The Evolution of Communication Consulting: A Long-Term Comparison of Service Quality in Strategic Communication

ABSTRACT

Communication leaders and their teams are seldom able to handle the broad range of challenges within their area of responsibility by themselves. They rely on agencies as an external workbench and as specialists for new or seldom used practices. More importantly, they seek advice from communication consultants to understand challenges, and to identify opportunities for action. The increasing demand for such services has pushed prices and intensified the debate about their quality. Surprisingly, research on communication consulting and its quality is sparse. The first empirical studies were conducted just 10 years ago. In light of dynamic industry developments, the question arises regarding how the understanding and perceptions of communication consulting quality has evolved. To this end, a comparative study surveyed a total of 422 communication agencies in 2013 and 2023 on the relevance, factors, assurance, and showcasing of consulting quality. The results reveal that the importance of consulting quality is still high, but underlying conditions and implementation of quality have changed considerably. As the first in-depth and long-term exploration of this phenomenon, this research helps to shed light on a highly relevant but underexplored facet of strategic communication. It informs practice and offers numerous starting points for future research.

Introduction

“Will you survive the services revolution?” was the headline of a 2004 Harvard Business Review article. At the time, there was concern that the tertiary sector, that is, the service industry, could be in danger of a collapse comparable to what happened with the industrial sector after the end of the World War II (Karmarkar, 2004). However, things turned out differently: The service economy was here to stay. According to the International Labor Organization (ILOSTAT, 2021), more than half of the world’s workforce is employed in service jobs – for example, as accountants, consultants, doctors, lawyers, hairdressers, service staff in hotels or restaurants, or as salespeople. According to official data from Eurostat (2021), service workers already account for more than 70% of the workforce and a large share of the gross domestic product within the European Union – and the trend is for continued growth.

The service sector for professional communication also continues to grow. According to the latest survey by the industry magazine PRovoke, the service industry for communications grew by 9.1% in 2022. For the first time, a communication agency broke the fee income barrier of one billion U.S. dollars. Overall, the magazine estimates that the industry’s total revenue now exceeds at least 20 billion U.S. dollars. Communication services are “now a significant sector of the global economy,” summarizes editor Paul Holmes (Sudhaman, 2023). Indeed, due to limited human resources in organizations’ communication departments, it is often only possible to manage and execute strategic communication activities to reach their goals with external support (Falkheimer & Heide, 2022; Luoma-Aho & Badham, 2023; Nothhaft et al., 2020). Accordingly, the demand for communication services continues to increase and the supply of services has become highly sophisticated. Where press offices once operated, there is now a variety of agencies for branding, creative services, campaigning, tech and digital communication, and even strategic consulting (Luttrell & Capizzo, 2018). Thus, service providers are stepping into the gap wherever expertise is lacking and are expanding the scope of action of their clients.

Despite the success story of the service sector as a whole and in strategic communication in particular, the problem of explaining and showcasing quality to clients remains to be solved. Research on service quality indicates that this is particularly challenging where services are completely immaterial and intangible, as well as in dynamic environments without prior experience (Edvardsson, 1998; Harvey, 1998; Yarimoglu, 2014). Considering communication services, communication consultants have a particular obligation to produce and demonstrate quality. Communication consultants are commissioned experts who give advice and counsel to clients about any aspect of professional communication for organizations (Frandsen et al., 2013). The solutions and proposals for action that emerge from this service process are intangible, and the subject of the advice is usually complex. Research on communication consulting and its quality began late: The first empirical study was conducted just 10 years ago (Zerfaß & Thobe, 2013). In management consulting, the situation is quite different: “Most management consultants claim to embody the concept of quality in their objectives, placing considerable emphasis on the quality of people, on impressive experience, and on offering clients a highly responsive professional service” (Kubr, 2002, p. 723). Management consultants have begun to address the quality management of their own firms. To this end, numerous quality management systems have been developed, studied, and revised since the growth wave of the consultancy industry in the 1970s. GAP models, SERVQUAL, Total Quality Management, or ISO standards are but a few of numerous examples (Chowdhary & Prakash, 2007; Schmuck, 2020; Yarimoglu, 2014; Zeithaml et al., 1988).

In this way, an evolution of the approach to quality can be traced along its dynamic development for management consulting. Due to the low research activity on the quality of communication consulting, this is not possible. The small number of studies as well as a short history of quality management systems only provide a fragmented impression (Fuhrberg, 2010; Hoffjann et al., 2021; Zerfaß & Thobe, 2013). Thus, the evolution of quality in communication consulting remains unknown. Taken together with the importance of quality and the dynamics in the industry and its environment, the question arises on how the understanding and perceptions of the quality of communication consulting has evolved over the past decade. The purpose of this study is to close this gap and to create added value for research and practice through the first long-term comparison in the field of communication consulting. To this end, first an overview of the specifics of services is given, and, on the basis of this, insight into the service sector for communication is provided. Subsequently, communication consulting is evaluated as a specific type of service. To examine its quality, an overview of different dimensions of service quality research is elaborated. The subsequent empirical study aims to track the development of quality in communication consulting during the last decade. It is based on a replication of the only major empirical study on this topic from 2013 in 2023, exactly 10 years later, and a comparison of the data sets.¹ Both studies used an online survey and a sample of communication agencies listed in public directories in Germany, one of the largest economies in the world. Two hundred twenty-nine communication agencies participated in the first study in 2013, represented by their managing director or deputy. One hundred ninety-three agencies participated in the second study in 2023. While some of the surveyed dimensions have shown no significant developments (or have shown modest declines), there have been strong changes in other dimensions. These developments allow for a better overall classification of the discussion regarding the quality of communication consulting.

This research contributes to strategic communication research in three significant ways. First, studies on the quality of communication consulting are still rare, but they offer important orientation for research and practice (Momparler et al., 2015). This study provides current data from a large number of communication agencies, and these data help to address research gaps and to derive recommendations for action. Second, the research design allows for comparison over time. Third, this investigation is the first and only long-term comparison study in this field to date. In general, such long-term studies are considered extremely valuable but are rare, even in strategic communication, due to their considerable expense (Falkheimer & Heide, 2022). In this respect, this study offers added value in terms of its content and methodology and opens up new avenues for strategic communication research and practice.

Literature review

To analyze the evolution of the quality of communication consulting, this study applies a multi-step approach to specify the subject of matter. First, the specifics of services are discussed and the communication service industry is described. Second, communication consulting is defined as a specific type of communication service. Third, quality of communication consulting is theorized against the background of service quality theory. Last but not least, developments in communication consulting and the debate about its quality are discussed.

