What not to send to journalists: The PR pitch mistakes to avoid

As any journalist will agree, press releases and PR emails are flooding into the ol’ email, morning till night (and sometimes overnight, which always amazes me).

Now, as a freelancer, the number I receive has reduced a little since I was an in-house editor, but I still daren’t ignore my inbox for more than 30 minutes.

Although I’ve always tried to reply or at least acknowledge as many emails as possible, naturally, I am more inclined to reply to some more than others. It could be the email headline, it could be the pretty colours and pictures, it could make me laugh/cry/scream, it could be the fact I am friendly with the PR or y’no, it might actually be useful for an article.

I often get asked by PRs or agencies to offer feedback on releases or PR stories. I always will (even if it’s ruthlessly harsh. Sorry, but you asked) so, I figured for ease, I’d write up a list of a few things that journalists definitely don’t want to see in their inbox…*

*to clarify, this is my opinion. I cannot of course speak for all journalists. Just some.

1. An AI-written release - It's happening. I see it all the time. I cringe. I cry. AI is a whole other topic for another day, but when I get a press release which is so blatantly written by AI, I honestly can’t read on. I write for a living, so when I see AI taking over in this way, it hurts. I also find it a little lazy to use AI as a means of writing an entire release. Oh, and I am also not a fan of the Oxford comma, one of AI’s biggest giveaways.

2. No study links - Studies are great. They back up what I’m writing in an article. Especially as most of my writing is health-related. I spend half my day on Pubmed or Science Direct and I do actually enjoy it. So a press release that contains various health claims, needs to have the studies to back it, otherwise I am scrabbling around trying to find it online. Often, I can’t find the research to back it so the release pretty much just gets ignored..

3. Chasing really soon after initial email - I have dabbled in PR and I very much understand the need to get replies from journalists, but I’ve previously received press release follow-ups when I haven’t even read the original release yet. Sometimes the follow up is within 60 minutes of the original email. 60 minutes!? I fear some journalists will be even more inclined to avoid replying when they’re being chased so intently.

4. Anything with a WeTransfer to download- My laptop is full and I can’t keep downloading things and clogging up my iCloud. Ideally, the email would just sum up what the story is without me having to download a stack of materials. A journalist will 99.9% reply if they think the story is relevant.

   
   

5. A response source reply which is totally irrelevant - If the article is about ‘the best leggings to wear to the gym’, a release about skincare just isn't relevant.

   
   

6. A back link as a non-negotiable -I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but backlinks are becoming less and less common. So if a backlink is a 100% necessary requirement, then your release or expert comment might end up being ignored.

7. Unavailable experts - Experts are a big YES. However, I have previously sent over questions which I'd like answered for a piece (following encouragement from the PR) only to eventually be told (a day before my deadline) that the expert is unavailable. I mean, that's just not helping anyone. There is something worse than this though: expert comment that's been written by AI.

Check out: The things that make a journalist open up a PR email...

My working companion.