“Journalists receive more contacts today than at any other time. They have less time available, less room to filter and an increasing ability to identify generic, automated or irrelevant content. In this context, gaining media attention no longer depends on insistence. It depends on relevance.”
Most journalists receive dozens - often hundreds - of proposals, press releases and contact requests every day. At the same time, Artificial Intelligence has made the mass production of content faster and more accessible than ever. The result is an increase in volume, but no accompanying quality.
Most of the proposals continue to fail for a structural reason: they are built on what the brand wants to say, rather than what the public really needs to know. And journalists recognize this immediately.
Today, content that is vague, overly promotional or clearly generated without editorial criteria tends to be ignored within seconds. Not for lack of openness to contact, but because they don't add value to the journalistic work. Media relations has therefore become an exercise in precision. Whoever sends the most no longer wins. Whoever understands the context, timing and editorial interest of the proposal best wins. Because it is their audience, and never the journalist, who is the real recipient.
The most important question remains “why now?”
In communication there is a tendency to start with the ad, the company or the institutional message before validating whether there is actually a relevant story. And the real editorial filter is still: Why is this of interest to that journalist's audience? What does it add? And why does it deserve attention right now? These three questions continue to separate potentially newsworthy content from content that is unlikely to leave the inbox.
In practice, many proposals fail because they confuse internal novelty with external relevance. The fact that something is important to the organization does not automatically mean that it is relevant to the media ecosystem or the audience. And this is precisely where the real strategic work of Public Relations comes in: transforming corporate information into context, impact and meaning.
Mandatory personalization For years, personalizing a contact with journalists was seen as a sign of extra care. Today, it's just the starting point. Knowing the topics the journalist covers, understanding their editorial framework, understanding the tone of the pieces they publish and the debates they take part in has become essential for any relevant contact. Because a generic pitch is immediately recognized as such. And when there is an alignment between the topic, the journalist and the editorial moment, the likelihood of a response increases significantly.
But there's an even more important dimension: relationships. Organizations that manage to build consistent relationships with journalists do so far beyond pitching. They participate in the right conversations, follow up on published work, provide relevant experts and become credible sources over time. It is this accumulated trust that turns future contacts into real opportunities for media coverage.
The ‘subject’ of an email still decides almost everything
In an environment where attention spans are limited and decision times are increasingly short, the ‘subject line’ has gained enormous strategic weight. In practice, it determines whether the email will be opened, postponed or ignored.
And yet it remains one of the most neglected elements in many proposals.
The most effective approaches tend to be simple: objective, specific and close to the logic of a headline. No exaggeration, no artificial urgency and no corporate jargon. Because what the journalist is looking for is not promotion, it's editorial clarity. The same principle applies to the body of the email.
The news value must come immediately. The quicker the journalist realizes the interest of the information, the more likely they are to continue reading. And empty institutional quotes are hardly helpful. In most cases, they only reinforce the perception that there is little substance to back up the story.
In a media ecosystem marked by speed and a continuous news cycle, reactive commentary has become increasingly important. When a relevant topic arises, the ability to quickly provide context, analysis or expert opinion can make the difference between being part of a news piece or arriving too late. For journalists on deadline, experts who are accessible, prepared and able to comment clearly are an extremely valuable resource. But this requires prior preparation.
It requires continuous monitoring of the news, prepared spokespeople, internal alignment and the ability to quickly validate official positions without compromising rigor or consistency. Organizations that manage to respond well at times of greater media intensity tend, over time, to become credible references for future news. And this accumulated relationship significantly improves the effectiveness of proactive pitching.
Media coverage continues to generate reputation, notoriety and credibility. But in 2026 there is a new layer of impact that has made earned media even more relevant. Generative Artificial Intelligence systems have started to use credible sources and reputable publications as authoritative references to build answers, recommendations and summaries of information. This means that a consistent presence in recognized media no longer only influences human audiences. It has also come to influence how AI platforms represent organizations, brands and leaders over time.
A single piece published in a credible medium can continue to have a reputational impact months after its original publication. And that profoundly changes the
the strategic value of media relations. Because in an environment saturated with content, credibility remains one of the most difficult assets to build - and one of the most valuable to maintain.