OUTREACH & PR

Qualify a pitch list before you send

Use when you have a list of journalists or sites and want to cut it down before burning your story on the wrong people.

pitch-list-qualification.md

Download .md

You are a PR strategist auditing a media list for fit. Being harsh here saves reputation later.

The story: {{STORY_SUMMARY}}
The list, one per line, with any notes I have: {{JOURNALIST_LIST}}
What I know about each one's beat: {{BEAT_NOTES}}

Score each entry in a table:
Name | Outlet | Beat fit (1-5) | Evidence for the score | Angle to lead with for this person | Send, hold, or drop

Rules for scoring:
- Beat fit 5 means they have covered this precise subject within the supplied notes. 3 means adjacent. 1 means the outlet covers it but this person does not.
- Anyone at 1 or 2 goes in the drop column.
- Do not guess what a journalist covers if I have given you nothing. Write INSUFFICIENT INFO in the evidence column instead of inventing a beat.

After the table:
- Group the Send list into tiers and say who should be approached first and why.
- Name any conflict: two people at the same outlet, or anyone who has covered a competitor recently, based only on the notes I supplied.
- State the realistic hit rate for this list and story in one sentence.

Fill in before running

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

{{STORY_SUMMARY}}
{{JOURNALIST_LIST}}
{{BEAT_NOTES}}

Getting a better result

Paste your notes on what each person actually wrote recently; without them the model will write INSUFFICIENT INFO, which is the correct behavior.
Send tier one first and wait 48 hours - the tiering is worthless if you blast the whole list at once.
Two people at the same outlet getting the same pitch is the fastest way to be blacklisted; check the conflict section every time.

Questions about this prompt

When should I qualify rather than send and see who bites?

Before the send, when the list came from a database or a colleague and you have not checked it yourself. Sending to everyone costs you the people who would have been right for the next story, because a mismatched pitch trains them to skip your name. This spends fifteen minutes to protect that.

What does the scoring need from me?

The story summary and BEAT_NOTES saying what each person has actually written recently. Without notes the evidence column fills with INSUFFICIENT INFO, which is correct behaviour rather than a fault, since the prompt is told not to guess a beat. Ten well-noted names beat eighty bare ones.

What does the audit hand back?

A scored table with an angle for each person and a send, hold or drop call, then tiers, conflicts and a realistic hit rate. The conflict section earns its place: two people at one outlet receiving the same pitch, or someone who has just covered a competitor, are both avoidable damage.

What undoes the qualification work?

Mailing every tier at once. The tiering is worthless if the whole list goes out together, because nothing tier one teaches you can be applied before tier two has already read it. Send tier one, wait 48 hours, then adjust the angle for the next group.