Emilie Gerber: evaluation

Transcript context

…Yeah, I'm pro all platform approach. So sometimes reporters will tweet that they're working on a story about something, and rather than me sending them an email with my pitch, I'll say, "Hey, 10 words on why this person is the person you should talk to," and then send a link to an article on them and that's my entire pitch. And honestly, it's sometimes more effective than when I spend 30 minutes writing a really thoughtful email. So I'm a fan of that. I'm a fan of DMs, short, concise, direct DMs. Sometimes LinkedIn, although for whatever reason I feel like that works better with on the podcast side with hosts. And then of course email, we totally email. When I email a reporter, I love to make the subject line just as clear as possible as what the goal is and why I'm emailing them. And so let's say it's for a recurring column that they have, I'll put the name of that column and the person that I think should be included in the subject line. And even that for a reporter, it's like, oh, they actually know. They actually know I write this column and they're suggesting a guest for this column. It's so direct, it's so clear. I think just saying what your intentions are right away. Are you trying to get a Q&A? Are you trying to get a story? Are you trying to get a funding story, like I mentioned before, is very crucial, and keeping it short. I would say my most successful pitches are three sentences and anytime... Sometimes it needs to be longer than that, and generally I feel like my pitch is weaker for that reason. Attention spans are short, and so the more concise you can make it, the better. And then just sometimes I'll start with one platform. I'll start with an email and that doesn't work, so I'll go somewhere else. But I try to make it very human and respectful. So using language like, "Hey, I know your inbox is probably slammed. Sorry to annoy. Trying you one more time here." Another thing that actually can work really well is pointing out gaps in their coverage too, and talking about things that they should be talking about. Like, Hey, my client's noticing this trend. I know you've covered it from this point of view, but no one's talking about it from this point of view. That can be really helpful because it shows that you are actually paying attention to what they are writing, but in a way that you're demonstrating that you have some critical thinking going on, not just, I liked your article on X, which is a common practice that PR people use is I like this, and then jump to your pitch. So yeah, giving it a little more thoughtful, pointing out gaps in coverage. And then the last piece is, especially if you don't have hard news that you're pitching, having something pretty controversial to say. So we work with a lot of AI companies. ting out gaps in coverage. And then the last piece is, especially if you don't have hard news that you're pitching, having something pretty controversial to say. So we work with a lot of AI companies. If nine of them have one stance on something happening in the field and one has the other stance, chances are that one is going to be the one that a reporter wants to talk to because they are getting so many pitches on this topic, but they want to write a balanced article, they need that opposing view. And so we really push our clients to have something unique and different and bold to say. And it obviously has to be a strategic decision for the business. You don't want to go commenting on regulatory things if it sounds like you don't want to necessarily be a part of that conversation, but there are I think instances where it can make a lot of sense to say something that's a little bit bold and controversial. That last piece is really interesting. Is there an example that comes to mind where you had a controversial contrarian pitch?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.