By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
When a PR campaign is generating very little press coverage, the first conclusion should not automatically be:
“Journalists simply aren't interested in this business.”
There are several more useful questions to ask first.
Is the central angle strong enough?
Is the headline making the interesting part obvious?
Does the pitch explain why a reader should care?
Can the claims be substantiated?
Does the expert look credible when the journalist searches for them?
Are the right assets available?
Are the right journalists being approached?
And are we relying too heavily on one type of story when the business actually has several possible routes into the media?
At Fair, if we believe the underlying business, expertise or product has genuine media potential, the first response to weak journalist interest is usually to interrogate how the opportunity is being presented, rather than immediately deciding the entire company is uninteresting.
We change the angle.
We test different headlines.
We sharpen the summary.
We add evidence.
We connect the idea to current stories or trends where that genuinely strengthens it.
We improve the expert profile.
We consider other campaign routes.
Then we keep learning from what journalists actually do.
PR campaigns should evolve.
Lack of coverage and lack of progress are not the same thing
This distinction matters.
Suppose a campaign has not yet produced a published article, but journalists have:
replied;
asked for additional information;
requested case studies;
interviewed the spokesperson;
or said they are considering a feature.
That campaign has not produced published coverage yet.
It has produced evidence that the media proposition is connecting.
Compare that with a campaign where:
dozens of pitches have gone out;
nobody replies;
nobody asks questions;
nothing is pending;
and the same basic story continues to be sent week after week.
Those are very different situations.
Published coverage matters.
So does understanding what happens before publication.
Start with the angle
If something we genuinely expect to interest journalists is producing little reaction, the angle is normally one of the first things I would inspect.
Perhaps the story is hidden under company language.
Perhaps the most interesting statistic is in paragraph four.
Perhaps the headline makes the subject sound generic.
Perhaps the pitch focuses on what the company wants to announce rather than what the reader needs to know.
A small change can materially alter the proposition.
Company-led version
“Business consultancy launches new workplace transformation service”
The company may be extremely proud of the service.
The reader has no obvious reason to care.
Editorially stronger version
“Why growing companies are discovering that their best individual performers can become their least prepared managers”
The consultancy can now discuss:
promotion decisions;
management readiness;
retention;
training;
and real professional observations.
The same business sits behind both pitches.
The second gives the journalist an article idea.
Headlines deserve more attention than many businesses give them
Journalists scan quickly.
A headline should communicate the useful part.
If the underlying story is good but the subject line says:
“Exciting news from Smith Consulting”
the problem may not be the story.
The problem may be that the journalist has no idea what the email contains.
We regularly test:
specific numbers;
a stronger question;
a clearer consequence;
a timely event;
or a more direct description of the problem.
This is not clickbait.
It is editorial clarity.
Add evidence when the angle needs more weight
Sometimes the idea is interesting but too thin.
A professional says:
“More businesses are worried about retaining younger employees.”
The journalist may reasonably ask:
How do you know?
A stronger version might combine:
a reputable new workplace survey;
official labour-market data;
an internal trend clearly labelled as an internal observation;
and a credible expert who can explain what they are seeing.
The story becomes easier to trust.
The same principle applies to:
technology performance;
health claims;
customer behaviour;
property forecasts;
consumer trends;
business revenue;
and practically every other PR subject.
A PR pitch becomes stronger when the journalist can inspect the evidence.
Use current events when there is a genuine connection
Timing often transforms an otherwise evergreen idea.
A cyber expert can talk about scams at any time.
They become particularly relevant when a major new scam is dominating the news.
An employment specialist can discuss workplace rules generally.
They may become much more valuable immediately after a major policy announcement.
A property expert can discuss buyers.
The journalist may need them urgently when new house-price figures appear.
That does not mean forcing every client into every breaking story.
The connection has to be real.
Check the expert's public credibility
This is increasingly important.
If we are positioning somebody as an expert, I want the journalist to be able to search them and quickly find evidence supporting the description.
That may include:
a detailed expert biography;
the client's own website;
LinkedIn;
professional qualifications;
relevant career history;
published research;
previous media;
and clear explanation of their actual specialism.
Imagine a pitch says:
“Dr Jane Smith is one of the UK's leading workplace psychologists.”
The journalist searches Jane.
There is no professional biography.
LinkedIn barely exists.
The company website calls her a “wellness visionary”.
No qualifications are visible.
The pitch has created a credibility problem.
By contrast, a strong expert profile can make verification straightforward.
The expert biography should match the pitch
A generic biography can also weaken a credible person.
If we are pitching a doctor specifically on obesity medicine, the relevant specialist experience should appear early.
If we are pitching a recruiter about technology hiring, the profile should make the technology recruitment background obvious.
Do not make the journalist excavate a 700-word biography to discover why the person is relevant.
Then examine the journalist targeting
Once the story itself is strong, ask whether it is reaching the correct people.
The same story can be wrong for one journalist and excellent for another.
Consider a B2B software company with data showing how finance teams use AI.
