By Jordan Baker, founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A founder can spend years building financial technology and still struggle to explain it in the thirty seconds a journalist has to decide whether to read a pitch.
The product may involve complex integrations, risk models, automation or data architecture. Its sales presentation might be technically impressive.
But the reporter still needs to know whose problem it solves, why the problem matters and whether the claims stand up to scrutiny.
This isn't an argument for dumbing down technology. It's an argument for explaining it accurately. A strong story preserves the important facts while translating them into something relevant to the publication's readers.
The goal is not to make a company sound like the future of finance. It's to help people understand what the product actually does today.
As a former UK national journalist, I would begin with the reader's problem and the founder's evidence rather than with the stack of technology.
Here is a practical approach for suitable fintech and business-software founders seeking legitimate earned media, especially those dealing with business payments, administrative processes or other technology-led customer problems.
Why technical founders lose journalists in their first paragraph
Consider an imaginary pitch: “Our cutting-edge AI-powered unified infrastructure leverages proprietary intelligence to revolutionise the future of finance.”
It contains ambitious adjectives but not one answer to an ordinary reader's question.
Who uses this?
What was difficult before?
What happens after they adopt it?
What is new, and how do we know?
Technical founders often describe how a product was built because that is where they have invested their energy.
Developers may value the architecture, enterprise buyers may prioritise reliability and integration, while a general business journalist needs a recognisable consequence for people or companies.
None of those audiences is wrong. They simply require different levels of explanation.
The strongest media pitch is often no more complicated than: “Small businesses spend time correcting inconsistent invoice records. This system helps staff identify discrepancies before submitting those records for review.”
That still needs evidence and the important caveat that no system is error-free, but at least it describes a product rather than an ambition.
Six things a journalist needs to know
A good first conversation should answer six questions.
What problem exists?
Who experiences it?
What does the technology actually do?
What is different from available alternatives?
What evidence demonstrates the difference?
Why is this subject relevant now?
The order matters. A feature list can follow after a journalist understands the problem.
The evidence must be specific: a screen demonstration might prove that a workflow exists, but it would not alone prove a claim about industry-wide savings or fraud elimination.
A founder also needs to explain limitations, especially where technical products support financial or operational decisions.
For a specialist trade reporter, the integration details might be genuinely interesting.
For a small-business audience, the same story may need to explain how staff experience the change.
For a journalist writing about AI hype, the limitations and human review process may be the most newsworthy part.
A simple formula for explaining the product
Try this sequence: user problem → product function → evidence → real-world implication → limitation.
Imagine a fictional software company, ClearLedger (a hypothetical example, not a real Fair PR client). Its platform reads invoice documents and flags fields that may not match a company's accounts. It does not make a financial decision or certify every record as correct. People review what it identifies.
Technical description: “Our machine-learning extraction layer processes unstructured financial documents using confidence-ranked semantic validation against ERP ledger schemas.”
Business journalist version: “ClearLedger checks invoices against accounting records and flags possible mismatches for staff to review. The company says it aims to reduce repetitive checks, although its results depend on data quality and human verification.”
Short introduction: “A software tool helps small-business finance teams spot possible invoice discrepancies before a person reviews the records.”
Nothing important has to be concealed. A journalist can ask for the model architecture after deciding the subject is relevant. Avoid unsupported claims about accuracy, speed and cost savings unless valid research actually supports them.
Feature announcements versus actual stories
A new dashboard, API integration or product redesign is a development for the company's users. It isn't automatically a news story for a broad publication.
There may be editorial potential if the feature responds to a widespread, evidenced industry problem, changes what people can do, or opens a wider conversation a journalist is covering. In that situation, the business must still establish the difference between a company claim and independent proof.
An announcement that “we've added 12 new integrations” might be relevant to an industry trade title if its readers use those systems and have a documented need. A general consumer journalist may need a much stronger, directly relevant consequence.
Some of the most useful coverage may not be about the product at all.