The specifics of services and the communication service industry

“Scientific interest in services (…) has increased greatly during the 1980s” (Lehtinen & Lehtinen, 1991, p. 287). The literature on services is extensive and numerous definitions exist. In those definitions, services are distinguished from goods and products. Yarimoglu (2014) writes that “the nature of services is intangible whereas goods are tangible” (p. 80). Edvardsson (1998) adds that services are “difficult for the supplier to explain and for the customer to assess” (p. 142). The process of services also differs significantly from the manufacturing of goods. Harvey (1998) elaborates that goods are provided by the manufacturer and used mostly by clients to achieve a desired outcome. In contrast, services are generally provided in an interactive process with the service provider.

The type of services can vary greatly. Numerous dimensions have been examined and discussed to produce a classification system (Chowdhary & Prakash, 2007; Haywood-Farmer, 1988). Criteria such as degree of contact and interaction, degree of labor intensity, and degree of customization allow one to categorize different types of services in a three-dimensional cube (Figure 1). For example, services in which all three dimensions are high are considered to be particularly demanding professional services. These include, in particular, advisory services in areas such as health, legal, or management.

Figure 1. Three-dimensional cube for classification of different types of services.

Illustration adapted from Haywood-Farmer (1988, p. 25).

The communication service industry

The service industry for communications can be described based on the aforementioned characteristics. Indeed, strategic communication can be described as a service. Strategic communication “encompasses all communication that is substantial for the survival and sustained success of an entity” and is usually defined as “the purposeful use of communication by an organization or other entity to engage in conversations of strategic significance to its goals” (Zerfass et al., 2018, p. 493).

Today, more and more tasks are integrated within the strategic communication paradigm (Falkheimer & Heide, 2022; Heath & Johansen, 2018; Nothhaft et al., 2020). Strategizing means purposefully striving toward goals that are substantial for the survival or sustained success of an entity (Gulbrandsen & Just, 2020; Zerfass et al., 2018). This strategizing process may apply to all tasks in today’s communication landscape; it involves analysis, planning, implementation, and performance monitoring of communication processes and structures. Thus, the criteria for services rather than the criteria for manufacturing of products and goods are applicable.

Strategic communication is provided in two different settings, as Wright (2013) notes:

One of these models functions directly within the organizations themselves with (…) specialists working as full-time employees of organizations while the other operates through business entities formed by a group of communication practitioners and popularly known as public relations ‘agencies’ or ‘firms’. (p. 136)

Communication agencies are “structured as for-profit entities that must create enough value for clients to generate the revenues needed to cover the agency or consultancy’s expenses and produce a healthy level of profits” (Ragas & Culp, 2021, p. 160). They form the communication service industry because, unlike communication departments, they offer their services as marketable professional services and the will to serve clients is deeply rooted in their business models (Bashir & Fedorova, 2014; Jugo et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2023; Luttrell & Capizzo, 2018). Ragas and Culp (2021) explain that “while there are exceptions, many agencies and consultancies are largely fee-income based, charging clients for the amount of time and number of agency employees working on the account, as well as the scope of the business that the agency handles” (p. 166).

The number of employees is a key criterion to differentiate between different types of agencies. Luttrell and Capizzo (2018) admit that “agencies come in all shapes and sizes” (p. 7). According to Bashir and Fedorova (2014), a typical “agency has (…) fewer than 10 employees” (p. 764), while the world’s largest communication agency has around 6,000 employees (Sudhaman, 2023). Most authors distinguish between small-size, mid-size and large-size agencies while the exact number of employees for each category differs widely. Mostly, it is argued that an agency has at least three to five employees (e.g., Luttrell & Capizzo, 2018; Zerfaß & Thobe, 2013). These small-sized agencies are sometimes called boutique agencies (e.g., Ragas & Culp, 2021; Wright, 2013) that have “a relatively targeted and stable client base” (Luttrell & Capizzo, 2018, p. 7). Zerfaß and Thobe (2013) argue that the term agency is usually not used for organizations with less than four employees, as such entities often lack stable organizational structures. Apart from their size, agencies can also be divided into two broad categories based on the portfolio offered to clients: full-service agencies and specialty agencies. “As the name implies, a full-service agency generally offers a wide range of services, whereas a specialty agency may concentrate on serving a particular industry or sector and/or discipline within communications” (Ragas & Culp, 2021, p. 161). Both types of agencies compete and cooperate with freelancers, i.e., a self-employed person “who works on their own” (Tench et al., 2002, p. 312–313). Freelancers are not part of an organization’s staff and operate independently to offer professional communication services.

The breadth of topics and activities of communication services is certainly remarkable: They range from brand marketing, consumer services, crises, digital, and finance topics to government relations, public affairs and analytics, measurement, and evaluation (Ragas & Culp, 2021; Wright, 2013). Such extensive lists illustrate clearly that the professional services of agencies support clients in virtually all aspects of professional communication (Bashir & Fedorova, 2014; Jugo et al., 2020). Following the classification of services, it can be argued that most of the tasks that agencies and freelancers perform tend to be characterized by higher degrees of customization, labor intensity, contact and interaction. The human capital of agency professionals is of great importance, and close interaction with the client is required. Communication consulting can be classified at the top end of octant 8 (Figure 1). It is considered the supreme discipline of communication services. Consulting services are recognized to be of higher value than implementing communication activities or generating creative communication outputs, as those services can be performed relatively easily in-house or by other service providers (Fuhrberg, 2010). This results in higher hourly rates and profit margins (Ragas & Culp, 2021).

The specifics of communication consulting as a service

Communication consulting can be defined as a professional service process in which challenges related to the communication function or department of an organization are identified, analyzed, and/or recommendations for action or problem-solving approaches are developed in the interaction between commissioned experts (consultants) and those seeking advice (clients). External consulting is based on contractual arrangements; internal consulting may be a part of the job description of various members of an organization. Thus, communication consulting shares common characteristics and tasks with management consulting (Baaij, 2014; Kubr, 2002). For this reason, communication consulting is also seen and treated as a specific type of management consulting for communication challenges (Hoffjann, 2018; Röttger & Preusse, 2013; Schöller, 2018). Communication consulting is based on challenges related to the communication function or department and characterized by two key characteristics:

1. Consulting is generally characterized by the fact that advice and implementation of advice are separated from each other. Decision-making power and execution of activities are, by definition, up to the client. Nevertheless, communication consulting is characterized by a close proximity between advising and implementing (Hoffjann et al., 2021; Röttger & Preusse, 2013). This is less common in management consulting. Röttger and Preusse (2013) explain that management consulting “focuses on working through business management problems and is generally not used for the purpose of implementing the suggested solutions to the problems” (p. 114). As conceptualization and execution move closer together in communication practice today, this often raises doubts concerning economic interests of communication consultants who want to “sell” subsequent services (Hoffjann et al., 2021). As a consequence, communication consultancies often suffer from misunderstandings regarding expectations and are obliged to explain their range of services (Verčič et al., 2018).