Possible audiences include:
fintech;
accountancy;
enterprise technology;
SME business;
AI;
and workplace publications.
A generic consumer lifestyle journalist is unlikely to be interested.
That is not evidence the story is bad.
It may be evidence the targeting is poor.
National media is not the only useful media
Sometimes a client becomes so focused on one or two prestigious national outlets that the campaign unnecessarily restricts itself.
Fair generally aims strongly at national and international coverage where the story supports it.
We also believe relevant trade, specialist and local press can be useful.
A B2B company may have actual customers reading its trade publication.
A restaurant's customers may live locally.
An expert may build credibility within a specialist professional community before a national opportunity arises.
Being open-minded creates more legitimate ways for a campaign to work.
Do not rely on one pitch
This is another important part of Fair's approach.
We do not normally build an entire client campaign around one idea and then spend six weeks waiting to see whether it succeeds.
Different campaign activities can run at the same time.
A client might simultaneously have:
expert commentary;
a founder angle;
a business-development story;
reactive journalist opportunities;
a customer story;
product outreach;
or another relevant route.
One may land quickly.
Another may take longer.
A third may reveal through journalist feedback that it needs changing.
That portfolio approach makes the campaign more resilient.
How quickly should you expect to see journalist response?
There is no absolute rule, because different stories move at different speeds.
But if we pitch something that we believe is strong and timely, I would normally expect to learn something within roughly a week or two.
Perhaps we get interest.
Perhaps we get a request for additional evidence.
Perhaps somebody tells us they need a case study.
Perhaps the story is clearly not landing.
At that point, we can reconsider:
headline;
summary;
timing;
evidence;
journalist list;
or the angle itself.
We do not need to keep sending the exact same email for months before admitting it is not working.
Some stories simply need longer
This is where judgement matters.
An urgent comment tied to today's news can become irrelevant tomorrow.
An evergreen feature idea may remain usable for months.
A large founder profile may require repeated conversations.
A product review can take weeks of testing.
A journalist may love an idea but wait until a suitable commissioning slot appears.
Good PR therefore combines urgency with patience.
The agency needs to understand which one applies.
Journalists often tell you what is missing
One of the most useful responses is:
“This would be interesting if you had a case study.”
That is not a rejection of the entire concept.
It is editorial feedback.
The journalist is saying:
I understand the data.
I understand the expert.
I need a human being who shows readers what this means.
If the client can find an appropriate case study with proper permission, the story may become significantly stronger.
The correct response is to listen, rather than continuing to insist that the original pitch was already perfect.
What if nobody responds at all?
Silence is harder because you do not know exactly what caused it.
That is when you conduct a structured review.
Was the headline clear?
Did the email look promotional?
Was the timing wrong?
Was the story genuinely new?
Were the journalists relevant?
Could they verify the spokesperson?
Were important claims unsupported?
Was the pitch far too long?
Was a key detail missing?
Did the business have an online reputation issue the PR team had not seen?
That last question is worth checking.
Journalists may search:
reviews;
social media;
company history;
professional registers;
previous press;
and the spokesperson's online footprint.
If something credible is likely to make a journalist hesitate, the PR team should understand it.
The solution is not to hide legitimate problems.
It is to know the context before continuing to pitch.
The campaign may need better assets
Good PR material is not only words.
A journalist may need:
a strong headshot;
product photography;
a customer photograph;
video;
a report;
a methodology;
a company logo;
a screenshot;
a sample;
a case study;
or access to a spokesperson.
A pitch can be excellent and still stall because nobody can provide what the article requires.
Slow approvals can kill opportunities
Some media opportunities move very quickly.
A journalist asks for 300 words by 2pm.
The client returns them tomorrow morning.
The journalist has already filed.
That is not the journalist rejecting the expertise.
The opportunity simply expired.
A PR campaign therefore needs a workable approval process.
For straightforward commentary, it should be possible to respond at a pace appropriate to the media opportunity.
The pitch may be too promotional
This is one of the most common problems.
Journalists are not an extension of the company's sales team.
Promotional version
“Award-winning nutrition entrepreneur Sarah Jones is transforming the wellness industry with her revolutionary new programme.”
Editorial version
“Why people who overhaul their entire diet every January may be more likely to abandon it by February, according to nutrition specialist Sarah Jones.”
The second has a reader question.
The business can still receive attribution.
The article does not need to become an advert.
Sometimes you need a different type of story
A client may begin the campaign convinced that company news will be the main route.
After several weeks, it may become obvious that the company's strongest asset is actually expertise.
Or the reverse may happen.
Potential campaign shifts include:
company announcements to expert commentary;
expert commentary to original data;
founder profile to customer story;
product launch to product-review outreach;
general business pitching to a stronger sector-specific strategy;
or national-only pitching to a more appropriate mixture of national, trade and local media.
Changing tactics is not an admission that the agency had no strategy.
It is often evidence that the strategy is responding to real information.
What does a practical campaign repair process look like?
