Featured Post from ExpertFile

Beyond the Media Pitch: How to Secure Better Coverage in Today’s Noisy Market

Jun 24, 2022

5 min

Peter Evans

At our webinar earlier this month, we were joined by Wilf Dinnick, a communications and media professional with more than 25 years of global experience as a journalist working in national broadcast, digital and early-stage startups. Wilf has covered major stories for news networks including ABC News, CNN, CBC News and Al Jazeera and is a past winner of the prestigious Edward R. Murrow Award. This vast experience on both sides of the camera has given him a keen understanding of what it takes to secure media coverage in today’s environment.



Here are 3 key takeaways you missed:


#1 The Odds of your Media Pitch Resulting in Coverage are Disappointingly Low - And the Trend is Not Good



Wilf Dinnick discussed the sobering stats from a study of over 400,000 pitches conducted by Propel media that reveal that only ⅓ of emails sent to journalists are opened. But equally disappointing is the fact that only 3% of pitches result in coverage and this trend appears to be continuing. What Dinnick went on to explain is that “journalists see many pitches as an interruption as most fail to clearly demonstrate relevance to the stories they want to publish for their audience.



#2 Journalists are Busier than Ever. So You Need to Connect with Them In Places they are Going for Story Ideas and Expert Sources



Dinnick also shared some important data that reveals how journalists are spending their time. Where they get their story ideas and how they search for experts. This helps explain the diminishing rate of return on traditional media pitches. For instance, Twitter remains dominant as a platform used by journalists to quickly discover trending stories. So making your story ideas more discoverable with appropriate hashtags on social is an important way to promote your experts in the flow of the conversation as a story is breaking or emerging.


Wilf also highlighted the importance of dialling into the daily news cycle by looking in the same areas journalists are going for their ideas. The latest research reveals that journalists find newspapers and magazines most valuable. Why? Sites such as the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, New York Times and Axios are well funded and resourced to develop the longer format, well-researched stories. They often focus on exclusive stories and break important news that is echoed through other outlets. And they set the pace of the news cycle as it echos through regional news outlets where journalists look to localize the story for their audiences. Closely monitoring these sites allows you to be in touch with the key stories and offer clear value to journalists, by offering your experts who can help explain key developments in the context of their research or localize the story for a regional audience.


#3 There are Ways to Beat the Odds and Improve your Media Coverage by Following Proven Best Practices When Pitching


Despite the poor odds when pitching journalists, there is hope for media relations and PR pros. Dinnick unpacked a number of important best practices that can substantially improve your odds. Drawing on research from a number of media organizations that track journalist engagement, he laid out a number of guidelines that you should be following when putting together your media pitches. Some of these included:


Timing Your Pitch


Journalists are more receptive to pitches early in the day between the hours of 5am and 11am. This is when the stories are breaking and work is being assigned - and journalists are looking for expert sources. Also, there is evidence that pitching earlier in the week on a Monday or Tuesday yields better results.



Keeping it Brief


The research Dinnick presented on the profound changes that have been happening in Newsrooms and the overload that journalists are experiencing underscores the importance of being to the point with journalists. That begins with understanding how journalists are spending their day - glued to mobile devices. “This impacts how you need to write subject lines that generate curiosity and fit into mobile devices, given the limited set of characters they can display,” said Dinnick. He also shared stressed research that shows the body copy of a pitch should be under 200 words.


Mind the Links


Loading a journalist up with lots of links to research, videos, and media coverage in the body copy of your pitch may seem like a good idea to help them evaluative a story idea But this is a no-no. It creates unnecessary clutter and detracts from the key messages you want them to focus on. Instead, journalists report they want as few links as possible. Wilf Dinnick recommends 1-2 links max. It’s important to note that this will present a challenge if you don’t have your content organized into comprehensive expert profiles which include important information that journalists want to see such as past media and speaking appearances, research, publications, education/credentials, affiliations etc.


There was a lot to take away from this session which was jam-packed with research and best practices for media relations and PR pros. However, perhaps the most important lesson was how to ”flip” the traditional approach to pitching 180 degrees - starting the pitch process by first developing “owned” content that gets published to your website.


As Wilf Dinnick stated, “you have to think like a journalist” as you approach the story ideas you want to pitch. Start with owned content and publish stories that focus on your experts which clearly show them to be relevant and credible while making their work more engaging and human through visual media helps “set the table for the journalist.” If it’s well structured and engaging, it gives journalists the added context they need to immediately understand how your pitch is relatable to their audience.