2. Second, in communication consulting, the minimum structure of a service must be considered: While traditional service processes are an interaction between buyer and supplier (dyadic structure), a triadic structure is considered the minimum configuration in communication consulting (Röttger & Zielmann, 2009; Schöller, 2018). Client and service beneficiary are usually not identical. While the organization is consulted as a client, the resulting communicative services are provided to its stakeholder groups. These can be the organization’s own employees, its customers, politicians, or media representatives, among others, with whom a communicative exchange exists or is intended.

Service quality and communication consulting

For communication consulting – as for any other service – quality is an important success factor. Research shows how “strategic benefits of quality [are] contributing to market share and return on investment” (Parasuraman et al., 1985, p. 41).

In contrast to the production of goods, service quality cannot be measured by fixed criteria; rather, it is measured by criteria that relate to expectations and perceptions (Harvey, 1998; Haywood-Farmer, 1988; Zeithaml et al., 1988). The reason is the specifics of services: intangibility, heterogeneity, interaction, and being a people business. Yarimoglu (2014) underlines that “service quality measures how much the service delivered meets the customers’ expectations (…) [and] is a result of the comparison of perceptions about service delivery process and actual outcome of service” (p. 80). Research has placed particular emphasis on the service process.

Research on communication consulting has followed this route. Based on quality management theory (e.g., Bruhn, 2020; Veres & Varga-Toldi, 2021), quality of communication consulting can be theorized in terms of structure, processes, and results. First, organizational factors such as know-how and technological infrastructure determine a consultant’s and client’s potential to deliver quality. Second, procedures during a consulting project such as briefings and follow-ups are crucial to the quality of the process. Third, short-term and long-term results are an important indicator for evaluation in terms of quality. These quality factors refer to a factual dimension of quality. The factual dimension includes formal aspects such as the competencies and working methods of consultants and clients. Because individual consultants and clients interact with each other in consulting projects, the interpersonal dimension, referring to the relationship between both actors, is equally important to quality of communication consulting (Fuhrberg, 2010; Hoffjann et al., 2021; Schöller, 2018).

Overall, a multidimensional understanding of quality has been established in communication consulting research (Fuhrberg, 2010; Hoffjann et al., 2021; Schöller, 2018).

Developments in communication consulting and the debate about its quality

The competition between agencies is high, as new competitors are continuously entering the market and entry barriers are low (Zerfaß & Thobe, 2013). For this reason, many agencies do not manage to survive successfully on the market in the long term (Luttrell & Capizzo, 2018). Instead, consolidation has been taking place for years. Independent agencies merge to form global agency networks in order to benefit from economies of scale and synergies (Lee et al., 2023). In addition, large holding companies have created conglomerates consisting of numerous agencies (Bashir & Fedorova, 2014). A second trend is that more and more agencies are specializing in consulting services. Given the complexity of the issues and tasks of strategic communication, this is an attractive field of practice (Ragas & Culp, 2021), as higher hourly rates can be charged. Specialist knowledge is needed due to the rising complexity of businesses, technologies, and societies. Van Ruler (2009) summarized that a particularly large number of freelancers offer communication services. This is also possible for consulting, as former managers or agency employees can share their knowledge as individual consultants and thus be profitable. In the consulting market, however, specialized communication agencies are not only competing with freelancers. Ragas and Culp (2021) report that “over the past decade, some of the world’s largest management consulting and information technology services firms have become major new players in the agency world” (p. 164).

These developments have also shaped the debate about quality, which has changed considerably over the years. Since the 1990s, agencies and professional associations have driven the discussion forward to increase quality awareness in the industry (Fuhrberg, 2010). In 1992, the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) set up a working group on quality, quality management and quality control, and first agencies were certified according to the ISO standard. In some countries, associations then began to make certification compulsory for member agencies. Towards the end of the 1990s, ISO certification became less popular. In Germany, the majority of member agencies were unwilling to certify themselves and left their national association (Fuhrberg, 2010). Since then, the public debate on the quality of communication consulting has focused on two alternative areas: the Consultancy Management Standard and agency rankings. The Consultancy Management Standard (CMS) is a further development of the ISO standard and was initially developed by the British agency association Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) and later adopted by the International Communications Consultancy Organization (ICCO). Quality is defined as a continuous process with the aim of optimally satisfying the needs of all stakeholders. Agencies with a membership in ICCO are obliged to undergo auditing and (re-)certification every two years. Agency rankings also received greater attention. Trade media in particular have introduced ranking systems that are more or less concerned with quality. Fuhrberg (2010) differentiates between three types of rankings: rankings based on structural data such as fee turnover or number of employees, rankings based on client ratings and rankings based on stakeholder ratings. Prizes and awards represent a special form of rankings. They are awarded by a jury and are intended to recognize outstanding achievements. It is usually unclear what methodology and measures are applied, as it is usually a mixture of content analyses, surveys and observations on the basis of which the jury makes a decision.

The quality debate is carried on by agencies and associations. However, the discussions are now more differentiated and less polarized. Efforts are being made by national and international agency associations to continuously improve the systems and their acceptance. At the same time, it should be noted that many agencies are not part of an association and are not actively involved in these debates.

Research gap and research question

Empirical studies on the quality of communication consulting are rather scarce. A large-scale quantitative study by Zerfaß and Thobe (2013) provides important findings on the above-mentioned elements of service quality in German communication consultancies. A small body of research has examined both the consultant’s and the client’s perspective. Here, the researchers have mostly operationalized quality in terms of success factors (Fuhrberg, 2010; Schöller, 2018). Hoffjann et al. (2021) examined expectations of quality from the perspective of consultants and clients. However, their partly qualitative and partly quantitative research design does not allow drawing conclusions for the broader quality discussion as only one quality criterion – autonomy – was surveyed.

Apart from those points of critique, these studies only provide a cross-sectional impression at one specific time, using their specific methodology. Thus, these studies have made an important contribution by highlighting different perspectives and providing empirical insights into a little studied field. Nevertheless, the evolution of communication consulting quality remains unknown compared with the observed dynamics in the development of communication consulting and practice-driven quality debate by professional associations. How the understanding and perception of quality of communication consulting has evolved remains largely unknown. This makes it difficult to classify, interpret, and predict the future. This study aims to address this gap with the following research question:

RQ:

How has the understanding and perception of quality of communication consulting developed over the last 10 years?

When comparing over time, the focus is on examining perceptions on the key elements of service quality, namely the attributed relevance of quality, the importance of various quality factors, and how quality is assured and showcased externally.

Method

A long-term comparison is needed to answer the research question. To this end, a replication of a quantitative online survey from 2013 was conducted exactly 10 years later. A total of 422 communication agencies were surveyed, most of which were represented by top management.

Instrument

The original study by Zerfaß and Thobe (2013) and its replication included 16 questions on various aspects of quality of communication consulting. The questions as well as the items for each question were deductively derived from the reviewed literature and operationalized to capture the understanding and perception of quality of communication consulting. It also included questions about the agency and client structure as well as sociodemographic data of the agency representative. Zerfaß and Thobe (2013) formulated several hypotheses such as An agencies’ understanding of quality differs depending on the type of service they are focused on or Specialization is seen as a more important prerequisite for quality than other quality criteria. These hypotheses were checked for relevance and timeliness in recent literature. Based on this check, items were added for diverse teams (Ragas & Culp, 2021; Schöller, 2018) and use of management methods and tools (Ennsfellner et al., 2014; Volk & Zerfass, 2021) as quality criteria.

