What Is Reactive PR and How Can Businesses Respond to Journalist Requests?
By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Reactive PR is one of the simplest parts of public relations to understand and one of the easiest to do badly.
A journalist needs something. Perhaps they are looking for a workplace expert to comment on a breaking employment story, an interior designer to explain a new home trend, a doctor to help them understand a health issue or a small-business owner to discuss something happening in their industry. They put the request out, contact people they already know or approach relevant sources directly, and the businesses and experts who can genuinely help respond.
That is reactive PR.
Rather than starting with a story you want a journalist to cover, you are reacting to something the journalist is already working on.
The opportunity can therefore look incredibly attractive. The journalist already has an article. They already know what they need. There may already be a publication attached to it. All you apparently have to do is answer a few questions.
But that does not mean every reply turns into coverage.
When I was a journalist, the responses I found useful were generally fast, direct, concise and genuinely relevant to the question I had asked. The expert needed a clear reason to be commenting, but I did not want half the response devoted to telling me how fantastic their business was. I was interested in their expertise.
That is the exchange at the heart of reactive PR.
You provide something useful for the journalist's article. The potential exposure comes from the journalist identifying and citing you as the source.
Your expertise is the contribution. Your citation is the publicity.
Once businesses understand that, their responses normally become much stronger.
What is reactive PR?
Reactive PR means responding to an opportunity that originates outside your planned PR calendar.
Sometimes that starts with a journalist directly asking for an expert.
Sometimes a PR team sees a relevant journalist request and recognises that one of its clients is a good fit.
Sometimes breaking news creates an opportunity because journalists suddenly need specialists who can explain what has happened.
At other times, an existing journalist relationship means the reporter simply comes directly to somebody they already know.
Imagine a journalist writing an article about employers struggling to recruit experienced staff. They need somebody who works in recruitment to explain what they are seeing.
A recruitment consultant could spend next week developing their own proactive story about hiring trends.
Or they could respond today to the article that is already being written.
That second opportunity is reactive PR.
There may be only a few hours to act, which is why the mechanics are quite different from developing a press release or a longer-term media campaign.
How is reactive PR different from proactive PR?
The simplest distinction is where the original idea comes from.
With proactive PR, we identify something we believe journalists may find interesting and take it to them.
That could be original research, a founder story, a company announcement, a product, a strong opinion, a seasonal idea or an expert-led feature concept. We are essentially saying: Here is an idea we think could be useful to your audience.
Reactive PR works in the opposite direction.
The journalist is effectively saying: Here is the article I am working on. Can anybody useful help me with it?
Both approaches can be valuable, and I would not want an ongoing PR campaign to depend entirely on either one.
If you only do proactive PR, you can miss very good opportunities that journalists are actively trying to fill.
If you only do reactive PR, your media visibility becomes dependent on journalists happening to ask questions that perfectly match the things you want to talk about.
The strongest campaigns usually have a mixture of both.
We can deliberately work towards the subjects a client wants to become known for while also taking relevant opportunities that arise naturally in the media.
Why do journalists ask experts for comments?
Because journalists cannot personally be experts in every subject they cover.
A reporter may understand the story extremely well while still needing somebody with professional experience to explain a particular part of it.
They may need context.
They may want somebody to challenge an assumption.
They might need practical advice for readers.
Perhaps they need a quotation that explains something technical in normal language.
They may want evidence of what is happening outside the particular example they already have.
Or they may simply need an appropriately qualified person to help make the article more credible.
This happens across almost every section of the media.
A homes journalist may need an interior designer.
A health reporter may need a doctor.
A workplace writer may need somebody in recruitment or HR.
A business journalist may need an accountant, lawyer, consultant or founder with relevant experience.
A shopping journalist may need a product or somebody who understands the category.
The important thing is that the journalist has a specific gap in their article and they want somebody who can help fill it.
Your job is not to turn that gap into an advert.
It is to fill it.
Where do journalist requests come from?
There are several sources.
Some journalists use dedicated request services. ResponseSource and Qwoted are examples of platforms through which reporters can look for expert sources and other useful material. These can be options for a business managing its own DIY PR, but they are not services Fair PR uses in its campaigns. ResponseSource and Qwoted explain how their services work.