What’s most powerful about this approach is that it helps media relations and PR pros avoid the “earned media trap.” Instead of being overly focused on coverage, we can think more strategically about the value we bring to the organization as storytellers to create quality “owned” content that boosts search engine (SEO) authority and PageRank as well as site engagement with visitors to boost reputation, relationships and revenues. It was clear from the many examples shared by healthcare organizations, universities and associations that this approach is where the real gains can be made. And how media relations and PR pros can show more tangible value to their organizations.


Stay tuned for more on this topic of owned content and how it helps improve your media coverage as we explore this in our next post.


To see the entire webinar, make sure to sign up for BrightTalk to watch the full webinar here.







Connect with:
Peter Evans

Peter Evans

Co-Founder & CEO

Recognized speaker on expertise marketing, technology and innovation

Media TrendsThought LeadershipMarketingTechnologyInnovation

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from ExpertFile

2 min

Thanksgiving North and South: Why Canada and the U.S. Celebrate at Different Times

Every fall, both Canadians and Americans gather around the table to give thanks — but they do it more than a month apart. While the two holidays share themes of gratitude, harvest, and togetherness, they evolved under distinct historical, cultural, and seasonal circumstances that reflect each nation’s story. A Canadian Harvest of Thanks Canada’s Thanksgiving traces its roots back to 1578, when English explorer Martin Frobisher held a ceremony in Newfoundland to give thanks for safe passage across the Atlantic. Over time, the holiday blended European harvest traditions with local customs, emphasizing gratitude for the year’s bounty rather than a single historic event. Because Canada’s growing season ends earlier than in most of the United States, Thanksgiving naturally became an autumn harvest celebration held in early October. It was officially recognized in 1957, when Parliament declared the second Monday of October as a national holiday “to give thanks for the harvest and the blessings of the past year.” The American Tradition South of the border, Thanksgiving carries a different historical symbolism. The U.S. holiday traces back to 1621, when Pilgrims and the Wampanoag people shared a harvest feast in Plymouth, Massachusetts. While similar in spirit, the American version became tied more closely to the nation’s founding mythology — a story of cooperation, survival, and gratitude in the New World. Because harvests occur later in the U.S., the celebration naturally took place in late November. In 1863, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday to promote unity, setting it for the final Thursday in November. Congress later standardized the date to the fourth Thursday in 1941. Seasons, Stories, and Shared Spirit At heart, both Thanksgivings mark the same human instinct: to pause, reflect, and give thanks. Canada’s October observance reflects the rhythm of northern harvests and a gratitude rooted in nature’s cycle. The American holiday, coming later in November, intertwines with its own national narrative of endurance and unity. Despite the calendar gap, the spirit is shared — families gathering to celebrate abundance, resilience, and community, in traditions that continue to evolve on both sides of the border. Connect with our experts on the history, traditions, and cultural meanings of Thanksgiving in North America. Check them out here : www.expertfile.com

2 min

The History of Government Shutdowns in America

Few events capture Washington gridlock more visibly than a government shutdown. While rare in the nation’s early history, shutdowns have become a recurring feature of modern politics—bringing uncertainty for federal workers, disruptions to public services, and ripple effects across the economy. How It Started The modern shutdown era began in the 1970s after a new law, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, established a formal budget process. Before then, funding disputes didn’t usually halt operations. But a key shift came in 1980, when the Carter administration’s Justice Department concluded that, without approved appropriations, agencies had no legal authority to spend money. That ruling set the stage for shutdowns as we know them today. Since then, the U.S. has endured more than 20 funding gaps, ranging from brief lapses over a weekend to the record-long 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019. Each one has highlighted the partisan battles over federal spending, immigration, healthcare, or other policy priorities. Why They Happen Shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass, and the president fails to sign, appropriations bills or temporary funding measures known as continuing resolutions. In practice, they reflect deeper political standoffs: one branch of government using the threat of a shutdown to force concessions on controversial issues. They can be triggered by disputes over budget size, specific programs, or broader ideological fights. In many cases, the standoff ends when mounting political and economic costs make compromise unavoidable. What Gets Impacted The effects of a shutdown are immediate and wide-ranging: Federal Workforce: Hundreds of thousands of employees are furloughed without pay, while others deemed “essential” must work without immediate compensation. Public Services: National parks close, permits stall, museums shutter, and routine government operations—from food inspections to scientific research—are delayed. Economic Ripple Effects: Contractors lose revenue, local economies near federal facilities take a hit, and financial markets often react nervously. Extended shutdowns can even slow GDP growth. Citizens’ Daily Lives: From delayed tax refunds to halted small business loans, ordinary Americans feel the squeeze when government services pause. Why This Matters Government shutdowns are more than political theater—they expose the fragility of the budget process and the real consequences of partisan impasse. They highlight the dependence of millions of Americans on public services and raise questions about the cost of dysfunction in the world’s largest economy. Understanding why they happen and what’s impacted helps citizens gauge not just the politics of Washington, but also how governance—or the lack of it—touches everyday life. Connect with our experts about the history, causes, and consequences of government shutdowns in America. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