A founder may have genuine practical knowledge about changes in payments technology, small-business administrative burdens or the difficulty of implementing digital tools responsibly.
That expertise might support an independent industry feature, provided the founder's experience fits the topic.
AI claims: describe the reality, not the dream
“AI-powered” has become a shorthand for sophistication without necessarily telling a buyer what a product does.
Journalists may reasonably ask whether the system uses statistical models, fixed rules, a large language model, human-assisted workflows or a mixture. The answer matters because it shapes the limitations.
A founder should be precise about training, testing and operational evidence without divulging confidential intellectual property.
Is a published percentage based on a controlled benchmark, a customer case study or a demonstration dataset?
Did the performance test use the same conditions as ordinary customers?
What happens to records the system cannot process confidently?
Compare the following:
Weak: “Our AI completely eliminates payment fraud.”
Stronger: “Our software flags specified patterns for human review. We haven't established that using it eliminates fraud.”
Weak: “Every business will save 40% of its finance team's time.”
Stronger: “In an internal test with the stated workflow, staff completed the measured process faster. The test conditions and sample should be provided before quoting a percentage.”
Weak: “The system is 100% accurate.”
Stronger: “The tool displays confidence indicators and can make errors; users need to review important outputs.”
Weak: “Bank-grade security guarantees total safety.”
Stronger: “We can describe specific controls and independent assessments, where verified, but no security claim should imply zero risk.”
The stronger sentences are less theatrical but more useful. Where a company cannot substantiate a performance claim, omission is better than invented reassurance.
What counts as credible evidence?
A demonstration can show what a product does. Verified customer research can describe what was measured in a particular setting. Independent technical assessment may strengthen a defined claim.
Properly documented adoption statistics may show the number of organisations using the software; they do not establish that it generates a particular benefit.
Before pitching, make an evidence file for every important claim.
Record the precise wording, source, time period, sample, measurement, assumptions and limitations.
Identify which information can be made available to a journalist. If there is a material difference between test conditions and production use, say so.
A simple checklist might contain five columns: claim; source; population or test condition; limitation; approved wording.
For example, a claim about invoice-checking time should define whether it measures one task, a team, a month or an entire finance process.
A figure for “customers served” should define whether it includes trials, inactive accounts and repeated registrations.
These distinctions protect the founder as well as the reader. If an interviewer asks where a number came from, the right answer should already be in the file.
Can customer results become a media story?
Sometimes, but the customer outcome must be genuine, appropriately authorised and fairly represented.
A customer case study may describe what happened within one business while a wider campaign describes a service. Those are not interchangeable.
Imagine ClearLedger reports that one hypothetical test participant completed a particular task in 45 minutes instead of 60 minutes. That is a result in a defined demonstration, not evidence that all customers save a quarter of their working day. Different workloads, users, record quality and integration conditions could change performance.
If a customer is identifiable, obtain suitable permission to describe the relationship and results.
Consider contractual confidentiality, security implications and whether the company is allowed to share financial records or customer information. The reporter may ask to speak to the customer independently; that is an editorial decision, not an opportunity to script their answers.
Regulation is part of the story, not an afterthought
Fintech is a broad label, not a single regulatory category. A business providing bookkeeping software may have very different obligations from one issuing payment products, advising on investments or operating regulated financial services.
Some claims about returns, credit, security or consumer financial outcomes may be financial promotions or otherwise regulated communications.
In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority describes relevant promotions as needing to be fair, clear and not misleading. The precise framework depends on the actual activity, audience and product.
US requirements likewise depend on the applicable regulator and type of business.
The PR team should not guess whether a product is regulated. Confirm its status with a competent adviser, obtain appropriate approvals for promotional material and avoid language implying compliance where that has not been verified.
An independent newspaper feature and company marketing are different, but material supplied to a journalist still must be accurate.
Fair PR does not accept every financial-sector or cryptocurrency project. This article explains sound communication principles for suitable technology founders; it is not an offer to provide regulated financial advice, promotion approval or publicity for excluded categories.
