OUTREACH & PR

Pitch yourself for a roundup or expert panel

Use when a publication runs expert roundups or panel pieces and you want to be in the next one.

expert-source-page-pitch.md

Download .md

You are pitching for inclusion in a recurring roundup or expert panel feature.

The feature: {{FEATURE_NAME_AND_FORMAT}}
Publication and editor: {{PUBLICATION_AND_EDITOR}}
Past contributors and what they said: {{PAST_CONTRIBUTORS}}
My expertise: {{MY_EXPERTISE}}
A view I hold that most of my peers do not: {{CONTRARIAN_VIEW}}
Evidence for that view: {{EVIDENCE}}

Produce:
1. An assessment of whether my contrarian view is genuinely different from what past contributors said, or just phrased differently. Be blunt.
2. A pitch email under 130 words: the view first, the evidence second, my standing third, availability last.
3. A sample 80-word contribution written as it would appear in the piece, so the editor can see the quality without commissioning first.

Rules:
- The sample contribution must contain one specific fact, number, or named case from the evidence supplied. If the evidence is thin, say what is missing.
- Do not claim expertise beyond what I supplied.
- No em dashes, no in today's, no it is not just X it is Y, no closing paragraph restating the opening.
- Do not offer to write the whole article unless the format is a guest column.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{FEATURE_NAME_AND_FORMAT}}
{{PUBLICATION_AND_EDITOR}}
{{PAST_CONTRIBUTORS}}
{{MY_EXPERTISE}}
{{CONTRARIAN_VIEW}}
{{EVIDENCE}}

Getting a better result

Including a ready-to-run sample contribution is what separates this from every other pitch the editor gets.
If the assessment says your view is not actually contrarian, find a different one rather than sending anyway.
Check the past contributors list for competitors; editors avoid running two people from the same niche.

Questions about this prompt

When should I pitch a roundup rather than a byline of my own?

When a publication runs recurring panels and you want the next one. If you want to write the piece yourself, the contributed article prompt is the right one. This is for supplying a single strong view that sits alongside other contributors, which is a much lower bar for an editor to accept.

What does it need about the feature and my view?

PAST_CONTRIBUTORS with what they actually said, your expertise, the view you hold that most peers do not, and evidence containing a number or a named case. The sample contribution has to carry one specific fact from that evidence, so a view with nothing behind it produces a request for more.

What comes back, and what makes the editor read on?

A blunt assessment of whether your view is genuinely different from what past contributors said, a pitch email under 130 words, and an 80-word contribution written as it would appear in the piece. The ready to run contribution is the differentiator, because the editor can judge the quality without commissioning anything.

What gets a roundup pitch declined?

Sending after the assessment says your view is only a past contribution phrased differently. Editors run roundups for contrast, and a repeat is a decline. Check the contributor list for competitors as well, since two people from the same narrow niche rarely appear in the same piece.