Audiences have outgrown PR tricks but not PR itself

Here is a pair of numbers that should interest PR’s critics and its defenders in equal measure. In a global survey of journalists published in 2026, 86 percent said at least some of their work began with a PR pitch. In the same survey, more than four in ten said relevant pitches were rare. PR is, at the same time, the pipeline and the punchline.

The survey drew mainly on journalists in the United States, with some in the UK, Canada and India, so it is best read as a global signal rather than an Indian one. Even so, the tension it reveals is the honest answer to the question many brands are quietly asking. PR is not finished. What is struggling is one particular style of it, built on the polished announcement, the staged moment and the hopeful nod from a newsroom.

The industry is still growing, just more slowly

Anyone hoping to find clients walking away will be disappointed. India’s PR industry reached an estimated 3,230 crore rupees in the financial year ended March 2026, up 11 percent on the year before, according to a survey run for an industry body. Those are survey estimates drawn from 143 responses rather than audited revenue. Growth has moderated from a decade long average of 12 percent a year, and the same body projects 4,500 crore rupees by 2030. The industry itself calls this maturity.

Money, then, is still flowing. What the figures cannot say is whether the audience at the other end is persuaded. For that, you have to look at the audience.

What audiences say they trust

A major annual survey of mainly English speaking online news users in India put overall trust in news at 39 percent in 2026, down four points in a year. More than half of those surveyed, 57 percent, said they worry about whether the online news they see is genuine. A placement in a newsroom only works if readers trust the newsroom, and that trust is thinner than it was.

The brand side of the question has been tested too. A 2026 survey of 2,000 Americans aged 18 to 28 asked Gen Z which sources they trust when judging whether a brand is credible. Customer reviews came first at 72 percent. Independent research and expert opinion followed at 68 percent each, then news articles at 58 percent, brand advertising at 57 percent and influencer content at 55 percent. Last, at 46 percent, came PR stunts, campaigns and activations. The sample was American, so it points a direction rather than delivering an Indian verdict.

The pattern is hard to miss. Broadly speaking, the less a source looked designed by the brand, the more it was trusted.

Three kinds of newsroom, three kinds of test

Not every placement is equal. Indian publishing now has three broad tiers. Legacy websites are the online arms of long established print and television names, with decades of recognition and large audiences. Veteran digital websites are the first wave of digital natives, born largely in the 2010s and built on a decade of independent or investigative work. New-age websites are the newest arrivals, usually leaner, often built around small teams or individual voices and funded by readers rather than advertisers.

Legacy sites offer reach. Veteran sites offer a track record. New-age sites are built around the quality the survey above rewards most, which is independence from the brand being written about. That is what readers mean when they describe coverage as organic, and it is the one thing a pitch cannot supply on its own.

The research gathered here does not measure how Indian Gen Z readers rate these three tiers against one another, so a verdict would be premature. What it does show is the direction. Trust in news is under pressure, audiences rate independent sources above brand designed ones, and 58 percent of Indian respondents in the news survey rely on a video sharing platform for news. A sceptical reader is rarely more than a few taps from a second opinion.

Independent voices are not closed to PR, though. In a 2025 survey of journalists who publish independently, many of them through personal websites and email newsletters, 82 percent said at least some of their stories began with a PR pitch. Yet 72 percent said most of the pitches they receive are irrelevant. The door is open. The bar is high.

What earns attention now

Journalists themselves are fairly clear about what gets through. Asked what makes a pitch relevant, the clearest answer was a direct effect on the community the journalist’s audience belongs to. A pitch that serves the audience first and the brand second is a pitch with a chance.

For brands, the commercial reading is straightforward. Budget spent on spectacle is competing with the lowest rated source in the survey above. Budget spent on useful research, genuine expertise and stories worth a reporter’s time sits closer to what audiences say they trust.

So is PR still necessary

Yes, if PR means earning attention with something worth an audience’s time. No, if it means arranging coverage and hoping nobody checks. Audiences may not be any smarter than they used to be, but they have far more places to check a claim. PR that can survive the check will always find work. PR that depends on nobody checking is in trouble.

Final take

Journalists still rely on PR, with 86 percent saying some of their work began with a pitch, yet more than four in ten say relevant pitches are rare.

India’s PR industry grew an estimated 11 percent to 3,230 crore rupees in the financial year ended March 2026, according to an industry body survey.

In a US survey of Gen Z adults, PR stunts ranked last of seven credibility sources at 46 percent, well below customer reviews at 72 percent.

Independence is the quality audiences reward most, and it is the opening that new-age websites are built around.