Product story, founder story or industry commentary?
These three approaches can serve different editorial needs.
A product story requires an actual relevant development, evidence and an appropriate publication audience. The founder needs to explain what is available today, not only what's on the roadmap.
A founder story depends on the person's genuine experience and a compelling question beyond “I started a company”. A complicated career path can be interesting when it illuminates a broader problem, but a personal biography is not automatically news.
An industry commentary angle may arise when a founder has substantive first-hand knowledge of a trend journalists are already investigating. The value comes from an explanation or evidence, not the company's desire to be mentioned.
A campaign can contain more than one approach, but they should not be presented as interchangeable deliverables. Some founders are excellent operational sources and poor candidates for a standalone personal profile. Others have a genuinely distinctive development that deserves a company story.
Build a usable fintech press kit
Journalists may request material quickly. Prepare a short accurate company description, founder biography, relevant technical summary, screenshots, product-access information, proof behind important claims and someone who can answer detailed questions.
Include the current market where the product is available and explain any meaningful limitations. A visual demonstration should reflect ordinary operation rather than a perfect scripted example that cannot be reproduced.
Customer case studies require appropriate permissions. Professional credentials and previous media appearances must be verified.
Avoid a large deck of vague claims when a concise document and a practical demonstration would answer the reporter's questions. A press kit should make independent scrutiny easier, not attempt to overwhelm it.
Choose the journalist before writing the pitch
A technology journalist may want product architecture or industry implications.
A small-business reporter may care about practical workflows.
A specialist trade writer may need evidence of integration with the systems used by their readers.
A consumer finance journalist may be entirely wrong for B2B bookkeeping software.
Read actual recent coverage and establish what each journalist reports on. Fit the factual angle to that remit rather than changing the underlying product claims to please a publication. Sometimes the correct decision is not to pitch that journalist at all.
The journalist may also have covered a negative industry trend or a critical issue. A founder willing to discuss genuine limitations can sometimes make a better source than one who insists on treating every story as an advertisement.
A realistic fintech pitch example
This email is fictional; all names and product claims must be replaced and verified before anyone uses it.
Subject: Small-business invoice checks — software founder available to explain human review and automation
Hello [journalist],
I read your recent article on the administrative burden facing small finance teams. One question that often gets missed is where automation can help with document checks, and where humans still need to make the decision.
[Founder], who built a tool that flags possible invoice mismatches for staff review, can explain how these workflows operate, what can go wrong when the source data is incomplete and why claims that AI removes the need for oversight deserve scrutiny.
The product demonstration and an accurately documented methodology are available, along with details of the founder's relevant background. They can provide a concise written comment or speak by phone if useful.
Kind regards,
[Contact]
The pitch leads with an issue the journalist might be covering, gives a defensible contribution and avoids promising impossible results.
Handling difficult questions without evasion
A journalist may ask:
“What makes you different?”
“How can you demonstrate the time saved?”
“What happens when the system makes an error?”
“What customer data do you process?”
Those are reasonable questions. The founder should prepare direct, evidence-based answers rather than a polished line that doesn't address the question.
A founder can say they do not know, need to check a figure, or cannot reveal information protected by a contract. They should not improvise technical claims to fill the silence. If a key claim has not been tested sufficiently, that is an important limitation to explain.
The same principle applies to commercial interests and partnerships. Journalists may want to know who paid for research, who owns the data and whether cited customers are paying clients. Transparent disclosures generally make an interview more credible.
Do you need a public funding round to be newsworthy?
Not necessarily. Well-supported industry insights, a genuinely relevant product development or specialist operational knowledge can all be sources of journalism.
However, none is automatically a story, and funding announcements themselves are not guarantees of coverage.
A business that is still refining its product might achieve more by strengthening evidence and preparing a credible spokesperson than by distributing a premature press release.
company with a real milestone still needs to show why the audience would care.
When is journalist-led PR useful?