Requests can also appear on social media and professional networks, although individual journalists' preferred channels change over time.
Then there are direct relationships. A reporter who knows a particular expert may email or message them personally.
A PR agency may also identify an opportunity directly through its own monitoring or journalist relationships, without using a public request platform. That is how we work at Fair PR.
That distinction matters because reactive PR should not be confused with buying access to a feed of journalist requests.
Fair PR does not use Qwoted, HARO, ResponseSource, Editorielle or similar journalist-request platforms for our campaigns. We identify live opportunities through our own monitoring and direct journalist relationships, and we create opportunities through proactive outreach. A reporter might contact us directly, or we may spot an emerging story and offer a relevant expert. These are not leads bought from, or responses submitted through, public journalist-request platforms.
Access to opportunities is only the beginning.
The real value sits in deciding which ones are worth pursuing and then responding properly.
Which journalist requests should you answer?
Not all of them.
This is where reactive PR can become incredibly time-consuming if somebody approaches it as a numbers game.
If I have a client who works in leadership consulting, I could probably find dozens of requests that are vaguely connected to business.
That does not mean I want them responding to all of them.
At Fair PR, we look at the client first.
What are their actual credentials?
Which topics do they understand particularly well?
What do they want to become known for?
What do they not want to talk about?
What are their views on important issues in their industry?
Which publications have they appeared in already?
Which publications would they particularly like to reach?
What are the goals of the wider campaign?
Then we look at the request.
Does it genuinely fit?
Is the publication useful?
Can the client respond within the necessary timeframe?
Does their expertise make them a credible source?
Could this coverage contribute something to what we are trying to achieve for them?
That thought process is far more important than simply asking how many requests appeared today.
Why more responses are not necessarily better
There can be a temptation to turn reactive PR into a volume metric.
"We replied to 40 journalist requests this month" sounds impressive.
But what were they?
Were they relevant?
Did the client actually have the necessary expertise?
Were the publications useful?
Were the answers good?
Did the journalist receive something that made their article better?
I would rather pursue one good opportunity a day for a relevant client than throw a huge volume of mediocre responses at journalists.
In practice, that does not necessarily mean exactly five requests every working week. Some days there will be several excellent opportunities. On another day there may be none worth touching.
The principle is quality over artificial volume.
A client should not be commenting on something simply because a PR team needs another activity to add to a report.
How fast should you respond to journalist requests?
As quickly as you reasonably can.
This is one area where I think people misunderstand the significance of the journalist's stated deadline.
If the request says replies are accepted until 5pm, that does not necessarily mean 4.55pm is an equally good time to respond as 10am.
The deadline is the final point at which the journalist is willing to receive material.
It is not necessarily the point at which they intend to start reading it.
Journalists may have contacted their existing sources before putting out a public request. They may have sent messages to several PR people they know. They may receive a large number of responses from request platforms.
If they receive three excellent answers in the first hour, they may already have what they need.
The early bird really can catch the worm in reactive PR.
Is a shorter fast answer better than a detailed late one?
Quite often, yes.
Obviously the answer still needs to be useful.
I am not suggesting firing off a meaningless sentence within three minutes simply to be first.
But if the choice is between sending a clear, useful answer now and an enormously detailed essay five hours later, I would generally favour the former.
You can also communicate intelligently.
Perhaps you send the journalist your expert's immediate view and add that they are available for a longer interview or can expand on any of the points if useful.
That gives the journalist something they can work with immediately without closing the door to a more detailed contribution.
Businesses often imagine journalists are awarding marks for the most comprehensive response.
They are not.
They are trying to finish an article.
Help them do that.
What makes a reactive PR response genuinely useful?
The first requirement is almost embarrassingly simple.
Answer the question.
If the journalist asks why employees are increasingly rejecting job offers after final interviews, do not send them 500 words explaining the history of your recruitment consultancy.
If they ask which kitchen layout mistake homeowners should avoid, do not begin with four paragraphs about your award-winning design philosophy.
Respond to what they actually asked.
Then make the answer specific.
Journalists can use clear statements, observations and explanations much more easily than vague corporate language.
You should also explain why the person is qualified to say it.
This does not need to become a CV.
One concise credential line can be enough.
