Why you shouldn’t trust PR firms promising “guaranteed press or your money back”
If you have ever searched for PR support, you will have seen the Google Ads. The pitch is always the same: “Other PR firms charge £20,000 a month. Work with us instead for just £950 and we’ll guarantee you press or your money back.”
Now, I do not know which “other firms” they are comparing themselves to, because I have never come across a PR agency charging £20,000+ a month unless it is for something absolutely major. Your regular PR firm certainly does not. And if they do, then I must be bloody terrible at business, because I do not charge anywhere near that.
These ads are designed to hook people who feel priced out of PR, by making proper PR sound extortionate and their own model sound like the clever, affordable alternative. But the guarantee is smoke and mirrors, and here is why.
The truth about “guaranteed press”
When a firm promises guaranteed coverage, what they are really offering is paid placement. They will buy a sponsored article or slot on a website, usually through third-party networks, and dress it up as earned media. In many cases, these cost them as little as £10–£50 to place. You, meanwhile, may have paid £950 or more.
The contract protects them. Even if your coverage ends up on a blog no one reads, they can point to it and say, “see, we delivered.” Technically they have met their guarantee, so you cannot claim a refund.
Why it is scummy
Clients who sign up for these packages still expect proper media coverage. That is the unspoken promise, even though these firms openly charge far less than legitimate PR support. The bait-and-switch is deliberate.
The reality is you are not getting proper PR. You are getting what amounts to an advert tucked away on a low-traffic site. I would not even count these kinds of links as “press coverage” in a client’s report. In fact, when we achieve genuine coverage in the BBC, The Times or other respected outlets, those same stories are often duplicated by spammy websites and blogs. We never count those duplicates as wins. Yet these £950-a-month agencies will, because their model depends on it.
And here is the key point. If you wanted to buy an advert in The Guardian or Vogue, you would be paying thousands, not £950. Full-page ads in respected titles often cost tens of thousands. That tells you everything you need to know about what you are really buying with these “guaranteed press” packages.
Because here is the difference: adverts are obvious. Paid-for placements are obvious. They are easy to achieve, and in most cases, you could do them yourself. But when a legitimate journalist decides to use their space on you, when they choose to write an editorial piece, an interview, or a feature, that is worth far more than any ad. It means your story was judged to be credible, relevant and valuable to their readers.
That choice is not something money can buy, and it only happens because of the years of work, relationships and credibility that experienced PR people bring. It is the difference between being seen as trusted and respected, or being judged for trying to buy your way into the spotlight.
Where paid-for can make sense, but sits in a grey area
Not all paid-for placements are a waste of money. There are situations where they can have a role, but the important thing is to go direct, not through these “guaranteed press” agencies.
For example, many start-up brands, particularly in cosmetics and fashion, feel pressure when they look at competitors who claim they were “featured in Vogue” or “as seen in Elle.” In reality, the shortcut many of those brands have taken is simply paying for the tiniest ad space in those magazines. By default, they can then say they were “featured.”
It does not always cost thousands either. If you choose a low-profile month or a small product listing, it can sometimes be done for around the same £950 these agencies charge for obscure blog placements. The difference is that at least you know it is actually in a respected magazine.
But here is the catch. Technically, the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) and CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) in the UK can consider it misleading if a brand implies editorial endorsement when it was in fact paid advertising. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the average consumer cannot be misled into thinking something was earned media if it was not.
In practice, plenty of brands do it and rarely face challenges. It is common in beauty, wellness and fashion, where “as seen in” claims are used as shorthand credibility. But it does sit in a legal and ethical grey area, and it is not something I would personally advise. If you want to be completely transparent, “advertised in Vogue” or “appeared in Elle” is safer wording than “featured in.”
The difference here is transparency. An advert is still an advert. Real PR is still real PR. What I caution against is the middle ground where agencies blur the lines and sell clients something that is neither.
When people show me their “press”
I have had potential clients approach me wanting to build their reputation and credibility. Often they will try to prove how established they already are by showing me a list of articles they have “been featured in.”
It quickly becomes clear that these are purchased placements, the kind of links you can buy for a few pounds. I never call people out or embarrass them, but I do have to explain why those articles hold no real value. They are not genuine editorial features, they do not build trust with customers or investors, and in some cases, they can actually make you look less credible if people realise they were bought.
I understand why people fall into the trap. The agencies behind these guarantees make it sound legitimate, and they play on people’s ambitions. But the truth is, if you want real credibility, it has to come from proper PR, not from paying for space on random blogs.
