By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
The fundamentals of good journalist pitching are the same in Britain and America.
A good story needs to be:
relevant
accurate
timely
clear
useful to the publication's audience
The biggest mistake in international PR is assuming localisation means changing:
£
to:
$
and replacing:
London
with:
New York.
It does not.
A US journalist needs to understand why an American reader cares.
A UK journalist needs to understand why the story matters in Britain.
The facts can remain the same.
The editorial proposition may need to change substantially.
Start with the audience, not the country
Imagine a British software company is entering the US.
The UK pitch says:
“British software company expands after helping 2,000 UK retailers manage stock shortages.”
The fact may be credible.
But why should a journalist in Texas or California care?
The US version may need to lead with:
availability to American retailers
the specific US problem being solved
US pricing
relevant US data
a partnership
local customers
the founder's expertise in an issue affecting American businesses
The British success becomes useful background.
It is not automatically the headline.
What makes a story genuinely local?
Local relevance can come from:
customers
availability
jobs
business activity
prices
data
regulation
research
physical presence
a market-specific partnership
a spokesperson with relevant market experience
A UK founder does not necessarily need to move to America.
But there normally needs to be a credible American connection if they want American media to care.
The first question is:
Why is this relevant to my audience?
Do UK and US journalists behave differently?
There is no sensible rule that every American journalist behaves one way and every British journalist another.
Newsrooms differ.
Beats differ.
Individuals differ.
But from my own work across both markets, I have noticed some practical tendencies.
US journalists can often work particularly quickly.
I also find many American media conversations more direct and no-nonsense.
Strong, clearly news-led angles can work well.
There can sometimes be a greater appetite for punchier or more dramatic framing, provided the underlying facts support it.
That does not mean inventing sensationalism.
It means getting to the point.
Subject lines matter enormously
A journalist scanning hundreds of emails should understand the story immediately.
Weak:
Expert available to discuss important business trends
Better:
2026 Budget property comments: landlords face tax rates of up to 49% – property investor available today
The exact wording depends on the real story and evidence.
The principle travels well between markets.
Specific beats vague.
Do Americans need American spelling?
For Fair's own website, we use UK English.
When pitching a US publication, local language can improve readability.
That may mean:
organisation → organization
labour → labor
£ → $ where the relevant US figure exists
miles rather than kilometres where appropriate
American date formatting where that helps the recipient
But localisation is not mainly spelling.
Changing “organisation” to “organization” does not make a UK survey relevant to a US journalist.
Which facts need localisation?
Ask:
Is this statistic about the UK only?
Does the regulation apply in America?
Is the product actually available there?
Are prices correct?
Is the professional qualification recognised?
Does the job title mean the same thing?
Is this national data or one company's data?
Do not manipulate a statistic to make it look local.
If a UK number is still genuinely relevant, label it as UK data.
One story, two pitches
Imagine a hypothetical workplace software company.
Its own user data shows that staff log into work systems later on Mondays than other weekdays.
The dataset covers UK and US users.
UK pitch
Subject: Monday productivity slump: UK workers log in 22 minutes later than midweek, company data suggests
The pitch focuses on:
UK workers
UK employment context
UK spokesperson examples
what British managers may infer
US pitch
Subject: Monday login gap: US employees start later than midweek, platform data suggests
The US pitch needs:
US-only data
US sample information
local terminology
US expert relevance
any appropriate market context
The company has not changed the numbers.
It has separated the evidence honestly.
Publication landscapes differ more than national stereotypes suggest
Both countries contain:
national publications
regional titles
local news
trade media
consumer magazines
business press
specialist digital publications
broadcast
newsletters
The right approach is to understand the actual outlet.
A national US business journalist may have more in common professionally with a UK national business journalist than with a local lifestyle writer in their own country.
How do you find the right journalist?
Look at recent work.
Check:
beat
publication
role
topics
geography
article format
whether they still work there
Do not rely solely on a media database job title that may be six months out of date.
And do not send identical mass emails simply because the contacts are labelled “US media”.
What about UK coverage when approaching America?
Use it.
Credible British media coverage can help establish that:
the founder has been interviewed before
the company has attracted independent interest
the expertise is established
the story has broader relevance
I encourage clients to remain open-minded about both UK and US coverage where it is genuinely relevant.
There can be wider credibility, search and AI-discovery benefits from a broad public footprint.
But UK coverage should not be used to pretend the company already has US traction.
Say what it proves.
No more.
Does a UK founder need a US spokesperson?
Not automatically.
They do need US relevance.
That might come from:
US customers
US availability
a US office
a US partnership
local data
a genuine market entry
a founder with credible American-market knowledge
A US spokesperson can be useful where local interpretation is essential.
But forcing an American spokesperson into a story simply because the publication is American can be unnecessary if the British founder is genuinely the most relevant expert.
What about professional qualifications?
Be especially careful.
A professional title familiar in one country may not mean the same thing in another.
Medical.
Legal.
Financial.
Therapeutic.
Professional-registration systems can differ.