For example, a journalist should be able to understand that the person responding is a senior recruiter who has worked in the sector for 15 years, a qualified therapist, an experienced kitchen designer or a doctor with a relevant speciality.
The credentials give the journalist a reason to trust the contribution.
The answer gives them a reason to use it.
What does a weak journalist response look like?
Consider a journalist asking:
"Why are employers struggling to retain younger employees, and what is one mistake managers are making?"
A weak response might say:
Employee retention is a complex issue in today's rapidly evolving workplace landscape. Businesses need to take a holistic approach to employee engagement and ensure they are creating a positive culture. At Smith Consulting, we provide bespoke solutions that empower organisations to unlock the full potential of their people."
There is very little there for the journalist.
It sounds polished, but it does not really answer the question. It is generic enough to have been written for almost any workplace article, and the final sentence turns into an advertisement.
A stronger illustrative response might be:
One mistake I repeatedly see is managers assuming younger employees leave primarily for higher salaries. Pay matters, but people also leave when they cannot see how their role develops. If someone has been doing the same work for 18 months and nobody can explain what progression looks like, another employer offering a clearer path becomes much more attractive. Managers should be having those conversations before an employee starts looking elsewhere, not during the resignation meeting.
That gives the journalist an actual point.
It can be quoted.
It explains something.
It gives the reader a practical implication.
Then, separately, the response can identify the source:
Jordan Smith, an HR consultant with 15 years' experience advising growing businesses on employee retention and workplace strategy.
The brand exposure comes through the attribution.
The quote itself does not need to advertise the consultancy.
Why promotional answers usually fail
Reactive commentary works because the journalist needs expertise.
They are not usually looking for somebody to insert a company slogan into the article.
I think businesses sometimes fear they are "giving away" their knowledge if the answer does not directly promote the service.
I see it differently.
The useful knowledge is precisely what earns the exposure.
The journalist quotes the expert, names them, often identifies their business and may potentially link to them depending on the publication's editorial policy.
That is the trade.
You give them expertise.
They give you the possibility of independent visibility.
If you try to turn the actual expertise into a sales pitch, you weaken the thing that makes the opportunity valuable.
Why generic AI responses are a problem
One of the biggest mistakes I now see with journalist requests is using AI to generate the substance of the expert answer.
The problem is not necessarily that every sentence produced with AI assistance is unusable. It can be perfectly reasonable to use technology to tidy grammar, organise genuine thoughts or help somebody make a long answer more concise.
The problem comes when AI becomes the expert.
A journalist asks a specialist for their professional view, and the response is generated from generic information the expert did not actually provide.
That defeats the purpose.
It also tends to produce exactly the kind of answer journalists struggle to use: smooth, cautious, broad, overly structured and lacking any particular lived or professional insight.
If five people respond using similar AI tools, the answers can start sounding remarkably alike.
I want the opinion to come from the person whose name is going to appear beside it.
Our job as a PR agency can be to tidy that answer, shape it, shorten it or make it easier to use.
We should not manufacture somebody's expertise for them.
What happens behind the scenes at Fair PR when a request comes in?
We start by cross-referencing the opportunity against the people we represent.
Because we already understand our clients, we are not starting from scratch every time.
We know their areas of expertise.
We understand their professional experience and credentials.
We know the topics they particularly want to discuss.
We also know subjects they do not want to address.
Over time, we develop an understanding of their views on important issues within their industries, which helps us assess whether a request is likely to produce something useful.
If the opportunity looks suitable, we send it to the client with the relevant context and any questions the journalist has supplied.
The client gives us their genuine answers.
We then lightly tidy those responses where necessary, making them clearer and more journalist-friendly without changing the underlying view.
Then we send the material to the journalist.
It is not an enormously complicated workflow.
The skill is in the selection and judgement surrounding it.
Why knowing your expert before the request arrives matters
Reactive PR becomes much faster when positioning work has already happened.
Imagine receiving an urgent request and only then trying to discover whether your client has an opinion on the subject.
You email them.
They are confused about why they were selected.
You discover their actual expertise is slightly different.
They need to find their qualifications.
Nobody knows whether they are comfortable commenting publicly.
Half the deadline has disappeared.
