| Respondent profile | Share of 255 respondents |
|---|
| Work in-house | 47% |
| Work at an agency | 32% |
| Consultant or freelancer | 18% |
| Communications function | 31% |
| Marketing function | 28% |
| Integrated PR and marketing function | 20% |
| PR function | 16% |
| VP, director, head or C-suite | 35% combined (25% and 10%) |
Some questions were asked only of subsets. The 122 PR and communications respondents answered one set of questions on priorities, challenges, threats and media relations, and the 92 marketing respondents answered another. Every respondent answered the questions on AI use, AI visibility, metrics, influence sources and skills.
Who should own AI visibility, and who will?
Respondents want PR to own AI visibility but do not expect any single function to win the job. Asked to pick one function that will have primary responsibility in 2027, no answer received more than 22% of the vote.
| Who is expected to own AI visibility in 2027 | All respondents |
|---|
| PR and communications | 22% |
| Cross-functional or shared ownership | 21% |
| SEO and search | 17% |
| Digital and growth | 10% |
| Brand | 9% |
| Dedicated AI or GEO role or team | 8% |
| No clear owner or unsure | 7% |
| Content | 5% |
How strong is the support for PR to lead?
Support for PR leading AI visibility is broad but moderate. Three in four respondents (75%) agree that PR and communications should have primary responsibility, but about a quarter strongly agree and around half somewhat agree. Agency respondents agreed more often (79%) than in-house respondents (71%).
Do PR professionals expect to win the job themselves?
Even PR professionals doubt it. Among PR respondents only 30% expect PR to take the lead on AI visibility, compared with 22% across all respondents.
Marketers show the same pattern. Of the marketing respondents, 74% agree PR should own AI visibility, though only 16% strongly agree and just 10% expect it will. Adonai Canals, a specialist at the Mood Project, told the survey that PR and marketing are merging because digital positioning is no longer about the traditional click, but about getting AI engines to cite and recommend a brand based on its reputation.
Why does the ownership gap matter?
The ownership gap matters because the work will be done by someone in every organization. If PR teams do not claim AI visibility, it will likely pass to SEO, digital, product or an outside vendor, and each of those groups will measure it differently.
That is an opening for communications leaders. The argument that PR is the right owner is already accepted by most of the profession. What is missing is a named owner, shared measures and a budget line. Onclusive's own reading of the data is that agreeing who owns AI visibility, and how it will be measured, is a practical first step.
How much influence will AI assistants have on brand reputation?
AI assistants are expected to be the single largest influence on brand reputation and discoverability in 2027. Half of all respondents (50%) put AI assistants and answer engines in their top three sources, more than any other option.
| Source expected to shape brand reputation in 2027 | Share naming it in their top three |
|---|
| AI assistants and answer engines | 50% |
| Social platforms | 45% |
| Review sites, communities and forums | 35% |
| Trade and industry media | 33% |
| Mainstream news and media | 33% |
| Search engines | 32% |
| Creators and influencers | 24% |
| Brand-owned websites and content | 19% |
PR professionals feel this most strongly. Among PR respondents 60% put AI assistants in their top three, compared with 39% of marketing respondents, who spread their answers more widely.
A separate question tested the same idea directly. Some 76% of respondents strongly or somewhat agree that AI visibility will matter more than traditional search visibility by the end of 2027, including 74% of in-house respondents and 73% of agency respondents.
The ranking has a practical consequence for reputation work. Search engines rank sixth at 32%, below AI assistants, social platforms and review sites. Adri Varadi, Head of Communications at AMC Global Media, said in the report that communications teams should move from asking what AI can do for them to asking what AI says about them, starting with five questions their audiences actually ask and comparing the answers across different AI tools.
How do views on AI visibility differ by market?
Views differ sharply by market, and the gaps run against some expectations. North American respondents are the most likely to monitor AI visibility, yet they are the least likely to rank AI assistants as a top influence.
| Measure | UK and Ireland | US and Canada | France | Latin America |
|---|
| AI assistants a top-three influence | 45% | 33% | 66% | 55% |
| Search engines a top-three influence | 40% | 45% | 12% | 30% |
| AI embedded in several workflows or more | 45% | 68% | 44% | 48% |
| Very confident in AI governance | 45% | 55% | 22% | 14% |
| Monitoring AI visibility with a dedicated tool | 14% | 25% | 12% | 14% |
| No action yet on AI visibility | 16% | 22% | 39% | 23% |
The market bases are small: 85 respondents in the UK and Ireland, 51 in the US and Canada, 41 in France and 44 in Latin America. Onclusive labels these differences as directional, and readers should treat them the same way.
