Strategic communications v PR: what’s the difference?

PR appears to be getting a rebrand. Agencies are adding "strategic communications" to their mastheads. Job titles are shifting. And I'll admit, when I first saw this trend, I was cynical. Is this simply agencies trying to charge more for the same service by slapping "strategic" in front of it? Is it PR at a higher organisational level? And why do some people use "strategic communication" while others say "strategic communications"? 

But as someone who's spent a decade working in communications – from documentary storytelling for Netflix and the BBC, to serving corporate and government clients at Edelman – I've realised this shift matters. It represents a new appreciation of and need for communication skills at a leadership level. And PR professionals may be uniquely positioned to fulfil this need. 

Definitions are important

Let’s lay some groundwork with the definitions. Strategic communication (singular), according to scholar Carl Botan, is essentially a collection of integrated marketing communications functions – advertising, PR, marketing, branding – all coordinated together as part of a plan. That's the "strategic" bit: the coordination, the planning.

But strategic communications (plural), as defined by Neville Bolt, is something altogether different. It's the principle that every word, action, and image carries communicative value. Not just your press releases and social media posts, but your product design, your organisational structure, your leadership representation, your hiring practices, your office location. Everything communicates. Everything matters.

This isn't just PR at a higher level. It's a communications-first way of seeing the world.

Why this matters now

We see organisational incoherence all around us. Companies are struggling with misaligned objectives, where different departments pull in opposite directions. Brand images are inconsistent across touchpoints. Value propositions are unclear in crowded markets. And when things go wrong, organisations without a holistic communications approach face reputational damage they're not equipped to handle.

The traditional solution has been to hire an agency to create a campaign. But campaigns are sticking plasters. They solve short-term problems without addressing the root cause. And audiences are quick to see through this, because if a short-term campaign or ill-thought-through crisis response doesn’t match up with the organisation’s other activities, that erodes trust. To tackle this trust issue at its core, organisations need to understand that everything they do communicates something to someone.

The PR advantage

The chances are that if someone with a communications background is in a leadership position, they already understand the communicative power of everything. And that puts PR professionals at a leadership advantage in a communications-first world.

We know that actions must match words to build trust. We design stories that create cultural moments. We craft experiences that build positive relationships. We understand that a delayed response communicates just as much as a carefully worded statement. That a product launch tells a story about values. That who sits on your board says something about your priorities.

These skills aren't supplementary. They're not "soft." They're central to modern leadership. Yet they're still treated as if they are.

PR guru Stephen Waddington is devoting his PhD research to demonstrating why PR skills matter at a leadership level and why they're not given that importance. I think the rise of the term "strategic communications" is part of this push to elevate our skills to where they can be most effective. Communications are at the heart of modern leadership. Audiences want to see leaders communicating directly with them. Leaders need to know how to respond to crises with authenticity and speed. Organisations need to understand that every decision has communicative consequences.

What we should do about it

So what does this mean for PR professionals? First, we need to start owning what strategic communications actually means. It's not PR with a premium price tag. It's a fundamental principle of organisational design and leadership.

Second, we need to demonstrate this understanding in how we work. That means moving beyond campaign thinking to systems thinking. It means asking not just "what should we say?" but "what do all our actions say?" It means advising on everything from hiring decisions to product design, because all of it communicates.

Third, we need to position ourselves as the professionals who understand relationships and conversations in an organisational context. Because ultimately, the most successful leaders will be those who see the world this way. Who understand that they're not just running businesses or charities or departments – they're managing a complex web of relationships, and every single interaction matters.

The rebrand from PR to strategic communications isn't just semantic. It's a recognition that the skills we've always had are exactly what organisations need to navigate an increasingly complex, connected, and scrutinised world. 

CIPR member Zenia Duell is the founder of The Strat Comms Surgery, a workshop-based strategic communications consultancy. She is also a PhD researcher at King’s College London, writing her thesis on Strategic Communications in the Roman Empire. Influence recently interviewed Zenia about her career.