I’m a fan of Help a Reporter Out (HARO), the Cision-owned site which connects journalists and writers with sources and subject matter experts.
I scrutinise the shout outs for opportunities to demonstrate my own expertise as well as that of my clients. And I have a pretty good success rate.
As a widely published freelance contributor and columnist, I also use HARO when I need help with a story. Sometimes I’m just after background information but more often than not I cite or quote the individuals whose contributions I use.
My last HARO query elicited 307 pitches–mostly from the United States, but also from the United Kingdom, parts of Europe, Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, and elsewhere.
From those 307, I included ten sources in a two-part feature which was published by a HR news site in Australia. I’ve agreed to write a third piece so for the sake of the argument let’s say I referenced 15 sources in total.
15 from 307. That’s just 4.9 per cent.
These are not great odds. If you also respond to queries on HARO, Sourcebottle, or some other such site, whether for yourself or as a publicist on behalf of a client, let me offer you some advice to improve your prospects of success.
Plagiarism is seldom accidental
Plagiarism is theft. It’s fraud. If you take someone else’s work or ideas and pass them off as your own, you will (I hope) get caught.
From my most recent query, I reported several sources for plagiarism. Some were easy to identify as the pitches were identical. Others raised alarm bells because they read like well-crafted website copy. All I had to do was run the content through a plagiarism checker and voila!
If you plagiarise your pitch, you’ll not only damage your own reputation (or your client’s), but you could damage the journalist’s and publisher’s as well.
Yes, plagiarism can be accidental, but it mostly isn’t. Check your work before claiming it’s your work.
I’ll make it easy for you–here’s Tech Radar’s 2022 roundup of the best plagiarism checkers.
Answer the query
Occasionally a HARO query will be vague or poorly constructed, sure. But for the most part, the queries are very specific.
On-staff and freelance journalists, and bloggers, usually work to deadlines. Don’t waste their time. Answer the question. If you can’t, reconsider responding.
If you submit an irrelevant pitch, you could be reported for being unhelpful, and your email will almost certainly be binned.
Comply with the requirements
If the query contains parameters, comply with them. If you don’t, you’ll probably be rejected because you’ve made it unnecessarily difficult for the journalist or writer.
If the query specifies a word limit, stick to it. Also, know that there’s a chance the accepted pitches will be used in their entirety so craft your response carefully. Write like a human!
If the query requests a headshot and social media links, provide them. To that end, know, too, that the reverse also applies. It’s annoying to receive pitches that contain elements that haven’t been requested.
And, of course, if you don’t meet the stated criteria, don’t respond! If a journalist wants to hear from CFOs from Canadian tech companies that generate more than $100 million per annum and that’s not you, move on!
Miss Representation has no credibility
Journalists are bound by ethical and professional standards.
In the United States, the code of ethics published by the Society of Professional Journalists declares that journalists should, among other things, verify information before releasing it.
In Australia, where I’m from, the Media and Arts Alliance created the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. ‘Aim to attribute information to its source’ is a central tenet of the Code.
I advocate bloggers and content creators should be held to similar professional standards. After all, non- or quasi-journalists can exert as much (or more) influence and reach as many (or more) people.
However, before attributing information to a source, the source should first be critically evaluated. Is the person credible? Valid for the given purpose?
Is the person even who they claim to be?
Citing or quoting an unreliable or unbelievable source, can damage a writer’s credibility and reputation. That’s why I advocate verifying every HARO source in advance. Does the person’s LinkedIn profile and broader digital footprint support who they claim to be? Does their position, background, and/or credentials make their contribution valid?
Do they have a business email address or are they using an amateurish looking gmail?
To illustrate, one source, whose pitch I really liked, represented himself as a CEO. When I couldn’t find him on LinkedIn, I checked his company website which named him as head of events. I didn’t use his pitch because by misrepresenting himself he lost all credibility. It wasn’t worth the risk.
Meanwhile, a low price point fashion business submitted seven responses, all via scrambled gmail addresses that shared no consistent protocol, attributed to the same two people. These things don’t go unnoticed.
Don’t sabotage your prospects of success. If you’re going to engage in this type of opportunistic PR, make sure your (or your client’s) LinkedIn profile, website, and broader digital footprint is accurate and up to date.
If you like what I have to say, and how I say it, join my community of B2B marketers.