The first part of the survey queried the field of practice as well as the type of consulting at the agencies surveyed. In the first question about the field of practice, respondents could choose whether their agencies’ focus was on communication consulting or implementation, or whether both were offered equally. In the second question, the consulting types of providing solutions for clients (expert consulting) and empowering clients (process consulting) were operationalized with the help of a five-level continuum.

The second part focused on the relevance and assessment of the quality of communication consulting. For this purpose, a total of five statements about quality of communication consulting, such as “The quality of communication consulting always has the highest priority” or “The quality of communication consulting depends primarily on the assessment of the client,” were derived from the literature. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement using a 5-point Likert scale.

The third part detailed quality factors in each dimension and process phase. First, respondents were asked to select up to three from seven items that, in their opinion, have the greatest influence on quality. The choices included internal structures and processes of the agency, personal traits of the consultant, skills, knowledge, and experience of the client as well as interpersonal relationship between client and consultant. Then, two questions with a total of 21 items were used to assess the importance of various quality factors for the quality of structures and potential; each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. A distinction was made between characteristics of the consulting firm, such as an established corporate culture, or long-standing market presence, and characteristics of the consultant, such as the existence of a professional network or extensive professional experience. In 2023, the items “Use of documented consulting methods” and “Diverse team structure” were added. Subsequently, two questions with a total of 23 items on quality factors were used to evaluate the quality of process. Items such as accessibility, reliability, and conflict resolution were mirrored for consultants and clients. Respondents were asked to select up to four of the most important characteristics for ensuring quality in the throughput phase. The final question of this part was about factors that affect the quality of results. A total of ten items, such as good cost-benefit ratio and consideration of client wishes, had to be rated according to their importance on a 5-point Likert scale. The focus of both studies was on factual quality factors, although some quality factors of the interpersonal dimension were integrated.

The fourth part captured the importance of quality for clients and implementation of communication activities as well as how quality is assessed. First, respondents were asked to provide their level of agreement with two statements (based on a 5-point Likert scale). Then, they were asked to provide a single response for the best time to assess quality, based on four statements ranging from “During the consulting process” to “After completion of the entire project”.

The fifth part asked how quality is maintained in the surveyed agencies. To this end, respondents were first asked to indicate on a five-level continuum whether quality can be systematically recorded and objectively evaluated or whether it is difficult to grasp and evaluate. Then, respondents were asked to indicate which factors concerning structures and potential are implemented in their agency. For this purpose, the items for input phase from part three of the survey were mirrored and offered as multiple choice. Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agree with various statements about quality management systems, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. This was operationalized using three positive and three negative statements.

The sixth and final part of the questionnaire asked about the most important factors for external representation of quality. Respondents were provided eight criteria – such as awards, specialization, partnerships, and references – and they could choose up to three.

The survey was pre-tested with 17 communication professionals in 2013 and 25 communication professionals in 2023. Their comments were considered when finalizing the instrument.

Sample

The empirical study surveyed communication agencies in Germany, one of the world’s largest economies, about their understanding of quality of communication consulting and how they assess it. A prerequisite for inclusion in the survey population was a minimum of four full-time employees to distinguish agencies from freelancers and micro structures of consultants (Frandsen et al., 2013; Ragas & Culp, 2021).

The field stage of the first online survey lasted from January to February 2013. All publicly identifiable communication agencies in Germany were invited. For this purpose, agency names were collected from Pfeffer PR Ranking, the database of the German industry magazine PR-Journal, the agency directory of openPR, and the PR Report Compendium. The number of service providers that could be identified from these four lists was 2,273 communication agencies. The name of the leading person as well as their contact details were obtained from the mentioned rankings and directories, the agency’s own website, or through online search engines. The invitation to the survey was sent in a personalized email. Of 2,273 service providers invited, 498 accessed the questionnaire and 297 completed it. In the subsequent data cleaning process, questionnaires that were incomplete or from agencies who did not offer consulting services were filtered out. In the end, 229 questionnaires were available for evaluation.

The 229 agencies were primarily represented by the chief executive officer (CEO) or owner (92.5%), followed by senior management (5.7%) and consultants (1.7%), of whom 60.3% were male. The majority had long professional experience in communications of over 10 years (82.5%) or between 5 and 10 years (15.7%). Only a minority had been active in the communication industry for less than five years (1.7%). They represented agencies of various sizes (Figure 2). Most agencies had a focus on implementation services and offered less consulting (87,8%), few specialized in consulting (4.4%), or offered both consulting and implementation equally (7.9%). For consulting, the dominant type of consulting was expert consulting where specific solutions are proposed (77.7%). Process consulting, in which clients are enabled to solve problems, was rare (6.1%). Finally, 16.2% of the agencies surveyed used a mixed form.

Figure 2. Number of employees per agency within the sample.

The percentages displayed are based on the respective year of investigation. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: How many employees are working in your company? Scale: 1 (4–10 employees), 2 (11–20 employees), 3 (21–40 employees), and 4 (more than 40 employees). 64 freelancers or microoperations of 2–3 persons participated in the 2023 study. For the purpose of this study they were excluded from analysis.

The replicated survey was online between February and March 2023; it followed the same procedure. Agency names were collected from Pfeffer PR Ranking, and the agency directory of openPR. The PR Report Compendium is no longer published. The number of publicly identifiable agencies was 1,357. This means that fewer firms could be identified than 2013, a phenomenon that might reflect the consolidation of the service industry due to competitive pressure (Lee et al., 2023; Wright, 2019). Of the agencies who were again personally invited, 405 accessed the questionnaire and 257 completed it. After data cleaning, 193 questionnaires were available for analysis.

In 2023, the 193 agencies were again mainly represented by a CEO or owner (83.4%), with the proportion of senior management (7.8%) and consultants (8.8%) increasing slightly in the sample. Once again, the majority of respondents were male (59.6%). The majority had long professional experience in communications of over 10 years (87.5%). Only 5.2% and 7.3% of respondents had been active in the communications industry for between 5 and 10 years or less than 5 years, respectively. They also represented agencies of different sizes, with the share of large agencies with more than 40 employees growing the most (Figure 2). Most agencies now offer both consulting and implementation in equal parts (74.1%). However, the share of agencies whose focus is on consulting has strongly grown (17.1%), while the number of those offering solely implementation has strongly decreased (8.8%). The dominant type of consulting has remained expert consulting (67.3%). However, process consulting (11.9%) and mixed forms (20.7%) have increased.