The pattern still has a clear reading. French respondents are the most likely to see AI assistants as a top influence (66%) and the most likely to have taken no action (39%). North American respondents rank search engines higher (45%) while running the most advanced AI programs and the most monitoring.
What have organizations actually done to improve how they appear in AI answers?
Most organizations have done something, but the actions are mostly content updates rather than measurement. One in four respondents (25%) say their organization has done nothing yet, and only 17% have started monitoring AI visibility with a dedicated tool.
| Action already taken | Share of respondents |
|---|
| Created or updated authoritative website or newsroom content | 38% |
| Developed an AI visibility or GEO strategy | 33% |
| Strengthened earned media coverage in relevant publications | 25% |
| Created expert or data-led content designed to be cited | 25% |
| Improved structured or technical content for AI discovery | 21% |
| Improved presence on third-party sources cited by AI | 19% |
| Audited current AI visibility and citations | 18% |
| Started monitoring AI visibility with a dedicated tool | 17% |
| Engaged an agency, consultant or specialist | 14% |
| None yet | 25% |
The gap between belief and action is the central finding of this part of the report. Half of respondents think AI assistants will shape reputation, while only 18% have audited what those assistants currently say.
Does AI maturity change how much teams act?
AI maturity changes the picture a great deal. Among teams that still use AI ad hoc, 47% have taken no action on AI visibility, compared with 10% of teams that have AI embedded in several workflows or more.
Teams that have built AI into their workflows are far more likely to have acted on AI visibility as well. Antonieta Martin, Director of Marketing and Communications at GfK España, described the work in the report as demanding both hard work and creativity, and urged teams to start learning how to diagnose it now.
Readers who want the fundamentals behind these actions can start with Everything-PR's explainer on what generative engine optimization is. A worked example of a brand-level review is Everything-PR's case study on RTX and its split AI citation profile.
Earned media is the part of PR most directly connected to AI answers, and it is the part respondents connect least. Half of PR respondents (50%) rank securing earned media among their top three priorities for 2027, yet only 21% pick earned media's growing role in AI answers as one of the two biggest changes in media relations.
The reasoning behind the connection is straightforward. AI assistants answering questions about brands can draw on news and trade coverage. Respondents themselves rank trade media and mainstream news (33% each) as influences on reputation in 2027. Peter Harris, CEO of Onclusive, makes the same point in the foreword: the coverage and content brands already create help shape what AI says about them.
| Change expected to affect media relations most in 2027 | PR and communications respondents |
|---|
| Shrinking newsrooms and fewer journalists | 52% |
| More AI-generated pitches and content | 38% |
| Greater demand for exclusive, original or data-led stories | 26% |
| Declining trust in traditional media | 25% |
| Earned media becoming more important for AI answers | 21% |
| Creators and influencers becoming more important media partners | 16% |
| Increasing overlap between earned, sponsored and paid media | 16% |
Two numbers frame the opportunity. Earned media has risen about 16 percentage points on the PR agenda since last year among both in-house and agency respondents (a directional comparison), and only 25% of organizations have strengthened earned coverage specifically to improve AI visibility. A team that does both has an advantage, because the coverage it already earns can serve two purposes.
The practical gap, as the report frames it, is connecting the two: knowing which publications AI cites and reporting AI visibility alongside coverage. Everything-PR's reference on GEO for PR covers how that measurement works in detail.
What will leaders measure, and can PR prove its value?
Leaders are expected to measure reputation and trust first, with revenue and AI visibility close behind. PR teams also face the sharpest pressure to prove commercial value, and the survey shows the pressure rising.
| Metric expected to matter most to senior leaders and clients | All respondents |
|---|
| Reputation and trust | 49% |
| Revenue and pipeline contribution | 37% |
| AI and search visibility | 36% |
| Brand awareness and consideration | 29% |
| Audience engagement | 20% |
| Share of voice and media impact | 11% |
| Risk and crisis indicators | 7% |
Share of voice ranks sixth at 11%. Respondents expect leaders to look for outcomes rather than coverage volume.
How hard is connecting PR to revenue?
Connecting PR to revenue is the top challenge for PR respondents (52%), followed by proving ROI beyond vanity metrics (48%) and linking media coverage to real-world perception shifts (40%). Marketing respondents rank connecting marketing to revenue first as well, at 57%.
The pressure is growing fastest at agencies. Among agency PR respondents, 64% now name proving ROI beyond vanity metrics as a challenge, up from 44% in the 2026 Outlook, and 64% name connecting PR to revenue, up from 53%. The agency base is only 33 respondents, so Onclusive marks these comparisons as directional. Among in-house PR respondents (61), linking coverage to perception shifts rose from 29% to 46%.
Do PR and marketing expect to be judged differently?