Now compare that with having a clear expert profile already.
We know this person can speak about three defined subjects.
We know their credentials.
We have a biography.
We have photographs.
We know their availability.
We know the kinds of views they tend to hold.
The request arrives and the decision can be made quickly.
That preparation is part of reactive PR even though it happens before anything reactive occurs.
What happens after the response is sent?
Sometimes the journalist uses it exactly as supplied.
Sometimes they come back with another question.
They might ask for clarification, an additional example or evidence supporting a particular point.
They may request a short interview.
They might need a photograph or biography.
Perhaps they need to fact-check the person's credentials.
Sometimes they say nothing and the article appears later.
And sometimes nothing happens at all.
That last possibility is completely normal.
A journalist may receive far more good responses than they have space to use.
The angle may change.
An editor could reduce the article.
Breaking news might push it out.
The reporter may decide another expert fits the final piece more closely.
Responding well gives you a chance.
It does not create an entitlement to publication.
How often do reactive responses actually turn into coverage?
There is no universal conversion rate I would promise anybody.
From our own experience, however, I often use roughly one published result from every ten suitable journalist-request responses as a working rule of thumb.
That is not an externally established industry average, and it is certainly not a guarantee.
It is simply a practical benchmark from our experience.
If somebody was consistently completing around four well-chosen reactive responses a week, that would be roughly 16 in a month. One or two pieces of published coverage from that activity would therefore not surprise me.
Another month could be better.
Another could be worse.
The point is that I would not expect 16 replies to create 16 articles.
That would be an unrealistic way to judge reactive PR.
Is five unsuccessful responses a sign reactive PR is not working?
No.
Five is not very many.
If somebody told me they had responded to five relevant journalist requests and none had resulted in publication yet, I would first look at the quality of the opportunities and responses.
Were they genuinely relevant?
Did the person's credentials match?
Did they respond quickly?
Were the answers useful?
Did they avoid excessive promotion?
If all of those things were good, I would continue.
PR does not offer instant gratification every time somebody presses send.
You need enough activity to begin recognising patterns.
After 20 or 30 suitable responses, I would have much more information than I would after five.
If nobody ever shows interest, then we should start examining what needs to change.
But five unanswered responses by themselves would not worry me.
Reactive PR can create value even when the quote is not published
This is one of the most important things businesses miss.
They often think of reactive PR as an extremely linear system:
Request arrives → expert replies → journalist publishes quotation.
Sometimes it works exactly like that.
But relationships sit around the process.
A journalist may receive a brilliant answer that they cannot fit into today's article. They have still now encountered that person.
They know what the expert talks about.
They know the response arrived quickly.
They know the person was easy to deal with.
Next month, the journalist may be writing something else and remember them.
That can be more valuable than treating every request as an isolated transaction.
How do you become a journalist's regular source?
Make their life easy repeatedly.
Be quick.
Be accurate.
Understand the question.
Do not exaggerate.
Know your limits.
Be available when you say you are available.
Give them useful material.
If the journalist contacts you directly, respond.
Over time, you stop being a stranger in somebody's inbox and become a person they know can help.
This is particularly useful with freelance journalists.
A freelancer may write for several different publications, so one useful relationship can potentially lead to opportunities across more than one title.
Journalists also move jobs.
Somebody working at one national publication today could be somewhere completely different next year.
You are building relationships with people, not simply logos.
That is another reason I would not judge the entire value of a journalist interaction according to whether one particular quote appeared.
Can reactive PR work without proactive PR?
It can generate coverage.
I would not normally want it to be the whole strategy.
Reactive PR is ultimately dependent on somebody else asking the question.
If your client desperately wants to become known for a very particular subject but journalists rarely request commentary on it, waiting may not get you very far.
That is where proactive pitching helps.
We can take an idea to the media.
We can develop an article angle around the subject.
We can use seasonal hooks.
We can connect the expertise to current news.
We can create a reason to discuss something instead of waiting indefinitely for the perfect request.
Reactive PR and proactive PR therefore perform slightly different jobs.
Reactive opportunities help us participate in media conversations already happening.
Proactive PR helps us influence which conversations we try to enter.
A strong campaign benefits from both.
How should a business organise itself for reactive PR?