Why real PR costs more
Proper PR is more expensive because it is harder. Real coverage cannot be bought in bulk. It comes from years of experience, networking, and credibility built with journalists. Every time we pitch a client’s story, we are effectively putting our own name on the line. If we waste a journalist’s time with something inaccurate or irrelevant, it damages that relationship.
Good PR means:
Crafting stories that stand up to journalistic scrutiny.
Building personal trust so journalists take our calls and open our emails.
Pitching only when something is genuinely worth covering, so our word carries weight.
This is why a good PR professional cannot guarantee you headlines. If they did, it would mean they were either lying or planning to buy low-quality placements.
And PR is not something you can become brilliant at overnight. It takes years of learning, networking, and building credibility. I have worked in PR agencies, I have worked as a journalist, and I have worked across SEO and digital marketing. That mix of experience is vital because PR in 2025 expands far beyond newspapers. Credibility is built across search, social, broadcast and print, and to do it properly you need to understand how all of those areas fit together.
It has taken years of hard work to build relationships where a journalist will take my call or open my email. That trust does not appear overnight. You do not become good at PR by paying for adverts on random blogs. That might tick a box on paper, but it does not build authority or trust.
And the other reality is that proper PR always needs a backup plan. Clients often come to me with their dream outlets, such as Vogue or The Guardian. Of course I will try to make that happen. But if the story is not right, if the timing is off, or if the journalist simply is not interested, then it will not happen. That is the end of the road with that pitch. The difference is that real PR professionals know how to have alternatives ready, so the client still gets results even if the first door does not open.
The social media comparison
The same problem exists in social media, and as an agency owner I can say it is our biggest headache. We constantly have potential clients come to us demanding very specific growth targets such as “we need this many followers by this month” or “we need engagement up by 300%.” We then have to sit there and explain that it is literally impossible to predict social media growth with certainty.
Any agency telling you they can guarantee those numbers is lying. First of all, we have not seen your growth history or analytics, and even if we had, it still does not mean anything. You could make a post go viral one day and all the projections are suddenly meaningless. Or you may have purchased followers in the past, which means your algorithm is dead and you are sitting on a fake audience that will never engage properly again.
It is impossible to know in advance, and it is crazy that agencies still promise it. We lose clients regularly because we are honest enough to say, “no, we cannot guarantee that.” But we would rather lose them upfront than take them on and disappoint them month after month, or worse, inflate their numbers with bots and destroy their long-term reach.
What has always surprised me is that we sometimes see the same potential clients come back to us six months later. They will ask if we can fix the fake followings they purchased from another agency, after boasting to us earlier that they had found someone who “guaranteed results.” By that point their accounts are usually so damaged that the only realistic option is to start again from scratch.
It is the same scam in a different package. Promise the impossible to win the client, deliver something fake, and leave the damage behind.
The risks of “guaranteed press”
Apart from wasting money, there are serious consequences:
Reputation damage: Journalists and investors can tell when coverage is paid-for, and it makes you look less legitimate.
SEO issues: Many of these cheap placements are flagged as low quality, offering little to no search benefit.
Short shelf life: Paid articles often disappear after weeks or months, unlike real editorial coverage that is archived and searchable.
False credibility: If stakeholders find out your “press” was bought, it weakens trust instead of building it.
How to spot the red flags
Be cautious if a PR firm:
Guarantees coverage without seeing your story.
Uses contracts with vague wording around “placements.”
Offers a flat “press package” for £950 or $1,200.
Avoids transparency about which outlets you will appear in until after you pay.
Frames themselves as “cheaper than traditional PR” and slams other agencies as “overpriced.”
PR is not about buying space, it is about earning it. Real coverage comes from storytelling, trust and timing. It cannot be guaranteed in advance, but when it lands, it carries weight.
“Guaranteed press” sounds tempting, but it is usually cheap placements dressed up as results, hidden behind contracts designed to protect the agency, not you.
And for full transparency, if a client has absolutely nothing happening in their life or business, I am not going to get them a feature in The Telegraph. Imagine me phoning a journalist and saying, “please can you include this client?” They will naturally ask, “what is happening with them right now?” If the answer is “nothing,” then the conversation ends there.
That is why real PR is teamwork. I work closely with clients to help shape stories, position them in interesting ways, and build opportunities. But there has to be something from both sides. PR is not about conjuring up headlines out of thin air. It is about working together to build not only press coverage, but also an overall reputation that keeps growing, stays interesting and remains credible.
If you are serious about building credibility, look for honesty. A good PR professional will never promise you headlines, but they will work with you to create something far more valuable: coverage that is respected, trusted, and lasting.