By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A disappointing PR campaign should trigger a proper review, not one of two extremes.
The client should not automatically cancel the agency because a national newspaper has not published an article after six weeks.
The agency should not automatically respond to six months of poor performance by saying:
“PR takes time.”
Both responses are too simplistic.
The useful question is:
What evidence do we have about what is happening, what have we learned from it, and is there a credible reason to believe the next stage can perform better?
Sometimes the answer is to keep going because journalists are responding, interviews have happened and relevant articles are developing.
Sometimes the strategy needs to change.
Sometimes the client needs to provide more.
Sometimes the agency-client relationship itself is wrong.
And sometimes the honest recommendation is to stop spending money on that PR approach.
Patience matters in PR.
Accountability does too.
First define what “not working” actually means
Businesses use that phrase to describe very different situations.
No published coverage yet
There may nevertheless be substantial journalist interest.
Coverage is appearing, but the client dislikes it
Perhaps the client expected only national newspapers but the campaign is producing strong trade media.
That becomes a goals and expectations question.
Lots of activity, no meaningful journalist response
That may indicate a strategic problem.
Journalists are interested, but the client repeatedly misses deadlines
That is an operational problem.
Coverage is good, but sales have not increased
That may be a measurement and wider marketing question rather than a PR-delivery failure.
The agency barely communicates
That is a service issue.
You cannot sensibly decide whether to continue until you identify which problem you actually have.
Understand the normal path from activity to coverage
Particularly at the beginning of a campaign, I look for a progression.
First comes activity.
Stories are developed.
Experts are positioned.
Journalists are approached.
Then you want to see bites.
Journalists reply.
They ask questions.
They request a case study.
They arrange an interview.
They ask for photographs.
They say the story is being considered.
Then the articles begin to appear.
That journey is not identical for every campaign, but it gives us useful evidence.
A campaign with no published coverage after a short period can still be healthy if relevant journalists are clearly engaging with it.
What if there is no coverage after three months but journalists are interested?
I would not automatically cancel.
Suppose the client has:
completed two good interviews;
answered several journalist requests;
provided additional information to another reporter;
and has a feature apparently progressing.
That demonstrates that the strategy is reaching journalists.
Publication remains outside the agency's control.
The sensible question becomes whether the opportunities are credible and relevant.
Sometimes media momentum develops suddenly.
One significant interview can make a source more visible, which can lead to further journalist interest around the same topic.
That is one of the reasons PR should not be evaluated solely by asking:
“How many URLs do I have today?”
What if three months have produced almost nothing?
No meaningful coverage.
Very little journalist interest.
No interviews.
No strong pending opportunities.
That is a much more serious position.
It can happen.
It should be unusual for a well-selected Fair client following a credible strategy, but pretending it can never happen would be unrealistic.
The answer is not:
“Just give us another three months because PR takes time.”
The answer is to go back to the drawing board.
What should an agency review when a campaign is genuinely stuck?
Everything.
The headlines.
The angles.
The stories.
The journalists.
The expert biographies.
The company website.
LinkedIn.
The online reputation.
Reviews.
Professional credentials.
Evidence.
Case studies.
Photography.
Current trends.
Client responsiveness.
Media targeting.
And the assumptions made when the campaign began.
Sometimes a hidden credibility issue is affecting the response.
Sometimes the stories simply are not strong enough.
Sometimes the company has changed since onboarding.
Sometimes a campaign that looked best suited to company news turns out to be much stronger through expert commentary.
The purpose of the review is to find the constraint rather than defend the original strategy at all costs.
Look at what journalists see when they search the company
This deserves its own check.
A journalist may receive an excellent pitch and then search the business.
What do they find?
A credible website?
Clear expert biography?
Active LinkedIn?
Consistent professional history?
Strong reviews?
Or something that raises questions?
A journalist has a reputation to protect too.
If the company looks questionable online, they may be reluctant to use it as a source.
PR teams should know what exists in that public footprint.
Where there is a legitimate reputation issue, it may need to be addressed separately.
Fair does not position itself as a specialist crisis or reputation-management consultancy, so where the underlying problem moves into that area, another provider may become more appropriate.
Review what the agency actually promised
Go back to the contract and proposal.