A useful review should move through the campaign systematically.
| Area | Question | Possible change |
|---|---|---|
| Story | Is there a genuine editorial reason to care? | Reframe or replace angle |
| Headline | Is the useful point obvious? | Make it more specific |
| Timing | Why now? | Link appropriately to current event |
| Evidence | Can claims be verified? | Add research, data or case study |
| Expert | Does the person visibly look credible? | Strengthen profile and proof |
| Assets | Can the journalist use what we provide? | Add photography, methodology, samples |
| Targeting | Are these genuinely the right journalists? | Rebuild media list |
| Format | Are we relying on one story type? | Add expertise, founder, product or customer routes |
| Client process | Can opportunities be approved quickly? | Simplify sign-off |
| Follow-up | Are we learning rather than repeatedly chasing? | Adapt based on response |
The purpose is to diagnose.
Not simply send more emails.
Client engagement matters
A PR agency acts as a bridge between the business and the media.
The agency brings editorial judgement, writing, contacts, research and campaign management.
The client brings:
the expertise;
business information;
stories;
opinions;
availability;
evidence;
and permission to use appropriate material.
If the client refuses every proposed subject, every relevant publication, every interview and every alternative angle, the agency eventually runs out of legitimate options.
Open-mindedness matters enormously, especially during the early months when the team is learning exactly which parts of the business attract media interest.
Too much planning can also become a problem
Strategy is important.
A campaign should not become an endless cycle of meetings about future strategy while little actual media work happens.
PR teaches you through execution.
You develop an angle.
You pitch it.
You see what journalists do.
You adjust.
A two-hour meeting about all the theoretical reasons something may or may not work is sometimes less useful than putting a properly prepared idea in front of ten genuinely relevant journalists and learning from the result.
The balance matters.
Trust matters after the client has chosen an agency
A business should carry out proper due diligence before signing.
Look at:
case studies;
reviews;
testimonials;
previous work;
pricing;
scope;
and the team's experience.
Once the client has made that choice, the relationship works better when there is enough trust to test sensible ideas.
That does not mean blindly accepting every recommendation.
It means avoiding a situation where the agency has to obtain permission for every tiny tactical decision while media deadlines pass.
Fair's approach is deliberately long term
We are interested in:
goodwill;
journalist relationships;
client credibility;
and a sustainable body of earned-media evidence.
We are not looking for a quick buck.
That changes how we think about a campaign.
A journalist who receives consistently useful material can become a valuable long-term relationship.
A small quote can lead to another request.
A good interview can lead to a larger feature.
A specialist source can become somebody the journalist returns to.
Those things are difficult to build if every campaign is treated as a frantic attempt to extract one headline as quickly as possible.
Why affordable ongoing PR can help
Media timing is unpredictable.
A strong story may take several attempts.
A new angle may emerge after the first journalist responses.
A spokesperson may need to establish credibility before larger opportunities appear.
Fair's pricing model is deliberately designed to make ongoing work more commercially sustainable for smaller businesses than retainers costing several thousand pounds or dollars every month.
That does not mean clients should keep paying indefinitely for a campaign that shows no signs of life.
It means a sensible campaign should have enough time to learn and build without every extra month becoming financially disproportionate.
Frequently asked questions
Why aren't journalists replying to my PR pitches?
There can be many reasons, including poor relevance, unclear subject lines, weak timing, an overly promotional pitch, unsupported claims or simply a journalist receiving far more suitable material than they can use. Silence does not always provide a precise diagnosis, which is why the campaign needs to look at the story, evidence, spokesperson, targeting and timing together. If repeated high-quality outreach generates no meaningful engagement, continuing unchanged is not a sensible strategy.
Does a lack of press coverage mean my business isn't newsworthy?
Not necessarily. The business may have strong expertise but a weak angle, or an excellent founder story that has been presented as a generic company profile. A product may need testing rather than a press release. A professional-services firm may be better suited to expert commentary than company announcements. The key is to identify what journalists can genuinely use rather than assuming every interesting business automatically produces obvious news.
Should we send more press releases?
Only where there is a genuine announcement or another suitable reason for a release. Sending more press releases does not solve a weak editorial proposition. A campaign may be better served by expert commentary, founder interviews, customer stories, product testing, data or reactive media work. The format should follow the story rather than treating a press release as the compulsory unit of PR.
Can changing the PR strategy revive an unsuccessful campaign?
Yes, sometimes materially. A new angle, better evidence, stronger spokesperson profile, different journalist group or entirely different story type can change the response. There is no guarantee that every business can be turned into a highly successful media campaign, but a campaign that learns and adapts has a much better chance than one that repeats the same unsuccessful outreach indefinitely.
Need a different approach to getting your business into the media?
Fair PR develops stories and expert angles around what journalists actually need.
If your current approach is not creating useful opportunities, we can discuss whether a different journalist-led strategy makes sense for your business.
Explore Standard PR or contact us.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of journalism and PR experience.
Fair's approach combines journalist-led story development, direct media outreach, ongoing campaign management and a willingness to change direction when the evidence says an angle is not working.
View Jordan Baker's media expert profile
