
Can the journalist scrutinise it?
Can you explain the methodology?
Can you provide source data in an appropriate form?
Can you explain where the information came from?
If the answer is:
“Trust us”
the story becomes harder to defend.
Dramatic numbers are not automatically better numbers
PR people can become obsessed with making a statistic look enormous.
That is dangerous.
A trustworthy finding of: 18%
can be far more useful than an exciting but badly designed claim of: 87%.
If a dramatic number falls apart when a journalist asks how it was calculated, the entire campaign may lose credibility.
Accuracy is a PR asset.
Can you use client information without compromising confidentiality?
Sometimes.
But this requires considerably more care than simply deleting somebody’s name.
Fair’s usual approach is to work with trends, statistics, figures and aggregated patterns rather than exposing identifiable customer details.
Where an individual customer is useful to the story, we would normally want clear permission before presenting them publicly.
The privacy distinction is important.
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office makes clear that pseudonymised information remains personal data. Replacing somebody’s name with a reference number, initials or another identifier does not necessarily make the information anonymous if the person can still be identified when combined with additional information.
So: Client A, a 47-year-old restaurant owner in a tiny village who bought the business in March
may still be extremely identifiable even if their name has been removed.
Aggregated data is often more useful
Suppose a consultancy has 800 customer records.
A PR story might safely focus on:
the percentage of enquiries involving a topic
how that changed over time
differences between broad sectors
a recurring category of problem
The journalist often does not need to know who every underlying customer was.
The aggregate pattern is the story.
But aggregation itself does not automatically solve every privacy or confidentiality question.
Small groups, rare characteristics and unusual combinations of information can still make people identifiable.
Professional obligations and client contracts may also impose additional restrictions.
If there is doubt, review the applicable privacy, contractual and professional requirements before publishing the information.
PR is not a reason to take risks with confidential client data.
Why journalists often want case studies alongside statistics
Numbers tell the journalist what may be happening.
A person helps show what it looks like in real life.
This is something we encounter regularly when working with internal surveys and customer data.
Suppose a moving company identifies a substantial increase in customers relocating from one region to another.
The figure may be interesting.
But a journalist may then ask:
“Can I speak to somebody who actually made that move?”
That case study may explain:
why they moved
what changed
how much it cost
what surprised them
how their life has changed
The statistic gives scale.
The person gives the story humanity.
That does not mean customers should be pressured into appearing.
Consent matters.
Not everybody wants their personal circumstances in a newspaper.
How much data do you need?
There is no universal minimum.
It depends on what you are trying to claim.
A business can legitimately say: “In our last 20 cases, 13 involved X.”
If that is true and relevant.
That does not automatically justify: “65% of British consumers do X.”
Representativeness matters.
So do:
sample size
selection method
time period
consistency
missing data
question design
sector mix
geographic mix
whether respondents had a reason to answer in a particular way
Percentages from tiny groups can also make weak data sound artificially scientific.
“75%” sounds significant.
“Three of four clients” tells the reader what the sample actually was.
Sometimes the second is more honest.
Survey data and commercial records are not the same
A survey is normally designed to ask people questions.
Internal commercial records exist because the business is doing business.
That distinction matters.
Suppose a financial adviser analyses the age of people booking pension consultations.
That is operational data.
Suppose the adviser asks 500 people:
“At what age do you expect to retire?”
That is survey data.
Both might support a story.
Their methodologies are different.
How do you turn a client pattern into a media story?
I use a seven-stage thought process.
1. Identify the observation
What are people inside the business actually noticing?
2. Establish why it may matter publicly
Who is affected?
3. Check the evidence
Can the business verify the pattern?
4. Establish the limitations
What can the evidence not prove?
5. Identify the audience
Consumer?
Business?
Trade?
Local?
National?
6. Add expert interpretation
Why might this be happening?
What should people understand?
7. Write the journalist pitch
Lead with the strongest defensible finding.
Explain the evidence.
Then offer the expert.
Worked example 1: recruitment consultancy
Imagine a recruitment consultancy says:
“More employers seem to be asking for AI experience.”
That is an observation.
Useful starting point.
Not yet a national trend.
The consultancy checks 300 job briefs received over the previous 12 months and compares the first six months with the most recent six months.
It finds that explicit AI-related requirements have increased from 14% to 31%.
Now we have internal evidence.
The consultancy then compares that observation with reputable external labour-market research showing increased demand for AI skills.