Analyses

Based on the literature review, several undirected hypotheses were formulated. SPSS Statistics 29 was used for data analysis. Depending on the variable, the hypotheses were tested for statistical significance using Pearson chi-square test, t-test for paired and independent samples, Pearson rank correlation, as well as linear and logistic regression.

Results

At first glance, the perceived quality of communication consulting has changed little. Considering the relevance of quality as a whole or of individual factors in different phases and dimensions, there are often only tendencies. However, due to strong changes in the implemented quality factors for the assurance and representation of quality, these trends appear in a new light.

Relevance of quality for consultants and clients

The perceived relevance of quality is a basic prerequisite for the high-quality implementation of communication consulting. In 2013, it was already evident that the quality of communication consulting is highly relevant for agencies (M = 4.48, SD = 0.80, N = 229) as well as for clients (M = 4.40, SD = 0.64, N = 229). In 2023, relevance continues to be very high for agencies (M = 4.33, SD = 0.74, N = 193) and clients (M = 4.40, SD = 0.58, N = 193). While relevance for clients remains at the same level, relevance for agencies has decreased slightly, t(420) = 2.043, p = .042.

A more detailed examination of the results reveals potential reasons. It is true that the quality of communication has been a top priority for consultancies and agencies, both in 2013 (93.5%) and in 2023 (92.8%). However, in 2023 the agreement that quality is the decisive factor for success and economic existence of the consultancy or agency (78.8%) has decreased significantly compared with 2013 (83.8%) (Figure 3). Figure 3 also shows that the assessment regarding the importance for clients is at a consistently high to very high level. The proportion of agency representatives who agree that the quality of communication consulting has a high influence on the quality of their clients’ strategies and activities is the same in 2013 and 2023 (94.3% in both cases). Similarly, 83.9% (2013: 85.2%) consider quality of consulting to be crucial to the success of their clients’ activities and strategies.

Figure 3. The quality of communication consulting and its relevance for agencies and clients.

Frequencies based on scale points 4–5. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: From the perspective of your consulting firm or agency, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? Scale 1 (Do not agree at all) – 5 (Fully agree). * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the independent t-test on means.

Importance of quality factors

Because the relevance of quality in communication consulting has proved to be consistently high, the following question arises: How is quality determined? Multidimensional understanding was used to examine which factors are of particular importance within the consulting process.

First, respondents were asked which general factors have the greatest influence on the quality of communication consulting (Table 1). By far the most important, then as now, are skills, knowledge, and experience of consultants: More than 90% of respondents selected this factor in 2013 and 2023. Far behind in second place at 62.7% is the interpersonal relationship between client and consultant, which is 7.7% more than in 2013. This is followed by skills, knowledge, and experience of clients; internal structures and processes of client organizations; internal structures and processes of agencies; and personal characteristics of consultants, with agreement ranging from 35.2% to 31.1%. Trailing behind from the agencies’ point of view are the personal characteristics of clients, currently at 7.8%. The largest increase – and only significant difference between 2013 and 2023—is in the internal structures and processes of client organizations, with an increase from 22.7% to 32.6% agreement, χ²(1, 422) = 5.214, p = .022.

Table 1. Factors influencing the quality of communication consulting.

General quality factors	2013	2023
Skills, knowledge, and experience of consultant	95.2% (1)	92.2% (1)
Interpersonal relationship between client and consultant	55.0% (2)	62.7% (2)
Skills, knowledge, and experience of client	37.6% (4)	35.2% (3)
Internal structures and processes of client*	22.7% (6)	32.6% (4)
Internal structures and processes of consultant	38.0% (3)	31.1% (5)
Personal characteristics of consultant	29.3% (5)	31.1% (5)
Personal characteristics of client	6.6% (7)	7.8% (7)

The rank appears in parentheses next to frequencies based on multiple choice. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: In your experience, which factors have the greatest influence on quality of communication consulting? Please select up to three factors. * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the Pearson chi square test.

In addition to the descriptive finding that relationship quality tends to increase in importance, there are other notable trends. When dividing these items into those relating to the agency side and those relating to the client side, the role of the client in ensuring quality has grown slightly, from 29.4% in 2013 to 32.9% in 2023. Taking a similar approach for the type of factors, for both the client and the consultant, skills, knowledge, and experience are the most important for quality, with over half of the mentions in 2013 (57.9%) and 2023 (55.4%). The importance of two other factors have increased slightly from 2013 to 2023: internal structures and processes (from 26.5% to 27.7%) and personal character traits (from 15.6% to 16.9%). However, these are descriptive trends without statistically distinct validation.

These general factors were examined in greater depth for each phase of the consulting process. Representing the input phase, the quality of structures and potential was surveyed. A distinction was made between agency and consultant characteristics.

Among agency characteristics during the input phase, an established corporate culture has undergone the greatest increase from 2013 (M = 3.62, SD = 0.95, N = 229) to 2023 (M = 3.83, SD = 0.90, N = 193), t(420) = −2.412, p = .016. However, the importance of digital infrastructure (2013: M = 4.05, SD = 0.87, N = 229; 2023: M = 3.54, SD = 0.96, N = 193; t(392.21) = −5.674, p < .001) and the use of quality management systems (2013: M = 3.42, SD = 1.17, N = 229; 2023: M = 2.98, SD = 1.02, N = 193; t(419.39) = −4.174, p < .001) has decreased the most. The newly polled quality factors diverse teams (M = 3.76, SD = 0.98, N = 193) and use of management tools (M = 3.23, SD = 1.00, N = 193) are in the middle (Figure 4). On average, the importance of the consulting firm or agency has remained steady between 2013 (M = 3.28, SD = 0.47, N = 229) and 2023 (M = 3.20, SD = 0.47, N = 193).

Figure 4. Most important agency prerequisites for the quality of communication consulting.

Means based on scale points 1–5. Question: To what extent are the following characteristics of a consulting firm or agency important prerequisites for achieving quality in communication consulting? Scale 1 (Not important) – 5 (Very important). * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the independent t-test on means.

Among the consultant characteristics that are prerequisites for the quality of communication consulting, analytical thinking and knowledge of specific communication fields have continued to be the most important (Figure 5). Behind this factor, however, there have been some changes. For example, the importance of industry and client knowledge, the most significant factor in 2013 (M = 4.63, SD = 0.57, N = 229), has decreased significantly (M = 4.46, SD = 0.71, N = 193), t(366.56) = 2.692, p = .007. The greatest decrease between 2013 (M = 4.55, SD = 0.64, N = 229) and 2023 (M = 4.21, SD = .68, N = 193) has been for creativity as a personal characteristic, t(420) = 5.366, p < .001. In contrast, the importance of a consultant’s professional network has increased significantly between 2013 (M = 3.43, SD = 1.06, N = 229) and 2023 (M = 3.68, SD = 0.98, N = 193), t(420) = −2.510, p = .006. On average, the importance of the advisor has remained unchanged at a high level from 2013 (M = 3.80, SD = 0.40, N = 229) to 2023 (M = 3.81, SD = 0.43, N = 193).