8 min

University Communications Needs a Bigger Role in the Research Conversation

While attending the Expert Finder Systems International Forum (EFS), several notable themes emerged for me over the 2-day event. It's clear that many universities are working hard to improve their reputation by demonstrating the real-world impact of their research to the public and to funders, but it's proving to be a challenging task - even for the largest R1 universities.  Many of these challenges stem from how institutions have traditionally organized their research functions, management systems, and performance metrics.  Engaging faculty researchers in this process remains a significant challenge, despite the need for rapid transformation. While this EFS conference was very well-organized and the speakers delivered a great deal of useful information, I appeared to be one of the few marketing and communications professionals in a room full of research leaders, administrative staff, librarians, and IT professionals. There's a certain irony to this, as I observe the same phenomenon at HigherEd marketing conferences, which often lack representation from research staff.  My point is this. We can't build better platforms, policies, and processes that amplify the profile of research without breaking down silos.  We need University Communications to be much more involved in this process. As Baruch Fischhoff, a renowned scholar at Carnegie Mellon University, notes: Bridging the gap between scientists and the public “requires an unnatural act: collaboration among experts from different communities” – but when done right, it benefits everyone.  But first, let's dive in a little more into RIM's and Expert Finder Systems for context. What are Research Information Systems (RIMs) Research Information Management systems (aka Expert Finder Systems) are the digital backbone that tracks everything researchers do. Publications, grants, collaborations, patents, speaking engagements. Think of them as massive databases that universities use to catalog their intellectual output and demonstrate their research capacity.  These systems matter. They inform faculty promotion decisions, support strategic planning and grant applications, and increasingly, they're what institutions point to when asked to justify their existence to funders, accreditors, and the public. But here's the problem: most RIM systems were designed by researchers, for researchers, during an era when academic reputation was the primary currency. The game has fundamentally changed, and our systems haven't caught up. Let's explore this further. Academic Research Impact: The New Pressure Cooker Research departments across the country are under intense pressure to demonstrate impact—fast. State legislators want to see economic benefits from university research. Federal agencies are demanding clearer public engagement metrics. Donors want stories, not statistics. And the general public? They're questioning whether their tax dollars are actually improving their lives. Yet some academics are still asking, “Why should I simplify my research? Doesn’t the public already trust that this is important?” In a word, no – at least, not like they used to. Communicators must navigate a landscape where public trust in science and academia is not a given.  The data shows that there's a lot of work to be done. Trust in science has declined and it's also polarized:. According to a Nov. 2024 Pew Research study, 88% of Democrats vs. 66% of Republicans have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists; overall views have not returned to pre-pandemic highs and many Americans are wary of scientists’ role in policymaking. While Public trust in higher education has declined, Americans see universities having a central role in innovation. While overall confidence in higher education has been falling over the past decade, a recent report by Gallup Research shows innovation scores highest as an area where higher education helps generate positive outcomes. Communication is seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists. Overall, 45% of U.S. adults describe research scientists as good communicators, according to a November 2024 Pew Research Study. Another critique many Americans hold is the sense that research scientists feel superior to others; 47% say this phrase describes them well. The traditional media ecosystem has faltered:. While many of these issues are largely due to research being caught in a tide of political polarization fueled by a significant rise in misinformation and disinformation on social media, traditional media have faced serious challenges.  Newsrooms have shrunk, and specialized science journalists are a rare breed outside major outlets. Local newspapers – once a reliable venue for highlighting state university breakthroughs or healthcare innovations – have been severely impacted. The U.S. has lost over 3,300 newspapers since 2005, with closures continuing and more than 7,000 newspaper jobs vanished between 2022 and 2023 according to a Northwestern University Medill Report on Local News. Competition for coverage is fierce, and your story really needs to shine to grab a journalist's attention – or you need to find alternative ways to reach audiences directly.  The Big Message These Trends are Sending We can’t just assume goodwill – universities have to earn trust through clear, relatable communication. Less money means more competition and more scrutiny on outcomes. That's why communications teams play a pivotal role here: by conveying the impact of research to the public and decision-makers, they help build the case for why cuts to science are harmful. Remember, despite partisan divides, a strong majority – 78% of Americans – still agree government investment in scientific research is worthwhile. We need to keep it that way. But there's still a lot of work to do. The Audience Mismatch Problem The public doesn't care about your Altmetrics score. The policymakers I meet don't get excited about journal impact factors. Donors want to fund solutions to problems they understand, not citations in journals they'll never read. Yet our expert systems are still designed around these traditional academic metrics because that's what the people building them understand. It's not their fault—but it's