PR delivery models: a guide for directory users

A directory search starts with the brief

An England-based buyer uses a PR agency directory to identify possible providers for a 12-week product-launch brief. A project proposal and an interim proposal then appear to answer the same need.

The buyer treats this as a buyer-specific comparison, not market evidence or a ranking of directory listings. The six business models provide a shared lens for checking whether the offers purchase comparable work and leave usable outputs at handover.

At intake, the buyer records the deadline, launch deliverables, expected delivery staff and the point when responsibility returns in-house. The product-launch planning page helps define the assignment; the agency pricing comparison supplies a shared vocabulary for reading proposals.

The comparison file takes shape

When a directory search leads to proposals, the comparison puts every delivery route against common fields: scope, purchased unit, evidence required before commitment, change control and exit output. This prevents a monthly fee, a milestone price or a day rate from being mistaken for equivalent service when the promised work differs.

With the comparison fields established, the buyer asks each bidder for a dated rate card showing both a blended rate and a named-person rate. Extra capacity, access or duties require written approval before delivery; currency, VAT, quantities and term remain blank until a dated proposal provides them.

The brief is tested against demand

The need is a launch with a defined end, so the project offer deserves direct testing, while other models remain useful comparisons only if their service pattern fits. Demand signals help distinguish recurring pressure from a bounded assignment; they do not establish which bid is better.

The demand pattern determines which route merits examination, not which supplier wins. The buyer checks the requested unit and supporting evidence against the actual assignment, rather than assuming that a familiar label or a lower-looking invoice makes an offer suitable.

The proposals are recast as deliverables

The project and interim proposals are copied into the same record so scope, commitment, evidence, change and handover can be examined together. The comparison keeps the brief's week-12 finish visible and makes gaps easier to spot before the buyer considers price.

Both offers cover 24 named senior days and 40 media targets, so those entries align. A fixed price can look higher until the interim lead's weekly reporting and the brief's unplanned on-call weeks are counted. Those workload details belong beside the headline price, not in a later note.

Rate requests remain open

No rate is inserted because PR pricing varies with sector, seniority and location. The costing guide gives the buyer a place to keep rate assumptions separate from committed amounts; a supplier's dated card is needed before any monetary comparison is credible.

ONS business services statistics can supply sector context when a supplier says rates have risen sharply. The GOV.UK business finance and support finder can help a smaller buyer test budget headroom before signing. Neither replaces the bid-level rate card or establishes whether the proposed work is equivalent.

The boundary checks are completed

Before choosing a route, the buyer checks employment status, rights ownership, supplier security and any contingent payment terms. These issues can change the decision independently of the purchased unit, so the record names the evidence needed and the person responsible for reviewing it before work begins.

If an interim lead follows the buyer's hours, works under its supervision and uses its equipment, the relationship raises an employment-status question that its contract label cannot settle. GOV.UK's employment status test centres on the real working relationship; document the facts and obtain advice before the start date.

Rights need a distinct written term. IPO copyright guidance says a commissioned work's creator is generally its first owner unless an agreement in writing changes the position, while the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 supplies the legal framework. The buyer records whether it needs a licence or transfer and who will check the wording.

Security applies regardless of whether a supplier costs less. NCSC supply-chain guidance advises proportionate supplier controls, access limits and continuing assurance. The buyer specifies deletion evidence and a recheck date, using ICO UK GDPR guidance as the processor standard, and records who will verify both.

A contingent fee is tied to a tightly defined event: record a baseline, attribution rule, exclusions and reconciliation date, with payment dependent on source data that can be audited. CAP Code section 2 keeps controlled marketing recognisable, while editorial decisions remain outside the agency's control.

Coverage, attributed response and commercial change are different measures, not interchangeable proof. The buyer records each outcome separately and does not treat allocated credit as evidence that the activity caused the change. The attribution analysis explains why allocation is not incrementality.

Handover is agreed before approval

Exit terms are written before approval because each route leaves a different handover: files, permissions, work records, access controls or an internal archive. The buyer prices notice, transition and asset transfer alongside delivery, rather than discovering unresolved access or ownership questions when the arrangement ends.

Variation rights and exit language sit alongside the broader commercial contract decisions. Review them before approving a scope likely to change, and agree handover requirements alongside notice and transition arrangements. This prevents the final account, asset access and responsibility for unfinished work from being left to inference.

Rules carried forward from the case

The reusable rule is to select by demand, compare equivalent units, verify evidence before commitment and agree change and exit arrangements in writing. For status, copyright, security and performance-related payment, attach source material to the decision and identify who reviews it before approval.