Figure 5. Most important consultant prerequisites for the quality of communication consulting.

Means based on scale points 1–5. Question: To what extent are the following characteristics of a consultant an important prerequisite for achieving quality in communication consulting? Scale 1 (Not important) – 5 (Very important). * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the independent t-test on means.

To evaluate the throughput phase, the process quality was surveyed and a distinction was made between characteristics of the consulting firm and the client side. On the consultant or agency side, reliability has remained the most essential factor. While in 2013 more than half of respondents (56.3%) selected reliability as one of their top 4 factors, it has increased to 67.9% in 2023. This difference is significant, χ²(1, 422) = 5.901, p = .015. Furthermore, flexibility (from 21.8% to 34.2%, χ²(1, 422) = 8.031, p = .005) and availability (from 9.6% to 17.6%, χ²(1, 422) = 5.838, p = .016) have experienced the greatest increase in importance. A permanent contact person (from 31.0% to 22.3%, χ²(1, 422) = 4.0431, p = .044) as well as sympathy (from 12.7% to 6.7%, χ²(1, 422) = 4.107, p = .043) are considered as less central today. The complete overview of the main characteristics of the agency side during the throughput phase can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Agency characteristics to ensure quality during the consulting process.

Characteristics on the consultant or agency side	2013	2023
Reliability*	56.3% (1)	67.9% (1)
Commitment	48.9% (4)	48.2% (2)
Trustworthiness	50.2% (3)	47.7% (3)
Realistic objectives	53.2% (2)	45.6% (4)
Flexibility**	21.8% (8)	34.2% (5)
Adherence to deadlines and budget	37.6% (5)	30.6% (6)
Empathy	37.6% (5)	30.1% (7)
Ability to deal with conflict	18.3% (9)	23.8% (8)
Permanent contact person*	31.0% (7)	22.3% (9)
Transparency	16.2% (10)	21.8% (10)
Availability*	9.6% (12)	17.6% (11)
Sympathy	12.7% (11)	6.7% (12)

The rank appears in parentheses next to frequencies based on multiple choice. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: Which of the following characteristics on the consultant or agency side are most important during the consulting process in order to ensure quality in communication consulting? Please select up to four characteristics. * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the Pearson chi square test.

On the client side, there have been no changes according to the respondents. There have been neither significant absolute differences nor changes in the relative comparison between 2013 and 2023. Realistic objectives (2013: 60.3%; 2023: 63.2%), good access to information (2013: 70.7%; 2023: 66.3%), openness to seek advice (2013: 55.9%; 2023: 61.7%), and briefing competence (2013: 50.2%; 2023: 48.7%) are most important. Accessibility (2013: 11.4%, 2023: 13.0%) and, in particular, sympathy (2013: 7.9%; 2023: 5.7%) remain secondary in comparison. The complete overview of the most important characteristics of the client side during the throughput phase can be found in Table 3.

Table 3. Client characteristics to ensure quality during the consulting process.

Characteristics on the client side	2013	2023
Realistic objectives	70.7% (1)	66.3% (1)
Good access to information	60.3% (2)	63.2% (2)
Openness for consulting	55.9% (3)	61.7% (3)
Briefing competence	50.2% (4)	48.7% (4)
Understanding of communication consulting	36.7% (5)	35.8% (5)
Feedback skills	33.2% (6)	34.2% (6)
Exact knowledge of own organization	26.6% (7)	24.9% (7)
Permanent contact person	24.0% (8)	23.3% (8)
Trustworthiness	17.0% (9)	16.1% (9)
Availability	11.4% (10)	13.0% (10)
Sympathy	7.9% (11)	5.7% (11)

The rank appears in parentheses next to frequencies based on multiple choice. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: Which of the following characteristics on the clients’ side are most important during the consulting process to ensure quality in communication consulting? Please select up to four characteristics. * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the Pearson chi square test.

Finally, the following question arises: Which characteristics are important for the quality of results during the output phase? Overall, there is a clear trend. The importance of each of the 10 surveyed characteristics has decreased or remained steady over time (Figure 6). On average, the importance of the outcome is still extremely high during the output phase, but it has decreased significantly between 2013 (M = 4.12, SD = 0.40, N = 229) and 2023 (M = 3.98, SD = 0.39, N = 193), t(420) = 3.630, p < .001. For example, the most important characteristic, feasibility of the consulting concept, has decreased significantly from 2013 (M = 4.58, SD = 0.55, N = 229) to 2023 (M = 4.44, SD = 0.61, N = 193), t(420) = 2.569, p = .011. Completeness and accuracy has shown the most significant decrease in important from 2013 (M = 4.24, SD = 0.75, N = 229) to 2023 (M = 3.90, SD = 0.86, N = 193). This difference is highly significant, t(420) = 4.283, p < .001.

Figure 6. Most important result characteristics for the quality of communication consulting.

Means based on scale points 1–5. Question: How important are the following characteristics for a high-quality consulting service? Scale 1 (Not important) – 5 (Very important). * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the independent t-test on means.

Quality assurance and showcasing

Finally, this study examined how quality is ensured and showcased externally. The starting point of securing quality is the following question: How is the quality of communication consulting measured and evaluated? It can be either subjective attribution based on experience or gut feeling or systematic and objective through the mentioned standards. Here, the situation in agencies is of interest. In 2013, 39.4% of the agencies record and evaluate quality objectively, and overall, only 5.7% do so completely. The proportion of agencies that assess quality subjectively is slightly lower at 30.6%. Likewise, only a minority (2.6%) rely completely on gut feeling. This means that 30.1% of the agencies are partly systematic and partly subjective in their assessment of quality. At first glance, little has changed since 2013. In 2023, quality is evaluated objectively by 40.2% of agencies, subjectively by 34.5% of agencies, and with a mixture of the two by 25.3% of agencies. However, the development at the margins is interesting (Figure 7). Now 15.3% of agencies (up from 5.7%) evaluate the quality of communication consulting completely in a systematic and objective way. At the same time, the percentage of agencies that rely on gut feeling has risen from 2.6% to 9.2%, a highly significant difference, χ²(4, 422) = 20.111, p < .001.

Figure 7. How agencies evaluate the quality of communication consulting.

The percentages displayed are based on the respective year of investigation. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: Which description for assessing and evaluating the quality of communication consulting applies to your consulting firm or agency?

Timing also plays an essential role in the quality debate. Consulting quality can theoretically be evaluated at any point: during the consulting process, after the process has been completed, after the proposed solutions have been implemented, or after the client’s project has been completed. In 2013, 59.8% of agencies evaluate after project completion while 20.5% of agencies prefer evaluating after implementation of activities. Only 5.2% of the agencies consider the moment after the consulting process to be optimal, while 14.4% evaluate the quality during the consulting process. Since 2013, opinions about the optimal timing for evaluation have changed significantly, χ²(3, 422) = 16.070, p < .001 (Figure 8). The percentage of agencies that evaluate after project completion has dropped to 43.5%. At the same time, 33.7% of the agencies consider evaluation after implementation of subsequent activities to be optimal. The percentage of agencies that evaluate after the consulting process has doubled to 10.4%, while the proportion of those that evaluate during the consulting process has fallen to 12.4%. These results underline the proximity between advice and implementation.