The angle might become:
Potential headline
AI skills now appear in nearly one-third of new technology briefs handled by recruiter, up from 14% earlier this year
Example journalist pitch
A technology recruiter says employers are increasingly treating practical AI experience as a mainstream hiring requirement rather than a specialist skill.
An analysis of 300 technology briefs handled by the consultancy over the past 12 months found explicit AI-related requirements in 31% of briefs during the most recent six-month period, compared with 14% in the previous six months. The company is making its methodology available and its recruitment director can discuss which roles are changing fastest, what employers actually mean by “AI experience” and why candidates may be underselling relevant skills.
That is much better than:
Recruiter says AI is changing jobs.
The underlying numbers here are fictional for illustration.
A real pitch would need real evidence.
What if the recruitment firm only had 12 examples?
Then we might not create a statistical news story.
We might use the observation as expert commentary instead.
For example:
Recruiter says employers increasingly ask candidates to explain how they use AI in real workflows, not merely whether they have used ChatGPT.
The recruiter could then respond to published labour-market data.
This is exactly why a lack of original data does not mean a business has no PR potential.
Worked example 2: business consultancy
Imagine a consultancy has repeatedly helped owner-managed businesses where senior employees have accumulated responsibilities that were never formally documented.
The firm thinks this contributes to operational problems when somebody resigns.
It has seen the issue in seven of its last ten projects.
First question:
Can that information be used without exposing clients?
If the clients could be identified from sector, geography and circumstances, individual detail should be stripped back.
The consultancy might not need to publish client information at all.
Instead, the story could become an advice-led feature:
The “invisible job description” problem that can leave small firms exposed when a long-serving employee leaves
The consultant can explain:
what the pattern looks like
why it tends to develop
warning signs
practical steps owners can take
The client pattern informed the idea.
It does not have to become the headline statistic.
That is often a very sensible way to use professional experience.
What stories can different professional-services firms develop?
Recruitment and HR
Possible angle: Employers are changing requirements for a particular skill.
Evidence: Job briefs, vacancy data, public labour-market statistics.
Journalist: Recruitment, HR, business or careers writer.
Limitation: One recruiter’s vacancy book is not the whole labour market.
Accountancy or financial advice
Possible angle: A growing proportion of clients are asking about a defined financial issue.
Evidence: Anonymised enquiry data, consultation categories, relevant official statistics.
Journalist: Personal finance, business or small-business journalist.
Limitation: Professional boundaries and financial regulation matter.
Business consultancy
Possible angle: A recurring operational weakness among growing companies.
Evidence: Aggregated client-project data plus specialist interpretation.
Journalist: SME, management, business or sector trade journalist.
Limitation: Consultancy clients are often self-selecting because they already have a problem.
Legal or regulated adviser
Possible angle: Businesses repeatedly misunderstand a particular legal process.
Evidence: General enquiry patterns, relevant public judgments or regulatory material.
Journalist: Business, trade or consumer legal writer.
Limitation: Client confidentiality, jurisdiction and professional rules require particular care.
Should you commission your own survey?
Sometimes.
Original research can create strong PR.
But the question should be:
Will this research genuinely tell us something useful?
not:
Can we produce a dramatic percentage?
A poorly designed survey can be worse than no survey.
Questions should not lead respondents towards the desired answer.
The sample should make sense for the claim.
The methodology should be explainable.
And ideally the PR team should know before commissioning the research what kinds of findings could plausibly become editorially relevant.
Public data plus expertise can be just as useful
A business does not always need to own the statistic.
Government agencies, regulators, academic institutions, trade bodies and established research organisations publish enormous amounts of information.
A credible expert can often add value by interpreting it.
For example:
Official data shows X.
The professional explains why it matters.
That can be cleaner and more credible than commissioning weak research purely so the company can claim ownership of a number.
How should you pitch research to journalists?
Lead with the finding.
Not the report.
Weak subject line:
New white paper from Smith Consulting now available
Stronger subject line:
One in three manufacturers surveyed have delayed automation projects because of implementation costs
The journalist does not need to care that your PDF exists.
They need to care what it discovered.
The pitch should quickly explain:
the main finding
who was surveyed
sample size
when the research was conducted
how respondents were recruited
the practical consequence
who can discuss it
If the journalist wants the full methodology, make it available.
What if you do not have enough data?
Do not invent it.
This is where Expert Commentary PR becomes particularly relevant.