Start by defining who can speak about what.
If a company has several experts, map them properly.
The founder might be the best source on entrepreneurship and company growth.
A technical director could own a specialist area.
A clinician may be needed for medical topics.
A senior consultant may understand a particular client problem much better than the CEO.
Then create basic materials in advance.
Have accurate biographies.
Record relevant qualifications.
Keep good headshots available.
Know which topics each person can address.
Identify anything they will not discuss.
Make sure somebody actually monitors opportunities.
Most importantly, create a response process that works quickly.
If every comment requires five people to approve it over three working days, reactive PR is going to be difficult.
Do you need qualifications to respond to journalist requests?
It depends on the subject.
Some expertise is experience-led.
An experienced founder may be perfectly capable of explaining the realities of hiring their first employees or expanding internationally.
An interior designer can discuss the practical mistakes homeowners make when planning kitchens based on years of professional work.
Other subjects require much more specific professional credentials.
Medical advice needs appropriately qualified medical experts.
Legal commentary may require a lawyer with the relevant professional expertise.
The principle is simple: the credibility should match the claim.
Do not stretch somebody's job title until they appear qualified for an opportunity they should not be answering.
That may secure a short-term media mention, but it damages the credibility reactive PR is supposed to build.
Is reactive PR free?
The journalist does not normally charge an expert for providing an editorial quotation.
If you do the PR yourself, you may therefore secure earned coverage without paying a PR agency for the outreach.
There can still be costs involved.
Some third-party journalist-request services offer paid subscriptions to PR professionals or sources. Fair PR does not use these services, although businesses undertaking DIY PR may wish to evaluate them for themselves.
There is also the cost of somebody's time: finding requests, assessing them, writing responses, monitoring deadlines, following up and tracking coverage.
That is why I think journalist requests can be very useful for DIY PR.
They give business owners an accessible way to understand what journalists are actually looking for and practise contributing to real media opportunities.
But access to requests is not the same thing as having a strategy.
Our DIY PR guide explains why finding an opportunity and providing a genuinely useful contribution are different skills. Dedicated request platforms may be worth exploring if you do your own PR, but they do not form part of Fair PR's delivery.
When does professional support become worthwhile?
Usually when the work required to do reactive PR properly becomes more than the founder or expert wants to manage themselves.
Someone needs to find the opportunities.
Someone needs to filter them.
Someone needs to understand whether the publication fits the campaign.
The right expert needs to be selected.
Questions need to be sent.
Answers need to come back.
Some responses need editing.
Credentials need checking.
The journalist needs the material on time.
Follow-up may be appropriate.
Coverage needs monitoring.
And that is only the reactive part of the campaign.
Proactive PR is happening alongside it.
This is why I do not think the real value of an agency is forwarding journalist emails to a client.
You can subscribe to services yourself if that is all you want.
The value should be in judgement, positioning, writing, selection, journalist relationships, outreach and how all those opportunities fit into a broader PR strategy.
Can small businesses realistically use reactive PR?
Yes.
In fact, reactive PR can be particularly useful for smaller businesses because expertise does not necessarily depend on company size.
A journalist looking for somebody who understands a particular subject may have no reason to prefer a company with 500 employees over one with five.
They want the right person.
An independent consultant may know the subject better than an executive at a huge company.
A small interior design studio may have exactly the experience a homes journalist needs.
A founder may have unusually direct knowledge of a particular market problem.
The challenge for a small business is usually time.
Somebody has to see the opportunity and respond while it is still useful.
That makes organisation particularly important.
Can AI help draft reactive responses?
It can help with editing.
I would be much more cautious about allowing it to generate the expertise itself.
If an expert gives us a rambling 500-word voice note containing three excellent points, using tools to help structure or shorten those thoughts is very different from asking an AI system, "What would a recruitment expert say about this?" and putting somebody's name on the result.
The second approach is exactly what I do not want.
Journalists are asking the expert because of what they know.
That human judgement is the asset.
Use technology around the expertise if it helps.
Do not replace the expertise with it.
Does responding guarantee a media mention?
No.
Nothing about reactive PR removes editorial independence.
The journalist decides which sources they use.
Their editor may make further decisions.
The article might change.
The publication might not run it.