Was the agency hired to:
develop strategy;
write content;
pitch journalists;
provide reporting;
manage interviews;
or guarantee something else?
Was a particular campaign route agreed?
Were paid placements included?
Was the client expecting national media even though the proposal described a broader mix?
A review should compare actual delivery against the genuine agreement rather than against expectations that developed later.
Activity alone is not enough
An agency might report:
“1,000 emails sent.”
That sounds busy.
It tells you very little.
Were they relevant?
Did anybody respond?
Was the same pitch repeatedly sent?
What did the agency learn?
A smaller amount of highly relevant outreach can be considerably more meaningful than industrial-scale email volume.
Useful reporting should include:
what was created;
what was pitched;
where interest appeared;
what was published;
what is pending;
what did not work;
and what happens next.
Fair's communication model is designed around that accountability
Standard PR clients have direct communication through a private WhatsApp group with Jordan and the wider team, fortnightly progress updates and regular monthly calls.
The fortnightly update covers:
campaign activity;
media interest;
published coverage;
and what the team is working on next.
The monthly call provides a natural point to review:
what is gaining traction;
what needs adjusting;
and the priorities for the next phase.
We intentionally maintain that direct access because PR is collaborative.
Particularly in the early months, ideas move quickly.
A journalist might need an answer today.
A client may suggest an interesting angle in a WhatsApp conversation.
We may need to tell the client that something they thought would work has not landed and propose something different.
Good communication makes those adjustments easier.
What should a campaign review meeting cover?
A useful review meeting should not become 60 minutes of vague reassurance.
I would want to cover:
1. What did we do?
Specific stories, comments, media outreach and opportunities.
2. What did journalists respond to?
Which themes produced interest?
3. What did they ignore?
Patterns matter.
4. What feedback did we receive?
Case study needed?
Wrong timing?
Not their beat?
More data required?
5. What was actually published?
Not merely sent.
6. What is still realistically pending?
Not every unanswered email is a “pending opportunity”.
7. What did the client fail to provide?
Photography?
Interview availability?
Evidence?
Approvals?
8. What is going to change?
New angle?
New spokesperson?
Different publication mix?
New evidence?
Different campaign route?
9. When do we review again?
Set a sensible point based on what is being tested.
This keeps both sides accountable.
Client participation can be the biggest difference
The biggest client-side reason a potentially good Fair campaign can struggle is lack of engagement combined with lack of open-mindedness.
A client may say:
“I don't want to talk about that.”
“I don't want trade press.”
“I don't want local media.”
“I don't want to discuss my founder story.”
“I don't want to provide customer examples.”
“I don't want to do interviews.”
“I don't want to comment on that issue.”
Any individual boundary may be perfectly reasonable.
Collectively, those restrictions can remove most of the actual media opportunity.
The client does not need to say yes to everything
This is important.
Open-mindedness does not mean surrendering control.
Clients should not:
disclose confidential information;
comment outside their expertise;
participate in publications they genuinely consider inappropriate;
or agree to a story that creates unreasonable personal or business risk.
The issue is whether the client is willing to consider legitimate media opportunities rather than beginning with a very narrow picture of what PR is allowed to look like.
Early campaigns benefit particularly from flexibility
In the early months, we are learning what the media responds to for that particular company.
A client may believe their strongest story is:
the company's origin.
Journalists may care much more about:
the founder's expertise.
The client may want product reviews.
Editors may repeatedly request:
customer case studies.
A B2B business may initially want national newspapers.
The strongest commercial audience may actually be reading trade media.
That learning is valuable.
The campaign becomes stronger when the client is willing to use it.
Availability matters
If an expert is offered an interview and cannot speak for three weeks, the story may disappear.
If a national journalist asks for a photograph and it takes five days to locate one, the page may already have been designed without the client.
If every two-sentence quote requires approval from four people, reactive PR becomes difficult.
Clients do not need to sit beside their phone all day.
They do need a workable process.
Too many strategy discussions can reduce actual PR work
This can sound counterintuitive, but it happens.
A client is anxious about results, so they ask for more meetings.
Then more planning calls.
Then another written strategy.
Then further discussions about the strategy.
The PR team spends increasing amounts of time talking about doing PR rather than actually doing it.
