Reconstruct what the journalist actually received
Open the sent message, not the campaign plan. Confirm the recipient, date, subject, exact claim, attachments or links, any embargo, and whether a colleague has sent another version. Check the contact's stated preference and any reply in the same thread. If the first message did not reach the right person or contained an error, the next action may be a correction or a fresh, better targeted pitch, not a follow-up that pretends the first message was sound.
The PRSA ethics code calls for accurate information and prompt correction of erroneous communications. It is particularly useful here: if the launch date slipped or a claim changed, correct the record clearly before asking whether the journalist is interested. Do not hide an important update below a polite nudge. If the story is no longer ready, pause outreach until it is.
| Review | Evidence to open | Possible result |
|---|---|---|
| Recipient and fit | Sent email, current byline, contact preference | Wrong person: stop and retarget |
| Pitch quality | Subject, first paragraph, reader relevance | Generic pitch: rewrite the story first |
| Factual status | Launch brief, stock, assets, approval | Changed fact: send a correction if needed |
| Interaction | Thread, colleague notes, previous follow-up | Reply or opt-out: act on it, do not nudge |
Use four branches: stop, correct, wait, or offer a real update
Stop if the person declined, asked not to be contacted, moved away from the beat, or the story has no clear fit. Correct if a material fact in the original pitch was wrong or is now stale. Wait if the editorial window is still open and you have no fresh reason to interrupt. Consider a manual follow-up only when the story still fits, the contact has not objected, the original message was sound, and you can offer a relevant new fact, access, image, or answer to an earlier question.
The Society of Professional Journalists' code asks journalists to avoid conflicts of interest and refuse gifts or special treatment. A follow-up should respect editorial independence: never frame a product sample as a debt, imply that coverage is owed, or chase a journalist through another channel after a clear no. A correction or an answer to a direct request can still be appropriate when the pitch itself is closed.
| If you find | Decision | What to log |
|---|---|---|
| Clear decline or no-contact request | Stop outreach | Exact scope of request, date, source |
| Important wrong or changed fact | Correct manually | What changed, who needs the correction |
| No response and no new value | Wait or close | Why another message would add nothing |
| New relevant fact and open editorial window | Review one manual follow-up | New value, draft, approver, send status |
Write the new value first and give an easy exit
The follow-up should fit in the existing thread, identify the useful update immediately, and make no assumption about interest. Fictional example: 'Hello Camille, one update to the Atelier Nacre note below: the workshop can now be visited on 20 October, and the repair terms are published here. If your local makers column is considering accessories, I can arrange a short conversation with the maker. Otherwise, no need to reply.' The visit, terms, and link must be real before this text is used.
Avoid 'just checking in', 'bumping this', and pressure about deadlines invented for the recipient. If a genuine editorial deadline exists, state whose deadline it is and what information expires. If the journalist asks for a specification or image, answer that request directly instead of attaching a new launch pitch. A polite exit means the recipient can ignore an irrelevant offer without having to defend their editorial choices.
Log the decision separately from the outcome
A decision to follow up is not an email sent; an email sent is not a reply. Keep those states separate. The log needs just enough detail to stop duplicate outreach and help the next operator understand the choice. Save a reference to the sent thread, not a speculative interpretation of silence. Record an explicit preference or correction where future campaigns will see it.
After the chosen review point, mark the pitch closed, still open, or answered using the evidence you have. There is no need to keep relaunching the same ask because a status column says pending. If meaningful new reporting material appears months later, evaluate it as a new angle and recheck fit from the beginning.
| Pitch ID | Last verified action | Decision and reason | Next owner / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| AN-07 | Initial email sent manually, 6 October | Wait: no new fact; local column may still be planning | Léa reviews the brief, 15 October |
| AN-08 | Reply: not covering product launches | Stop: stated editorial preference | Preference added to contact history |
| AN-09 | Initial email sent, 6 October | Review follow-up: workshop visit newly confirmed | Draft approved, then send status logged separately |