Your quote may be shortened.
A link may or may not be included.
The headline is outside your control.
That uncertainty is part of earned media.
The reason it carries credibility is precisely because the business did not simply buy control over the finished article.
How Fair PR combines reactive and proactive PR
For us, the best campaign is not built around waiting.
We develop the subjects a client can credibly own, understand their expertise and create proactive angles around those themes.
At the same time, we keep an eye out for live opportunities where that client can genuinely help a journalist.
When one appears, we assess it against the client's credentials, availability, target publications and wider goals.
If it fits, we move.
The client supplies the expertise.
We help turn it into material the journalist can use.
Then we pitch it and handle the surrounding outreach.
That sits alongside proactive stories, founder positioning, thought leadership and other appropriate PR activity.
It is also consistent with the broader purpose of [Expert Commentary PR](https://www.fairpublicrelations.com/expert-pr): the journalist is not looking for somebody willing to comment on anything. They need somebody with relevant experience who can offer something credible and useful.
So, what makes reactive PR work?
Be relevant before you worry about being fast.
Then be fast.
Know exactly why you are qualified to answer.
Respond to the actual question.
Keep the answer clear.
Give the journalist something specific.
Do not use the opportunity as an excuse to advertise your business.
Do not manufacture expertise with AI.
Do not expect every response to result in an article.
And do not assume that an unpublished response was necessarily worthless.
Reactive PR works best when you stop viewing each journalist request as a lottery ticket and start treating it as part of a relationship.
You are showing journalists what you know, how quickly you can help and what you are like to work with.
Sometimes that produces an article today.
Sometimes the journalist remembers you next month.
Sometimes you answer several opportunities before anything is published.
But once good journalists begin to recognise somebody as an easy, credible source, the whole process can become much more valuable.
Frequently asked questions
Is reactive PR free?
You can respond to some journalist opportunities yourself without employing an agency, although certain request services have their own paid products or subscriptions. The larger cost for many businesses is the time required to monitor, assess and respond to opportunities consistently.
Do you need qualifications to respond to journalist requests?
Not every subject requires formal qualifications, but you need genuine credibility relevant to the question. Regulated, medical, legal and similarly specialist topics may require very specific professional expertise.
How quickly should you answer?
As quickly as possible while still providing something useful. Do not assume the stated deadline is the ideal submission time. A journalist may have enough material well before it arrives.
Can you use AI to draft an expert response?
AI can potentially help organise or edit genuine thoughts, but I would not use it to invent an expert opinion and put somebody's name on it. The insight should come from the person being presented as the expert.
Does responding guarantee coverage?
No. A journalist can receive many suitable answers, change the article or decide not to use the material. A good response creates an opportunity, not a guaranteed publication.
How many journalist requests should I answer?
Focus on suitable opportunities rather than an arbitrary number. In our own campaigns, I would rather submit one strong, relevant response than several weak ones simply to create activity.
What if I have answered five requests without getting coverage?
Five is not a large enough sample for me to become particularly concerned. I would first review whether the opportunities were relevant, whether the credentials fit and whether the responses were quick and useful. My own rough working rule of thumb is around one published result for every ten suitable responses, although that is Fair PR experience rather than an industry benchmark or promise.
Can reactive PR help a small business?
Yes. Journalists need useful sources, and the best source is not necessarily the largest company. A smaller business with genuine expertise and the ability to respond quickly can be highly relevant.
Can reactive PR replace proactive PR?
It can produce useful coverage, but I prefer combining both. Reactive PR allows you to participate in opportunities journalists already need to fill, while proactive PR lets you develop and pitch the stories and authority themes you particularly want to build.
Could Your Expertise Be Useful to Journalists?
Fair Public Relations combines proactive media pitching with suitable reactive opportunities for founders, experts and businesses.
We identify where your genuine expertise fits, assess opportunities, help shape your responses and handle the journalist outreach and follow-up. You provide the knowledge, experience and opinions that make the contribution credible.
Reactive PR is not about replying to everything.
It is about becoming useful when the right opportunity appears.
Read What Is Expert Commentary PR?
Written by Jordan Baker
Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of PR experience. He writes about journalist outreach, reactive PR, expert commentary, founder visibility and earned media strategy.