PR and marketing expect different yardsticks. Some 55% of PR respondents expect to be judged on reputation and trust, while 41% of marketing respondents expect to be judged on revenue.
Agencies and in-house teams also differ. Half of agency respondents (51%) include AI and search visibility among the two metrics leaders and clients will care about most, compared with 23% of in-house respondents, who put revenue (45%) and brand awareness (36%) higher. Jon Perks, Content Director at Campaign, said in the report that clients will increasingly expect agencies to connect reputation and visibility to commercial performance and measurable changes in audience behavior.
The practical implication is a reporting change. Coverage counts and impressions describe what was published, and they do not describe what an AI assistant says when a buyer asks which company to choose. Reporting both side by side gives leaders an outcome they can see.
How are communications teams using AI today?
AI use is almost universal but uneven. Half of respondents (50%) say AI is embedded in several workflows or more, while 20% are running pilots and 28% rely on ad hoc individual use.
| How the organization uses AI in communications and marketing | All respondents |
|---|
| Ad hoc individual use | 28% |
| Pilots in selected workflows | 20% |
| Embedded in several team workflows | 30% |
| Embedded across most workflows | 15% |
| Advanced automation or agentic workflows | 5% |
Agencies are further along. Only 16% of agency respondents say their AI use is still ad hoc, compared with 38% of in-house respondents. Seniority matters as well: 41% of VPs, directors and C-suite leaders say AI use is still ad hoc, compared with 14% of executives and specialists, which suggests leaders see a less advanced picture than the people closer to the work.
Where do professionals expect to use AI most in 2027?
Professionals expect to use AI most for analysis and research, with writing close behind. Data and insights analysis leads at 47%, followed by writing, editing and content creation (44%) and research and discovery (36%).
- Measurement and reporting: 31%
- Creative, image, video or audio production: 30%
- Campaign planning and strategy: 26%
- Administrative and organizational tasks: 20%
- Workflow automation: 19%
- Social media support: 16%
- Translation and localization: 12%
Agentic AI is the capability to watch. Some 29% of respondents put agentic AI among the two emerging capabilities with the biggest impact on their role in 2027, while only 5% already use advanced automation or agentic workflows. AI-powered research and insight generation ranks first at 38%, and AI search and GEO optimization follows at 31%. Only 6% expect emerging AI to have no significant impact on their role.
How confident are teams in AI governance?
Most respondents are confident, and the confidence follows maturity. About 71% are very or fairly confident that AI-generated content is created and approved in line with their organization's policies, and 36% are very confident (19% in-house, 49% at agencies).
Among teams with AI embedded in several workflows or more, 83% are confident in content governance, compared with 59% of other teams. One in ten respondents say their organization has no formal AI policy, and the figure is 15% among VPs, directors and C-suite leaders against 3% of executives and specialists. Álvaro Mazariegos, Director of Audiences and GEO at El Español, said in the report that integrating AI into every workflow is the hardest part because many workflows are not even defined.
What reputation risks does AI add?
AI adds a new crisis trigger that PR professionals now take seriously. Among PR respondents, 22% name AI-generated content going wrong as a top-two threat, up from 9% in the 2026 Outlook, compared with 14% of marketing respondents.
| Biggest threat that could trigger a reputation crisis | PR and communications | Marketing |
|---|
| Political or government action affecting the industry | 31% | 24% |
| Negative customer experience and reviews | 31% | 48% |
| Misinformation and fake news | 28% | 20% |
| Cybersecurity or data privacy breach | 26% | 23% |
| Internal culture issues or executive missteps | 25% | 30% |
| AI-generated content gone wrong | 22% | 14% |
The rise is sharpest among agency PR respondents, from 9% to 27%, though that group is small. Another change moved the opposite way: the share of agency PR respondents naming misinformation as a top threat fell from 44% to 21%. Senior PR leaders also worry far more about misinformation than those closer to the work (45% against 15% of executives and specialists).
Onclusive's reading is that review steps for AI content, and a plan for AI errors in crisis planning, are worth considering. A short written policy covering approved tools, human review of published copy and disclosure of AI assistance is a low-cost way to start.
Which skills will matter most in 2027?
Respondents rank human craft and AI skills side by side. Storytelling and creative skills lead at 49%, with AI fluency and automation close behind at 46%, followed by data analysis (38%), strategic counsel (37%), media and influencer relations (34%) and AI search and GEO (33%).
The results point to a mix rather than a replacement. Peter Harris writes in the foreword that AI does not replace judgment and creativity, but raises the bar for how teams measure, govern and prove their work.