created a blind spot. "Impact isn't just journal articles anymore," one EFS conference panelist explained. "It's podcasts, blogs, media mentions, datasets, even the community partnerships we build." But walk into most research offices, and those broader impacts are either invisible in the system or buried under layers of academic jargon that external audiences can't penetrate. Expert systems have traditionally been primarily focused on academic audiences. They're brilliant at tracking h-Index scores, citation counts, and journal impact factors. But try to use them to show a state legislator how your agriculture research is helping local farmers, or explain to a donor how your engineering faculty is solving real-world problems? There's still work to do here. As one frustrated speaker put it: "These systems have become compliance-driven, inward-looking tools. They help administrators, but they don't help the public understand why research matters. The Science Translation Crisis Perhaps the most sobering observation came from another EFS Conference speaker who said it very plainly. "If we can't explain our work in plain language, we lose taxpayers. We lose the community. They don't see themselves in what we do." However, this feels more like a communication problem masquerading as a technology issue. We've built systems that speak fluent academic, but the audiences we need to reach speak human. When research descriptions are buried in jargon, when impact metrics are incomprehensible to lay audiences, when success stories require a PhD to understand—we're actively pushing away the very people we need to engage. The AI Disruption Very Few Saw Coming Yes, AI, like everywhere else, is fast making its mark on how research gets discovered. One impassioned speaker representing a university system described this new reality: "We are entering an age where no one needs to click on content. AI systems will summarize and cite without ever sending the traffic back." Think about what this means for a lot of faculty research. If it's not structured for both AI discovery and human interaction, your world-class faculty might as well be invisible. Increasingly, you will see that search traffic isn't coming back to your beautifully designed university pages—instead, it's being "synthesized" and served up in AI-generated summaries. I've provided a more detailed overview of how AI-generated summaries work in a previous post here. Keep in mind, this isn't a technical problem that IT can solve alone. It's a fundamental communications challenge about how we structure, present, and distribute information about our expertise. Faculty Fatigue is Real Meanwhile, many faculty are experiencing serious challenges managing busy schedules and mounting responsibilities.  As another EFS panelist commented on the challenges of engaging faculty in reporting and communicating their research, saying, "Many faculty see this work as duplicative. It's another burden on top of what they already have. Without clear incentives, adoption will always lag." Faculty researchers are busy people. They will engage with these internal systems when they see direct benefits. Media inquiries, speaking opportunities, consulting gigs, policy advisory roles—the kind of external visibility that advances careers and amplifies research impact. And they require more support than many institutions can provide. Yet, many universities have just one or two people trying to manage thousands of profiles, with no clear strategy for demonstrating how tasks such as profile updates and helping approve media releases and stories translate into tangible opportunities. In short, we're asking faculty to feed a system that feels like it doesn't feed them back. Breaking Down the Silos Which brings me to my main takeaway: we need more marketing and communications professionals in these conversations. The expert systems community is focused on addressing many of the technical challenges—data integration, workflow optimization, and new metadata standards — as AI transforms how we conduct research. But they're wrestling with fundamental communication challenges about audience, messaging, and impact storytelling. That's the uncomfortable truth. The systems are evolving whether we participate or not. The public pressure for accountability isn't going away. Comms professionals can either help shape these systems to serve critical communications goals or watch our expertise get lost in translation. ⸻ Key Takeaways Get Closer to Your Research: This involves having a deeper understanding of the management systems you use across the campus. How is your content appearing to external audiences? —not just research administrators, but the journalists, policymakers, donors, and community members we're trying to reach. Don't Forget The Importance of Stories: Push for plain-language research descriptions without unnecessarily "dumbing down" the research. Show how the work your faculty is doing can create real-world benefits at a local community level. Also, demonstrate how it has the potential to address global issues, further enhancing your authority.  And always be on the lookout for story angles that connect the research to relevant news, adding value for journalists. Structure Expert Content for AI Discoverability: Audit your content to see how it's showing up on key platforms such as Google Gemini, ChatGPT. Show faculty how keeping their information fresh and relevant translates to career opportunities they actually care about. Show Up at These Research Events: Perhaps most importantly, communications pros need to be part of these conversations. Next year's International Forum on Expert Finder Systems needs more communications professionals, marketing strategists, and storytelling experts in the room. The research leaders, administrators and IT professionals you will meet have a lot of challenges on their plate and want to do the right thing.  They will appreciate your input. These systems are being rapidly redesigned - Whether you're part of the conversation or not. The question is: do we want to influence how they serve our institutions' communications goals, or do we want to inherit systems that work brilliantly for academic audiences but get a failing grade for helping us serve the public?

View all posts
Powered by