Figure 8. Timing for agencies’ evaluation of the quality of communication consulting.

The percentages displayed are based on the respective year of investigation. N(2013) = 229, N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: What is the best timing for assessing the quality of communication consulting?

In addition to evaluation of the quality, its assurance through various measures is an important component of quality management. In particular, agencies have the opportunity to improve the quality of structures and potentials. Therefore, respondents were asked which of the known measures have already been implemented. There have been significant changes from 2013 to 2023 (Table 4). The most frequently applied quality factors today are specialization in a specific industry or sub-discipline (79.3%), the establishment of the corporate culture (72.5%), and teams that are diverse in terms of background and experience (69.9%). By contrast, in 2013 it was a fully digitized infrastructure (78.2%), a documented skills development program for employees (75.1%), and specialization (73.4%). The two most common measures in 2013 in particular have declined very sharply in popularity and prevalence. A digital infrastructure, for example, is now implemented in only 45.1% of agencies, a marked drop from 78.2% in 2013, χ²(1, 422) = 49.209, p < .001. There is an even more pronounced decrease for skills development programs, from 44.5% in 2013 to 30.6% in 2023, χ²(1, 422) = 83.858, p < .001. There have also been changes in other measures. For example, quality management systems are used significantly less frequently, with a decline from 34.5% to 23.3%, χ²(1, 422) = 6.311, p = .012. Overall, fewer measures are used to ensure the quality of communication consulting in 2023 (M = 3.75, SD = 1.60, N = 193) compared with 2013 (M = 4.26, SD = 1.69, N = 229), t(420) = 3.140, p = .002.

Table 4. Implemented quality factors in agencies.

Quality factors	2013	2023
Specialization	73.4% (3)	79.3% (1)
Established corporate culture*	63.3% (5)	72.5% (2)
Diverse teams	–	69.9% (3)
Supplier network	69.4% (4)	64.4% (4)
Use of documented management tools	–	56.5% (5)
Standardized project management	54.1% (6)	46.1% (6)
Fully digitized infrastructure**	78.2% (1)	45.1% (7)
Documented skills development program for employees**	75.1% (2)	30.6% (8)
Membership in an agency network	27.1% (8)	23.3% (9)
Use of a quality management system*	34.5% (7)	23.3% (9)
Membership in national/international industry associations	25.8% (9)	21.2% (11)

The rank appears in parentheses next to frequencies based on multiple choice. N(2013) = 229 and N(2023) = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: What structures and processes have been implemented in your consulting firm or agency to ensure quality in communication consulting? (Multiple choice). * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the Pearson chi square test.

Quality management systems were examined in more detail as these have been highly polarizing in the past (Fuhrberg, 2010). Respondents were asked for their level of agreement with three positive and three negative statements about quality management systems. Agreement with five of the six items has decreased over time. The three negative statements that quality management does not ensure completeness and must be supplemented by criteria by the agency, that they cause high costs and effort, and that they limit the agency’s flexibility all received significantly less agreement (Figure 9). Only the positive statement that quality management systems serve as proof of quality has received slightly more agreement than in 2013. Overall, it appears that the benefits of quality management systems have been steady between 2013 (M = 3.25, SD = 0.85, N = 229) and 2023 (M = 3.25, SD = 0.87, N = 193). However, the counterarguments have lost strength and the average agreement with them has decreased significantly from 2013 (M = 3.56, SD = 0.68, N = 229) to 2023 (M = 3.36, SD = 0.73, N = 193), t(414) = 3.012, p = .003. These trends have emerged equally for agencies with and without quality management systems, thus resulting in almost equal agreement scores for positive and negative connotations toward quality management systems today.

Figure 9. Attitudes of agencies toward quality management systems.

Means based on scale points 1–5. Question: To what extent do you agree with the following statements about quality management systems? Scale 1 (Not at all) – 5 (Fully agree). * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the independent t-test on means.

Because the quality of communication consulting can help to differentiate and position an agency in the market, the external showcasing of quality is another key factor. Therefore, the study concludes by examining which are the most important criteria for showcasing the quality of communication consulting externally. The most important criteria for agencies in 2013 (83.0%) and 2023 (73.6%) are references and recognition by clients, although their importance has declined, χ²(1, 422) = 5.509, p = .019. While the expertise of the employees has remained quite constant at 60.1% (previously 60.7%), specialization has caught up with the most important characteristics for external representation, with a rapid increase from 2.2% to 60.1%, χ²(1, 422) = 171.796, p < .001. The big loser among the quality features used for showcasing is quality management systems (Figure 10). It has gone from one of the most important features for external representation (59.8% of respondents selected it in 2013) to one of the least important (4.7% selected it in 2023), χ²(1, 422) = 140.840, p < .001.

Figure 10. Most important criteria to represent the quality of communication consulting.

N() = 229 and N() = 193 communication agencies in Germany. Question: What are the most important criteria for representing the quality of communication consulting externally? Please select up to three criteria. * Significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .05) or ** highly significant difference between 2013 and 2023 (p ≤ .001) based on the Pearson chi square test.

Discussion

How has the understanding and perception of quality of communication consulting developed over the last 10 years? This study has answered this question by replicating a comprehensive 2013 study of communication agencies in 2023. Based on four dimensions – relevance of quality, quality factors in the consulting process, measures to assure quality, and the external showcasing of quality – this study has revealed how the understanding and perception has evolved. Despite the dynamics and developments in communication consulting over the past few years, the quality of communication consulting is still of primary importance to agencies and clients – even if it has declined somewhat overall. This development is not surprising in the context of the increased complexity of professional communication in changing environments. Quality must compete with numerous other demands of an economic, social, and technological origin (Hoffjann et al., 2021; Luttrell & Capizzo, 2018; Nothhaft et al., 2020).

This evolution is also confirmed by looking at the various dimensions of quality. As a “people business,” the skills, knowledge, and experience of the consultant clearly remain in first place, but they have declined in importance, as have the skills, knowledge, and experience of the client. On the other hand, internal structures and processes of the client have gained relevance. These results indicate that the understanding of communication consulting quality is evolving, albeit very slowly, toward a multidimensional understanding. The multidimensionality of consulting quality has been affirmed several times in research (Bruhn, 2020; Schöller, 2018). So far, empirical insights have shown a primarily one-sided picture in that the client dictates and the consultant is responsible for quality (Tomenendal, 2007; Verčič et al., 2018). However, in the long-term comparison that this study provides for the first time, clear indications of an increasingly multidimensional understanding have emerged. First, the role of the client in ensuring quality is becoming more important. Second, relationship quality plays an even more significant role alongside factual factors. This might have to do with the aforementioned competitive pressure in the field. Jugo et al. (2020) emphasize that “a successful long-term relationship means a stable income, prestige and a higher profit margin for PR firms” (p. 37).

