Most Talent Agencies Still Don’t Have an In-House PR Function. Is That Starting to Change?

Working in talent management recruitment, it’s something I’ve been noticing more and more. The creators who seem to attract the strongest brand interest, the better opportunities, the higher fees – they tend to be the ones with a real editorial presence alongside their social following. Whether that’s cause or effect is hard to say, but the pattern is hard to ignore.

And yet most talent agencies still don’t have anyone in-house doing PR. It’s nearly always outsourced, or left to the talent themselves to manage. That’s always been the default, and for a long time it probably made sense. I’m just not sure it still does.

The traditional split was straightforward enough. Talent managers handle careers, PR agencies handle press. Mostly separate lanes, occasional collaboration. But a creator’s value today isn’t just a follower count – it’s about how they’re perceived across social, editorial, and cultural spaces all at once. As those lines get blurrier, the old structure starts to feel a little creaky.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in beauty and fashion, where perception quite literally drives spend. Editorial coverage still carries serious weight in these spaces – a creator landing features in Vogue, Elle or Grazia isn’t just getting visibility, they’re shifting how brands categorise them. They move from influencer to something with more cultural currency, and that has a direct impact on what brands are willing to pay.

“Models are now expected to offer far more than traditional beauty alone. They need to be rooted in community, have a clear point of view, and often bring additional skills, platforms, or passions that help them stand out and connect more authentically with audiences.”

Gareth Roberts, First Model Management

There’s also something structural worth flagging. In beauty and fashion especially, it’s often the PR and comms teams controlling access – press trips, gifting pipelines, event invites, product collaborations. These are relationships that talent managers don’t always have, and an external PR agency retained by the talent isn’t necessarily motivated to build them on the agency’s behalf.

That’s what makes the in-house argument interesting. It’s not about replacing an external agency – it’s about having that capability sitting inside the commercial side of the business, where it’s actually aligned with the talent’s long-term positioning. Securing editorial coverage, shaping narratives beyond social, building direct relationships with brand comms teams – for digital-first creators trying to cross into mainstream media, sometimes one well-placed feature is all it takes to shift how they’re perceived by the people making decisions.

The commercial case isn’t difficult to make either. Stronger public profiles tend to mean higher fees. PR can become a chargeable service in its own right. And for mid-sized rosters, even a modest uplift in deal value across the board could more than cover the cost of a single hire.

Most agencies haven’t gone there yet, and honestly it probably just comes down to habit. PR has never really been seen as their job. But if brands are increasingly prioritising creators who have both reach and credibility – and it does feel like they are – then only being able to offer one of those two things starts to look like a gap.

The agencies beginning to think about this don’t need a full PR department. Even one person, sitting alongside the talent managers and focused on earned media and brand relationships, could make a meaningful difference. It’s a small addition that could quietly become one of the more interesting parts of what an agency offers.

For an industry built on visibility and positioning, it feels like a pretty natural direction. The question is less whether it belongs inside a talent agency, and more why so many are still deciding it doesn’t.