There is a point where another strategy call does not provide useful accountability.
The better test is to agree the next sensible approach, execute it, observe the media response and then review.
PR requires doing.
Trust should follow due diligence
Before hiring an agency, a client should investigate it.
Look at:
case studies;
reviews;
testimonials;
media evidence;
team experience;
contract terms;
pricing;
and scope.
Ask difficult questions.
Once satisfied, give the provider enough working trust to perform the job it was hired to do.
Micromanaging every journalist name and every sentence can make a time-sensitive campaign much less effective.
Trust does not remove accountability.
The two should exist together.
Think of the PR agency as a broker between the business and the media
This is one of the clearest ways I can explain PR.
The client pays the agency to find the part of the business journalists may find useful and present it effectively.
The journalist needs:
stories;
experts;
data;
products;
case studies;
explanations;
and interesting people.
The client wants:
visibility;
credibility;
brand awareness;
SEO value;
GEO and AI-search visibility;
and, ultimately, marketing outcomes that may contribute to business results.
The PR agency sits between those two sides.
It cannot command the journalist.
It can make the exchange much more likely to work.
That is why journalist goodwill matters
We are not interested in burning a relationship for a quick result.
If a journalist asks for something and we can genuinely help, being responsive builds goodwill.
If they say no, we listen.
If they want a case study, we try to find one where appropriate.
If they have already covered the subject, we do not repeatedly demand another article.
Over time, a PR agency becomes more useful when journalists know it understands their needs.
The client benefits from that relationship even though no journalist “owes” the agency coverage.
What should happen when the original strategy is not working?
Change it materially enough to learn something new.
Perhaps:
the headline changes;
the evidence improves;
the expert biography becomes stronger;
a different spokesperson is introduced;
the company starts using customer case studies;
the campaign moves into trade press;
founder stories are introduced;
the product becomes the focus;
expert commentary replaces generic company news;
or another credible route is developed.
Do not call changing two adjectives in the same unsuccessful press release a new strategy.
When should you give the campaign more time?
Continue when there is credible progress.
Examples include:
journalists are replying;
the spokesperson has completed relevant interviews;
useful features are genuinely pending;
journalists are asking for more;
the campaign is creating relationships;
a revised strategy has a clear editorial rationale;
or the business has begun providing material that was previously missing.
None guarantees future coverage.
They are reasons to believe the work has a basis.
When should you seriously consider changing provider?
There are two broad reasons.
The agency is performing poorly
Possible warning signs include:
poor communication;
little evidence of agreed work;
misleading reporting;
repeated irrelevant outreach;
the same failing tactic with no meaningful learning;
or promises that do not match what is delivered.
The agency is no longer the right specialist
This can happen even where the agency is good.
At Fair, we predominantly work across lifestyle, consumer, expert-led, founder, small-business and B2B earned media.
A client relationship might evolve until the company really needs:
corporate communications;
reputation management;
events;
investor relations;
public affairs;
or another highly specialised area.
At that point, the honest answer may be:
we are no longer the natural agency for this job.
Changing agency is not always a criticism of the old agency
Business goals change.
A company can outgrow a supplier.
A communications problem can become more specialised.
A startup can become a large corporate organisation.
A brand focused on editorial visibility can suddenly face a complex crisis-management requirement.
There have been occasions where Fair has recommended that an account stop and that the client consider a more appropriate agency.
That is part of honest account management.
We rely on good relationships and good reviews.
Trying to hold onto revenue from work we are no longer best placed to perform would be short-sighted.
When should the client itself reconsider PR?
Sometimes neither the agency nor a new agency is the immediate answer.
The business may need to fix:
a weak proposition;
poor customer reviews;
an unclear website;
unsupported claims;
product problems;
or missing media assets.
A client might also discover that its current priority is:
performance advertising;
sales infrastructure;
SEO;
or another activity.
PR can be valuable.
It is not the correct answer to every business problem at every moment.
An improvement plan should be concrete
Avoid:
“We'll try harder next month.”
Use something like:
Problem: Expert commentary receives little journalist engagement.
Finding: Expert profile is too broad and does not establish specific credentials clearly.
Change: Rebuild profile around two defined subject territories and add supporting qualifications and experience.