Going one level deeper and looking at the individual process phases, there are some apparent changes over time. In the case of process quality, for example, the difference in quality factors has become much greater on the client side than on the consultant side. Agencies describe process management on their end as more complex and therefore it needs to be secured by various quality factors. On the other hand, the client side is not considered in a sufficiently differentiated manner. Other studies have shown the demanding requirements and expectations of clients from the client’s point of view (Hoffjann et al., 2021). With regard to the quality of results, it is also interesting that completeness and accuracy have lost the most in importance. Those findings point towards the increased complexity of communication consulting and its quality. At this moment in development, it seems that agencies are more concerned about themselves than about the overall process of consulting-client interactions. As specialization on consulting is a rather new phenomenon as literature and data show, this might have to do with a lack of experience in dealing with the amount of affordances.

Nevertheless, from a scientific point of view, the data highlights a trend towards professionalization in the assessment of quality. On average, the quality of consulting is evaluated earlier and not only after project completion. This corresponds to the ideal image of quality measurement that Mohe and Seidl (2011) or Hoffjann et al. (2021) propose. At the same time, fewer quality assurance measures are being used today. Instead of implementing various structures and processes across the board, a large proportion now rely on specialization and corporate culture. This might also have to do with a general development that became apparent through the study. While in 2013 most agencies (87.8%) focused on implementation and offered consulting at the side, a focus on consulting was a specialization itself (4.4%). Today, almost one fifth of the agencies offer primarily consulting (17.1%). This might raise a need for further specialization and a unique culture to differentiate in a highly competitive market. However, these soft factors cannot be measured completely objectively as they are dependent on the attribution of others. Hard factors, however, where quality classifications can be systematically derived – such as digital infrastructure, skills development, and, above all, quality management systems – are becoming less important. This sharp decline in importance is surprising due to digitalization and bottlenecks for young talent in the industry (Baird & Bridgen, 2023; Luoma-Aho & Badham, 2023). For example, it might have been much easier to be completely digital in the past, whereas this is becoming more difficult as technology advances, especially for small agencies. The reasons behind this change can only be speculated. In terms of the self-attributed systematic evaluation, however, these would be precisely the tools needed.

One possible reason for a decline in the case of quality management systems in particular could be their past with a high degree of polarization (Fuhrberg, 2010; Schmuck, 2020). The present study has provided empirical evidence for this phenomenon. Today, the preconception of quality management systems is more neutral, yet they are not used frequently. It seems that trust must first slowly be restored before using their potential (Schmuck, 2020). Instead, quality is dependent on client recognition or the expertise of employees, and thus strongly influenced by third parties. This not only corresponds to an outdated understanding of quality in communication consulting, but also puts agencies in a thoroughly problematic situation. When clients and employees leave, quality is jeopardized in the short term and important advantages in the market can be lost (Bruhn, 2020; Momparler et al., 2015). In the light of increasing cost pressure in companies, demographic changes, and the associated war for talent, this could become increasingly difficult in the future. Surveys have shown how difficult it is for agencies to find suitable young talent. In summary, it can be concluded that agencies currently find themselves torn between advancing and stagnating quality of communication consulting. This ambivalence can be understood based on the results of this comparative study.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this long-term comparison study has shown how the perceived quality of communication consulting has evolved. The attributed meaning of quality is slowly moving towards a multidimensional understanding. The consultants’ and clients’ roles in the creation and assessment of quality are becoming increasingly aligned, and in addition to factual quality factors, relationship quality is getting more important. Thus, a strong foundation for the quality of communication consulting is gradually emerging. On the contrary, the assurance and showcasing of quality is becoming more monotonous. Some measures have lost importance, and showcasing also follows the course of a few typical instruments. Here, multidimensionality has hardly been reflected so far.

This article represents the first and only long-term comparison in the field of communication consulting. The methodological design allows comparisons over time and the identification of trends for the relevance of quality, important quality factors for the creation of quality, implemented measures in agencies, and external showcasing. Thus, this study contributes to strategic communication research in a significant way. This study provides current data from a large number of communication agencies to address research gaps and to derive recommendations for action to ensure that the quality of communication consulting can be better classified.

Limitations

Although this research has strengths, it only allows investigating part of the phenomenon; hence, this study has some limitations. First, the perception of quality was queried based on four central dimensions and within these on the basis of typical factors and characteristics obtained from the literature. Because quality, like communication consulting, is a dynamically evolving and complex field, completeness can only be approximated. Second, this study is a replication, the items were adopted for comparison and could only be modified to a limited extent. The study by Zerfaß and Thobe (2013) was selected as a highly sophisticated example. However, it only analyzed the agency side, which also had to be replicated accordingly, so estimates of the relevance for the client also refer to the consultants’ perceptions. However, other studies have shown that perceptions vary between those groups (Verčič et al., 2018). In addition, it also excluded the perception of freelancers, who are an important part of the communication service industry. Third, a meaningful portion of the total agency population was surveyed in each case, but because there are relatively few communication agencies, the number of cases is sometimes too small for more complex statistical procedures. It should also be noted that the method used was not a longitudinal study with repeated measurement, with a similar but not identical sample, so changes could only be considered as a whole.

Future directions

The study offers added value in terms of its content and methodology and opens up new avenues for strategic communication research and professional development. The comparison over time has shown that the evolution of the quality of communication consulting is far from complete. Here, consultants and clients are asked to better communicate their expectations during the interaction throughout the consulting process. At the same time, research and professional associations are called upon to better explore and disseminate the multidimensional understanding through studies and education. It will be important to observe how the field develops when it comes to ensuring and representing quality externally. Specialization seems to be only a first step in this process. Because this is already increasingly being done, new tools and evidence will be needed in the future to credibly differentiate in the market (Kubr, 2002). This could also affect quality management systems more in the future. The study has shown that polarization is slowly decreasing; building trust could be central, but it will not be enough on its own. Here, research and professional associations are asked to further develop the standards in a way that they can keep pace with the dynamic change in the environment.

To this end, first, additional comparative studies should be considered – in addition to comparisons that include consultants and clients. For example, transnational comparisons such as those by Verčič et al. (2018) might also be helpful. Another example could be the aforementioned comparison between agencies and freelancers. Second, special attention should be paid to relationship quality. As this study has also shown, the relationship is becoming increasingly important. At the same time, quality factors such as sympathy, which are mentioned in this context, are the relatively least important. This suggests that a more nuanced view of the interaction between consultant and client is needed to better understand and ultimately improve the quality of communication consulting.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ The authors express their gratitude to the authors of the earlier study, Zerfaß and Thobe (2013), for granting access to the questionnaire and data.