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.

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

1. 1 Including a ready-to-run sample contribution is what separates this from every other pitch the editor gets.
2. 2 If the assessment says your view is not actually contrarian, find a different one rather than sending anyway.
3. 3 Check the past contributors list for competitors; editors avoid running two people from the same niche.