Explain the person's actual qualification and jurisdiction.
Do not assume the journalist understands the UK acronym.
Time zones and deadlines
A London founder pitching California has a practical problem.
When Britain is ending the working day, the West Coast may only be beginning.
If you are doing your own PR, plan:
who monitors replies
whether the journalist has a direct number
when the spokesperson is available
what can be approved outside normal UK hours
At Fair, our distributed team structure means we can work across UK and North American hours.
For an individual founder doing everything personally, availability may require more deliberate planning.
Should outreach be timed differently?
Potentially.
But avoid simplistic rules such as:
“Always pitch Americans at 9am.”
A breaking-news journalist does not operate like a features editor.
A newsletter writer does not necessarily work like a national newspaper desk.
Understand the journalist's workflow where possible.
Embargoes and exclusives
The same core principle applies on both sides of the Atlantic.
An embargo needs to be understood and agreed.
Putting:
EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY
on an unsolicited pitch does not automatically bind the recipient.
An exclusive is different again.
If you are genuinely offering one publication advance or unique access, agree the terms clearly.
Do not promise the same “exclusive” to three reporters.
Sensitive and regulated subjects
Health, financial, legal and reputational claims may require market-specific checking.
A UK financial phrase may have a different regulatory context in the US.
A professional licence may apply only in one jurisdiction.
An employment-law comment may make no sense across all 50 states.
PR is not the place to casually copy-and-paste regulated claims between markets.
A worked UK-to-US example
Imagine a British sleep-product company has developed a new mattress.
Verified facts:
it is already sold in the UK
it will begin US shipping on 1st February
it uses a particular material design
it costs US$799 in the US
review units are available
the founder has ten years' product experience.
Weak US pitch
British mattress company announces exciting US expansion following UK success.
Stronger US pitch
Subject: British sleep brand enters US with $799 cooling mattress aimed at hot sleepers
A UK sleep brand will begin shipping its cooling mattress across the US from 1st February, bringing a product already available to British consumers into the American market.
The mattress uses X verified design, is priced at $799 and review units are available.
Founder Jane Smith can discuss how the company adapted the product and fulfilment model for US customers, and why overheating has become a key design problem in the category.
The stronger pitch gives the US journalist:
availability
price
product information
review access
a US-facing reason to care
Are US journalists harder to pitch?
I would not describe one entire country's journalists as harder.
Competition varies enormously.
The bigger question is whether you have something useful.
A weak story pitched perfectly is still a weak story.
A relevant, well-evidenced story with an appropriate source gives you something to work with in either market.
Do businesses need separate PR agencies?
Not necessarily.
One agency can work across both markets if it genuinely understands:
the media
local relevance
terminology
timing
the practical differences in pitching
Some organisations genuinely need local specialist agencies, particularly for regulated, political, crisis or highly specialised work.
Others benefit from one coordinated team.
The answer depends on complexity.
How should you measure UK and US activity?
Separate the markets.
Track:
pitches
journalist response
interviews
published articles
relevance
downstream signals
One major US article does not prove an entire American market-entry strategy succeeded.
Likewise, five small irrelevant articles do not automatically beat one highly relevant trade feature.
Measure against the purpose.
A cross-border pitch needs an evidence checklist
Before approaching a journalist in another country, separate facts into three categories.
First are facts that are true everywhere: the business's legal name, the founder's actual career history and features of a product that do not vary by market.
Second are market-specific facts: pricing, availability, local partnerships, customer numbers and applicable rules.
Third are claims that still need checking: unverified comparisons, broad market estimates and any statements about legal or clinical outcomes.
A simple internal document can record the source for each fact and the market where it applies. This is especially useful when a business has one global press release but multiple versions of its pricing page.
If a journalist asks whether a product is available in their country, the PR team should not have to infer the answer from a conversion of the UK price. A genuinely localised pitch must be underpinned by market-specific evidence.
The same caution applies to survey results. A UK sample does not become representative of American consumers because the headline uses dollars.
If a survey covers both markets, the writer should check whether each subgroup is large and methodologically suitable enough to support separate claims. Where it is not, say what the evidence does and does not show.
How should an international team organise approval?
Cross-border media work becomes much easier when responsibilities are clear.
Decide who owns the main factual source, who can approve comments, who is available for interviews and who can respond when a reporter in a different time zone has a deadline.
A distributed team may help with coverage of working hours, but availability and expertise still need to be confirmed for each story.
Use consistent product names and verified figures, even when the pitch language changes. Keep a record of which version was sent to which journalist and when.
If an important fact changes, such as a delayed launch or altered price, the team needs to know which reporters may have received an earlier version. Correcting a fact promptly is a much better option than allowing a market-specific inconsistency to become part of a published article.
Where a company has separate UK and US commercial teams, agree a practical sign-off procedure before starting. It need not involve layers of bureaucracy. It only needs to stop a spokesperson accidentally contradicting the business's confirmed availability, claims or regulatory position.
A useful test: could the journalist explain the local consequence?
After writing a pitch, remove the brand's claims about its own importance. What remains?
