Skip to main content
Everything PR News
THE
Agency Profile

The PR Message Gap: From the 2010 Burson Study to Today

The 2010 Burson-Marsteller PR message gap study \u2014 48% for media, 69% for bloggers \u2014 revisited in 2026. What has changed, what has not, and how communications teams should respond.

Profiled

Sep 18, 2010

Desk

EPR Editorial Team

Firm summary

By EPR Editorial Team

Edited on Jun 28, 2026.

Related: Burson — PR Agency Profile · Harold Burson Report.

In 2010, Burson-Marsteller published research measuring the gap between corporate PR messages and what media and bloggers actually published — a 48% gap for mainstream media and a 69% gap for bloggers. The study landed at a moment when corporate communications teams were still adjusting to the rise of the blogger ecosystem and the broader collapse of the traditional press release as a primary communications mechanism.

Sixteen years later, the gap remains. The categories have shifted. The methodology for measuring it has improved. The structural disconnect between what corporate communications operations want said and what published media actually says has not closed.

What the 2010 Study Found

The Burson-Marsteller research measured the percentage of corporate-issued PR messaging that did not appear in the resulting media coverage. For mainstream media, 48% of intended messages were not reflected in published stories. For bloggers, the gap was 69%. The methodology was straightforward — comparison of pitched messaging with published output — and the findings were widely cited because they quantified what experienced PR practitioners had long known qualitatively.

The implication was significant. Nearly half of mainstream media coverage and more than two-thirds of blogger coverage did not carry the messages PR teams had intended to land. The standard PR measurement frameworks of the time — counting placements, total mentions, share of voice — were measuring activity rather than message penetration. Activity was up. Penetration was much lower than the activity metrics suggested.

What Closed and What Did Not

Three things have changed since 2010 that should have closed the gap, and largely have not.

PR measurement has improved. Modern tools measure sentiment, message penetration, and share of voice at granular levels that were not available in 2010. Practitioners now have better data about how their messages are landing.

Content marketing emerged. Brands now publish their own content at scale, which bypasses the message-gap problem by removing the journalist intermediary entirely. The brand says what the brand wants to say, in the brand's voice, on the brand's owned channels.

Direct-to-audience channels expanded. LinkedIn, X, Substack, podcasts, and the broader creator economy let executives and brands communicate directly with their audiences without going through the media filter. Each new direct channel reduces the practical importance of the message gap in earned coverage.

The persistent gap is in the channel that still matters most: earned coverage in traditional and digital business press. Journalists still interpret, contextualize, and re-frame the messages brands attempt to land. The gap in 2026 is similar in size to the gap in 2010, even though the absolute volume of earned coverage has shifted and the underlying channels have changed.

Why the Gap Persists

The gap persists for structural reasons that do not have solutions. Journalists are not stenographers. They write the story that serves their reader, not the story that serves the source. The interests of the source and the interests of the reader are not always aligned, and when they diverge, the journalist follows the reader's interest. The result is that brand messages that do not directly serve the reader's interest do not appear in the coverage.

Strong PR operations accept the structural reality and operate accordingly. They craft messages that genuinely serve the reader's interest as well as the brand's interest. They focus on the messages that have a chance of landing rather than running the same generic talking points across every pitch. And they measure penetration of the specific messages that matter rather than tracking overall coverage volume.

The Modern Implication

The 2010 Burson-Marsteller framework still applies. The percentages have shifted somewhat — mainstream-media penetration of intended messages is probably slightly higher than 52% in 2026 because measurement is better and journalists work more with structured source materials. Blogger and creator coverage penetration is probably lower than 31% because the channel has fragmented into thousands of individual voices each with their own framing.

The discipline for communications teams: measure message penetration, not just placement counts. Craft messages that serve the reader, not just the brand. Use direct channels for messages that cannot survive the journalist filter. And do not pretend the gap does not exist.

The PR Message Gap: From the 2010 Burson Study to Today FAQ

What was the 2010 Burson-Marsteller PR message gap study?

Research measuring the gap between corporate-issued PR messaging and what media actually published. The finding was a 48% gap in mainstream media coverage and a 69% gap in blogger coverage. Nearly half of intended messages did not appear in mainstream media stories. More than two-thirds did not appear in blogger coverage.

What has changed since 2010?

PR measurement tools have improved. Brands now publish their own content at scale, bypassing the journalist intermediary. Direct-to-audience channels (LinkedIn, X, Substack, podcasts, the creator economy) let brands communicate directly. None of these has closed the gap in earned coverage by traditional and digital business press.

Why does the message gap persist?

Journalists are not stenographers. They write the story that serves their reader, not the story that serves the source. When source interests and reader interests diverge, journalists follow the reader. Brand messages that do not serve the reader's interest do not appear in coverage. The structural dynamic does not have a solution.

How should PR operations respond to the message gap?

Craft messages that serve the reader's interest as well as the brand's interest. Focus on messages that have a chance of landing rather than running generic talking points. Measure penetration of specific messages, not just overall coverage volume. Use direct channels for messages that cannot survive the journalist filter.

What are the typical message-gap percentages in 2026?

Mainstream-media penetration of intended messages is probably slightly higher than the 2010 figure of 52% because measurement has improved and journalists work more with structured source materials. Blogger and creator coverage penetration is probably lower than 31% because the channel has fragmented. The gap is similar in magnitude to 2010.

Is the message gap a failure of PR?

No. The gap is a structural feature of earned coverage. PR operations that measure message penetration, craft reader-serving messages, and use direct channels appropriately are operating well even when the published coverage does not reflect every intended message. The discipline is working within the structural constraint, not pretending it does not exist.

Editorial assessment by Everything-PR, based on public record and archive coverage. No firm-supplied marketing copy, no paid placement.