Media Angles
Part of Digital PR campaign reviews
Comparing pitched angles with actual editorial interest
Compare pitch versions with recorded journalist questions, declines and coverage without treating silence as interest or rejection.
Compare each pitched angle with the journalist actions recorded after it was sent. Keep the wording, audience and evidence for each version separate. A question or request shows engagement with particular material, not support for the proposed framing. An unanswered pitch shows no recorded reply.
Define the angle actually offered
An angle is more than a subject line. Record its central claim, measured group, principal limit and reader question. If the team changed the finding or target audience during outreach, treat the later pitch as a new version; otherwise a response may be credited to a proposition the journalist never received.
Use the send log to establish which version went to which recipient and when. Note any prior conversation that prompted the approach. A specialist trade pitch and a local service notice may serve different readers even when both draw on the same study.
Code actions, not guessed enthusiasm
| Recorded event | What it can show | What it cannot show alone |
|---|---|---|
| No reply recorded | No response appears in the available record | That the angle was read or rejected |
| Question or document request | Engagement with the question or material requested | A commitment to publish or agreement with the claim |
| Interview request | Willingness to examine a source | Approval of the proposed claim |
| Explicit decline | The stated decision on that approach | A general ban on future topics |
| Published item | What the outlet chose to tell readers | Endorsement of the original pitch |
Preserve the journalist's request or a faithful summary. Someone asking how a sample was selected may be examining a weakness, seeking context or considering a different story. Record the question before interpreting it.
Find where the pitch and response diverged
Read published items against the pitch version. Did the article lead with the proposed finding, use a narrower group, focus on a caveat or develop another question? Describe the editorial choice without marking every change as a failure. A publication may use the material responsibly while rejecting the brand's preferred framing.
Where little interest is observable, inspect the evidence and reader fit before rewriting the headline. Ask whether the readership needed the point, whether the data could support it and whether a relevant development had already been reported. These are checks for the team, not inferred reasons for anyone's silence.
For each angle, state how many relevant approaches were actually sent, how many received a substantive reply and what those replies asked for. Do not rank angles by response rate when they went to different groups or send records are incomplete.
End with a decision: retain, narrow, investigate or stop. The wider campaign review can use those decisions without treating editorial interest as a simple rate.
Pitched Angle vs. Actual Journalist Response: Key Differences in Editorial Engagement
- Actual Published Focus (Article)Survey reveals rising financial anxiety among young Australians, but highlights regional disparities in access to financial advice
- Audience Addressed in ArticleUrban and regional youth in NSW, Victoria, and Queensland
- Key Question Raised by JournalistHow was the sample selected? Were regional participants adequately represented?
Pros and Cons of Using a National Superannuation Narrative in Pitching
- ProsBroad appeal across national media; aligns with ATO’s public messaging on retirement savings; supports government initiatives like the MySuper reforms
- ConsOvergeneralises regional economic differences; may not reflect actual financial literacy gaps in remote areas; risks misrepresenting data without context on income distribution or GST impacts