A British company opening access to an actual US service may matter if the service solves a recognisable American customer problem.
A UK founder discussing British employment rules may still be useful to US trade journalists writing about overseas comparisons, but not if the pitch pretends those rules apply to American employers.
Try to finish the sentence: 'For this publication's readers, the relevant change is...' If that sentence is hard to complete, the market-specific pitch needs more work. It might require different data, a different story, or the decision not to pitch that publication at all.
Sometimes the same news is strong in one country and weak in another. That is a normal editorial judgement, not a failure to secure international reach.
What does good cross-market reporting look like?
The most useful reporting separates markets and story types. Record which angles were genuinely localised, which reporters were approached, whether a journalist requested more information, what interviews occurred and what actually appeared.
Do not count a UK article automatically reproduced on another site as evidence of independent US reporting unless that is what happened.
Then assess whether the right audience was reached.
A specialised American trade feature could be more relevant to a company's planned market entry than a broader UK article with higher circulation.
Equally, an independent British national mention may strengthen background credibility without demonstrating American product demand. Accurate reporting lets the business distinguish these benefits and make sensible decisions about the next phase.
Localise the consequences, not just the vocabulary
Consider three common types of story that a business might pitch on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is expert commentary on employment practices. The underlying experience may be relevant internationally, but the legal framework, common job titles and examples can differ substantially.
A UK adviser cannot automatically describe an American employment rule with the same authority, and the reverse is also true. Rather than copying the quote and changing the spelling, decide which claims are genuinely transferable and whether another qualified source is needed.
The second is a consumer product launch.
A product available only for delivery in Britain may have little immediate relevance to a US shopping editor, even if its design is appealing. Before offering a US sample, confirm availability, delivery costs, returns, electrical or product specifications where relevant and who can answer consumer questions.
A journalist should not discover after testing that the item cannot reasonably be purchased by the audience.
The third is a survey or research story.
A headline describing what “consumers think” can be misleading when the survey included only residents of one country or a narrow group of existing customers.
State the population, sample and fieldwork dates, then frame each national pitch around what that evidence can actually support.
If there is no US data, a US angle may still be possible through informed context, but it should not pretend to be an American research finding.
These are hypothetical examples. They show why changing pounds to dollars or replacing British spellings is not enough: the factual consequence for the local reader is what makes the pitch relevant.
What happens after coverage appears in one country?
A published article can help demonstrate credibility, but it does not automatically become a second news story abroad.
If a British founder is quoted in a UK newspaper, the US follow-up should not simply say that the founder was “featured internationally”.
The American journalist still needs an independent reason to use the expertise or development.
The earlier article may demonstrate that the source is media-ready; it does not substitute for current relevance.
Be careful when reusing excerpts, headlines or publication logos. Distinguish a genuine independent feature from a company-authored article and credit the original outlet accurately.
If another publication syndicates the piece, do not count the copy as a second journalist commission. Where an interview generates a correction or a new factual development, tell the appropriate contacts rather than allowing inconsistent versions of the story to circulate.
Report the two markets separately. Record the country and audience of each targeted outlet, journalist responses, actual coverage, syndication and the quality of any resulting commercial enquiries.
A UK article reaching a few interested US readers can be useful, but that is not the same outcome as an independently secured American editorial feature.
The practical test is simple: could someone reading your campaign report understand what happened in each market without mistaking reach, publication origin or syndicated copies for fresh earned coverage? If not, the reporting needs to be clearer.
Frequently asked questions
Can the same press release be used in the UK and the US?
The underlying facts can often remain the same, but the pitch should usually be adapted. Check local relevance, spelling, dates, currencies, availability, professional terminology, regulatory references and supporting evidence. A UK announcement can provide the factual base for a US pitch without being copied word for word. The most important adaptation is explaining why the story matters to the specific publication's audience.
Are US journalists harder to pitch than UK journalists?
Not as a universal rule. From my own experience, US journalists can sometimes work faster, appreciate especially concise news-led pitches and respond well to a clear headline. But individual reporters and publications vary far more than national stereotypes suggest. Relevance, evidence and timing remain the key factors in both markets.
Should a UK founder use a US spokesperson for American media?
Only when that person genuinely strengthens the story. A US spokesperson may be useful where local professional expertise or interpretation is important. A British founder can still be perfectly suitable if the business has a genuine US connection and the founder understands the subject. What matters is whether the journalist can explain why this source is relevant to American readers.
Do you need separate PR agencies for the UK and US?
Not necessarily. A single agency can coordinate both markets when it has genuine experience of each and can adapt stories properly. Businesses with highly regulated, political, crisis or specialised local work may benefit from separate specialist advisers. The decision should be based on capability and complexity rather than the assumption that every country automatically requires a different supplier.
Planning media outreach in the UK or the US?
Fair Public Relations works with suitable businesses, founders and experts seeking earned-media opportunities across both markets.
Explore US PR Agency, UK PR Agency, or contact us.
We do not simply send an identical pitch across two countries and call it international PR.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