Founders who can explain a specialist issue may be suitable for Expert Commentary PR, a narrower managed service focused on credible expert comments.
Businesses with meaningful products, company developments, founder stories and sustained visibility goals may fit Standard PR, subject to Fair PR's client criteria.
See the Fintech PR Agency page for more on suitability.
The role of PR is to find stories and people genuinely worth pitching, shape accurate material and approach appropriate journalists. It is not to certify a product, provide regulated financial advice or guarantee editorial publication.
Fintech claim-check worksheet
This fictional example shows how a technical founder can turn marketing language into defensible statements. A claim should not be approved solely because it sounds plausible.
| Proposed claim | Evidence to request | Important limitation | Better editorial wording |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Saves 40% of time" | Timed tasks, benchmark methodology, sample | May not reflect full workflow or real customers | "Reduced time in a defined internal test", with conditions disclosed |
| "AI removes all errors" | Independent accuracy evaluation | No assessment can support absolute zero risk without exceptional proof | "Flags potential mismatches for human review" |
| "All customers love it" | Documented survey and response rate | Selected respondents are not every customer | "Among respondents in this survey..." |
| "Completely secure" | Verified controls, tests and audit scope | Security controls do not guarantee no breach | State actual verified controls and limits |
| "Used by 1,000 businesses" | Defined active-account records | Trials, duplicates, dormant accounts | Give an exact definition and dated active count |
Frequently asked questions
Can a fintech startup get press coverage without announcing funding?
Yes, if it has something genuinely relevant to a journalist's audience. That might be a verified product development, meaningful original data, a founder's well-supported view of an industry problem or practical commentary from first-hand experience. The story still needs editorial relevance and evidence. A company cannot manufacture importance merely by calling a new feature revolutionary. A useful first step is to review what relevant journalists actually write and establish whether the business has a concrete contribution to those conversations. Sometimes the best preparation is to strengthen proof and clarify the product before pitching.
How technical should a fintech press release be?
Technical accuracy matters, but the opening should normally explain the problem, what the product does and why readers would care. Specialist terminology can be appropriate for a trade reporter or developer audience when it is explained correctly. Include a detailed technical document or demonstration as supporting material rather than filling the headline and first paragraph with acronyms. Separate demonstrated capabilities from future plans. Specify important limits, dependencies and the evidence behind performance claims. A journalist should be able to explain the product accurately even if they do not work in the company's engineering team.
Can fintech founders discuss AI benefits without published research?
They can describe genuine product functionality and appropriately evidenced outcomes without every statement requiring an academic paper. But an objective claim about speed, accuracy, safety, cost savings or financial results needs evidence appropriate to that claim, and certain claims may be subject to advertising or financial-promotion rules. A demonstration establishes only what it actually shows. An internal benchmark may need its methodology and limitations made clear. Avoid presenting controlled testing as guaranteed everyday performance. For regulated communications, obtain qualified compliance advice rather than relying on marketing wording alone.
Is Expert Commentary PR or Standard PR more appropriate for a fintech founder?
That depends on whether the founder has genuine knowledge that journalists could use independently of their product, or whether the primary goal is publicity for the company's story, service or launch. Focused Expert Commentary PR is designed for qualified specialists offering relevant media explanations. Standard PR is a broader account-managed campaign for suitable companies and founders. Fair PR's UK monthly fees are £397 and £797 respectively; US monthly fees are $497 and $997. Both start with a three-month initial commitment under the agreed terms. Fit matters: Fair PR doesn't take every fintech category, and media outcomes are editorially independent.
Your technology doesn't need more hype
It needs a clear, accurate story and a spokesperson who can explain what is real.
Explore Fair PR's Fintech PR and Standard PR services, or contact us to discuss your business and whether it is an appropriate fit.
About the author
Jordan Baker founded Fair Public Relations after working as a UK national journalist. The agency focuses on journalist-led, earned-media work for suitable founders, specialists and growing businesses across the UK and US.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