Skill priorities differ by group. In-house respondents are more likely than agency respondents to name AI fluency (55% against 44%) and crisis skills (27% against 7%), while agency respondents are more likely to name strategic counsel (49% against 27%) and media relations (41% against 27%). By market, AI fluency is a top-three skill for 73% of French and 66% of Latin American respondents, but only 27% in both the UK and Ireland and the US and Canada, where storytelling still leads.
How are PR and marketing agendas converging?
PR and marketing have different priority lists for 2027, yet 64% of respondents expect the line between the two to become significantly less clear. The figure is 62% among in-house respondents and 65% among agency respondents, though only 17% strongly agree.
| Rank | PR and communications priorities | Marketing priorities |
|---|
| 1 | Brand building and awareness (57%) | Adapting to AI-driven search and recommendation algorithms (45%) |
| 2 | Reputation management (51%) | Building brand awareness (41%) |
| 3 | Securing earned media coverage (50%) | Increasing lead generation (38%) |
| 4 | Building relationships with journalists and influencers (38%) | Optimizing performance marketing (37%) |
| 5 | Making better data-driven decisions (29%) | Improving customer retention and loyalty (35%) |
AI-driven search has climbed the marketing agenda, rising by seven to nine percentage points among both in-house and agency marketers since last year. Peter Harris notes that when reputation, revenue and AI visibility sit across several teams, no single function can deliver them alone, and organizations that agree on shared goals and shared measures will be best placed to show what communications is worth.
Agency and in-house PR also lean in different directions. Agency PR puts more weight on brand building (73% against 57% in-house) while in-house PR leans toward reputation management (59% against 33% of agency respondents).
What does the Onclusive 2027 checklist recommend?
Onclusive closes the report with a six-step checklist for 2027. Each step answers a gap in the data, and the reasoning behind each is set out below.
- Measure your AI visibility. Set a baseline for how your brand appears in AI answers and how you compare with competitors. Only 17% of respondents monitor AI visibility with a tool and 18% have audited citations, so a baseline puts a team ahead of most peers.
- Name an owner. Give one person or team clear accountability, with shared measures across PR, marketing and SEO. Only 22% expect PR to own the topic and 7% say there is no clear owner, so a written assignment closes the gap.
- Link earned media to AI. Find the sources AI cites in your category and build them into your media plan. Only 25% of organizations have strengthened earned coverage for this purpose.
- Report on outcomes. Connect coverage and AI visibility to reputation, trust and revenue, the three outcomes leaders are expected to track.
- Govern before you scale. Put approval steps in place for AI-generated content before rolling AI into more workflows. One in ten respondents has no formal AI policy.
- Align leaders and teams. Review how AI is really used across the team before you set 2027 targets, since leaders and specialists describe AI progress very differently.
Onclusive sells AI visibility and media intelligence products, including a GEO analytics tool and a unified platform, and promotes them in the report. The checklist itself is a set of practical steps any team can follow with simple tools, such as asking ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity the questions a customer would ask and logging which brands and outlets appear.
How reliable is the Onclusive survey?
The Onclusive survey is a useful read of professional sentiment, with limits that readers should weigh. It reflects what 255 professionals said they believe and expect, not measured outcomes inside their organizations, and the sample was drawn from Onclusive's own clients and prospects.
That sampling detail matters. People on a media intelligence vendor's mailing list may care more about measurement and AI visibility than the wider profession, so the shares who say AI assistants will shape reputation could be higher than in a general sample. The 17% monitoring figure could also differ outside this audience.
Survey method, bases and caveats
Onclusive surveyed 255 PR, communications and marketing professionals between September 29 and October 20, 2026. The survey was shared by email with Onclusive's clients and prospects and ran online in English, French, Spanish and Italian. The analysis includes only respondents who completed the full survey, and each respondent is counted equally.
Many questions allowed more than one answer, so totals can exceed 100%. Percentages are rounded. Findings by seniority, organization type and market rest on smaller groups and are described by Onclusive as directional. Spain and Italy are not reported separately because their combined base is under 30.
The "since last year" comparisons use Onclusive's 2026 Outlook survey, run in June and July 2025. Samples and markets differ between years, so the report treats those comparisons as directional. Bases for key questions: all respondents 255 (in-house 119, agency 81), PR and communications respondents 122 (in-house 61, agency 33), marketing respondents 92 (in-house 40, agency 29).
Four points are worth keeping in mind. First, the crisis and revenue figures cited for PR come from the 122 PR and communications respondents, not all 255. Second, the agency comparisons rest on 33 PR respondents. Third, year over year changes compare different samples. Fourth, the direction of the findings is consistent across questions: professionals believe AI assistants will matter, believe PR should lead, and are mostly not yet measuring the results.
That direction is the part most worth acting on. A team that records what AI assistants say about its brand each month, names an owner and reports earned media alongside AI citations has done more than most of the profession surveyed.