A professional can still comment on:
published government data
independent research
new legislation
industry developments
breaking news
public market trends
Their contribution may be:
interpretation
practical context
a professional warning
a counterpoint
an explanation of what the data does not mean
That can be extremely useful journalism.
How can data-led PR become an ongoing programme?
Keep an ethical insight log.
Record recurring questions.
Interesting operational patterns.
Unusual customer behaviour.
Changes in enquiries.
New objections.
Emerging sector concerns.
Do not publish everything.
Review the themes periodically.
Some will disappear.
Some will become stronger.
Some can support expert comments.
Others may justify proper research.
The purpose is to notice what the business is learning through its work rather than inventing stories every month.
Practical media-angle worksheet
| Observation | Evidence available | What is missing | Audience | Possible angle | Ready to pitch? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More employers asking for AI experience | 300 job briefs across 12 months | Comparison with external labour-market data | HR/tech/business | AI becoming a mainstream job requirement | Almost |
| Consultancy clients struggle when senior staff leave | Seven recent projects | Wider evidence and confidentiality review | SME/business | “Invisible responsibilities” are a succession risk | Better as expert feature |
| Financial clients asking about retirement earlier | Adviser recalls repeated conversations | Reliable counts, timeframe and client breakdown | Personal finance | Earlier retirement anxiety | No, needs evidence |
That final column is important.
Not every interesting observation should immediately become a pitch.
When should you use professional PR support?
An internal marketing team can absolutely develop data-led stories.
The business already owns the expertise.
A PR agency becomes useful where the company needs help deciding:
what is genuinely newsworthy
which claims can be defended
how to translate evidence into journalism
which audience fits
which journalists should receive it
whether the information is better used as research, commentary, a case study or not at all
Fair’s Standard PR service is best suited where the business has multiple possible campaign routes, including research, company developments, founder visibility, expert commentary and wider proactive stories.
Expert Commentary PR is narrower and more suitable where the primary media asset is the professional’s expertise rather than a substantial research or business-news programme.
Frequently asked questions
Can a professional-services firm get press coverage without company news?
Yes. Professional-services businesses often have substantial media potential through their specialist knowledge, client patterns, professional observations and ability to interpret external developments. A consultancy does not need to announce a new office every month. It may be much more useful to a journalist when one of its specialists can explain what businesses are struggling with, what has changed in the market or what public data means in practice. The important distinction is that the expertise or insight still needs a genuine editorial purpose. Simply turning ordinary client work into a promotional article does not make it newsworthy.
Can you use anonymised client data in a media story?
Potentially, but “anonymised” needs to mean more than removing somebody’s name. Information can sometimes identify a client when combined with sector, location, age, unusual circumstances or other characteristics. Pseudonymised information remains personal data under UK data-protection guidance. Fair generally prefers aggregated trends and figures unless an identifiable client has specifically agreed to participate. Businesses should also consider contracts, confidentiality duties and sector regulation before publishing client-derived information.
Do journalists need original research to quote a business expert?
No. Original data can strengthen a story, but credible experts can add value by interpreting existing research, official statistics, public announcements and current news. In some situations, a well-qualified expert explaining independent evidence is much more useful than a small proprietary survey. Journalists need the information to be relevant, accurate and useful, not necessarily owned by the source. What matters is that the expert distinguishes what the evidence actually shows from their professional interpretation.
Is Expert Commentary PR or Standard PR better for a consultancy?
It depends on what the consultancy has to work with. If the primary opportunity is an established specialist providing commentary on relevant news and industry developments, Expert Commentary PR may provide enough support. If the consultancy has proprietary research, client stories, business developments, founder positioning, multiple spokespeople or a broader strategic campaign, Standard PR is more suitable because the work extends beyond expert sourcing. The lower-priced service should not be used as a substitute for a wider campaign.
Your business may have more media potential than you realise
Professional-services firms often know far more than appears on their website.
Fair PR helps businesses identify the credible parts of that knowledge, turn them into useful media material and pitch relevant journalists without overstating what the evidence proves.
Explore Professional Services PR for broader campaigns or Expert Commentary PR where specialist knowledge is the main opportunity.
If you're unsure whether your client insights support a worthwhile media story, tell us about your business and expertise. We can assess whether focused expert commentary or a wider PR campaign is the better fit.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist. He works with professional-services businesses, founders and experts to identify useful editorial angles, explain specialist subjects clearly and develop earned-media campaigns grounded in genuine evidence.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