New angle: Link commentary to current sector data rather than generic advice.
Media: Reduce broad business list and focus on relevant trade, national business and specialist reporters.
Client requirement: Same-day factual approval where possible.
Review: Examine journalist response after the revised approach has been properly tested.
No promise of a particular number of articles is needed.
The plan itself is accountable.
Continue, revise or reconsider?
| Situation | Likely decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Good journalist interest, articles pending | Continue | Strategy is connecting |
| Some coverage but wrong audiences | Revise | Targeting/objective needs adjustment |
| Strong activity, weak response | Revise materially | Media proposition needs work |
| Good opportunities repeatedly lost through slow client response | Fix client process | Agency cannot solve missed deadlines alone |
| Little meaningful work and poor communication | Consider changing provider | Service problem |
| Client now needs specialist work outside agency scope | Change provider or add specialist | Capability mismatch |
| No credible story and no alternative route | Reconsider PR | Further spend may not be sensible |
How do you exit responsibly?
Read the contract.
Understand:
notice requirements;
outstanding invoices;
campaign materials;
client-owned assets;
ongoing journalist conversations;
and access to relevant accounts or documents.
Do not abruptly disappear from a journalist conversation if an interview is already being organised.
A professional handover protects the client and the media relationship.
What should you ask the next agency?
Ask:
What do you think the strongest story is?
What would you do differently from our previous campaign?
Why?
Who will perform the work?
How will you know if the strategy is connecting?
What do you need from us?
What is outside your scope?
How often will we communicate?
What happens if early pitching gets little interest?
What evidence can you show from relevant previous work?
The goal is not to find somebody who promises more.
It is to find somebody whose reasoning is better aligned with what the business now needs.
Fair's philosophy on underperforming campaigns
We believe ongoing PR works best when both sides understand that results can take time, but time by itself is not a strategy.
Our model is deliberately affordable and flexible because building:
credibility;
brand awareness;
media relationships;
search value;
GEO visibility;
and a useful public footprint
often makes more sense over months than through a single expensive publicity blast.
But affordability should never become an excuse to keep charging a client forever without learning.
We would rather:
change tactics;
have an honest conversation;
or tell somebody another agency is now a better fit
than protect one more monthly payment at the expense of goodwill.
We are interested in long-term relationships.
That includes long-term journalist relationships and long-term client trust.
We are not interested in a quick buck.
Frequently asked questions
Should I cancel my PR agency if I haven't had coverage after three months?
Not automatically. Review what has actually happened. If relevant journalists are replying, interviews have taken place, good opportunities are pending and the strategy has credible momentum, continuing may be sensible. If there is no meaningful coverage, virtually no journalist interest, no credible pipeline and no evidence that the agency understands why, the campaign needs a substantial review rather than another vague request for patience.
How do I know whether my PR agency is doing enough work?
Compare the agreed scope with evidence. Ask which stories were developed, who was pitched, what journalists said, which opportunities progressed, what was published, what failed and what has changed as a result. Raw email volume is not enough. A good agency should be able to explain both activity and judgement, including why it chose particular media routes and what it has learned.
Can a change of PR strategy turn a campaign around?
Yes, sometimes significantly. Changing from generic company announcements to expert commentary, strengthening evidence, improving an expert's public profile, introducing case studies or targeting a different media audience can materially alter journalist response. The change needs to be substantive and based on a credible diagnosis rather than simply rewriting the same unsuccessful pitch.
What should I ask my PR agency before renewing?
Ask what genuinely worked, what did not, what journalists responded to, which opportunities remain realistically pending, what the agency believes is holding the campaign back and what it proposes to change. Ask what it needs from you as well. Finally, ask whether the agency still believes it is the right provider for your current goals. A good agency should be prepared to answer that last question candidly.
Looking for a more accountable approach to PR?
Fair PR believes good media relations require honest expectations, clear communication, strong journalist relationships and a willingness to change direction when an approach is not working.
If you are reviewing your next steps, explore Standard PR or contact us to discuss whether our journalist-led approach is a suitable fit.
We would rather recommend the right next step than make promises simply to win another retainer.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of PR and journalism experience.
Fair is a founder-led, journalist-led boutique PR agency working across the UK, US and Canada.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
