Journalists posting "I need a source for X" — you respond, sometimes you get quoted, sometimes you don't.
Journalists posting "I need a source for X" — you respond, sometimes you get quoted, sometimes you don't. The cheapest PR play available, but only if you treat it seriously.
| Platform | What it is | Cost | Quality | |----------|-----------|------|---------| | Connectively (formerly HARO) | Daily email digest of journalist queries | Free tier; paid for filters | Mixed — high volume, lots of noise | | Qwoted | Web app with journalist requests | Free; paid for outreach | Good — better-quality outlets | | Featured | Web app, expert profiles, journalist requests | Free tier; paid pro | Good for thought-leadership snippets | | Help A B2B Writer | Twice-weekly email of B2B queries | Free | High — B2B-focused, low spam | | SourceBottle | Australia-focused but global queries | Free | Variable | | Terkel | Roundup-style ("we asked 50 experts…") | Free | Volume-heavy, low effort | | JournoRequests | X account aggregating tweets | Free | UK-skewed, real-time | | #JournoRequest (X hashtag) | Live journalist requests | Free | Real-time, fast-moving |
Recommended starter set: Connectively + Qwoted + Help A B2B Writer + monitoring #JournoRequest on X.
These platforms generate volume. Treat it like email triage — fast pass, deep response on the rare matches.
For each digest / request feed:
Realistic conversion: 50 daily requests → 2–4 worth answering.
For each keeper:
Track in a spreadsheet:
After 30 responses, you'll see which topics/platforms convert.
Keep responses under 200 words. Journalists are scanning 50+ replies for one quote.
Hi [name],
Quick response to your request about [topic].
[Specific credential — 1 sentence. "Built X for 5 years" / "Led marketing at Y" / "Have analyzed N companies in space"]
The most important thing about [topic]: [your actual point in 2 sentences].
[A specific example, story, or data point — this is what gets quoted.]
[If applicable: a contrarian or surprising angle that differentiates from typical answers.]
Happy to expand on any of this, share data, or be quoted directly.
Feel free to use this attribution:
[Your name], [your title], [your company]
Contact for follow-up: [email + phone]Note the structure:
After analyzing hundreds of quoted responses, the patterns:
Bad: "Companies should focus on customer experience." Good: "When we A/B tested 47 onboarding flows, the version with a 30-second video at step 3 increased activation by 41%."
The good version is a quote. The bad version is filler.
Bad: "As a marketing expert..." Good: "I've run growth at three Series B SaaS companies, all in B2B sales tooling."
Specificity beats title-stacking.
Bad: "It's important to track the right metrics." Good: "We almost shut down because we were optimizing for MRR when our real problem was activation. Once we switched to tracking 7-day activation, everything else followed."
Stories make articles. Advice makes filler.
Most quotes come from responses sent in the first 6 hours. After 24 hours, your chances drop sharply. Treat deadlines as if they're 24h earlier than stated.
Most teams overinvest in these platforms because they're cheap. Be honest:
| Effort | Realistic outcome (90 days) | |--------|----------------------------| | 5 hr/week, custom responses | 3–10 quoted placements | | 1 hr/week, template responses | 0–2 placements | | Outsourced to PR firm | Lots of submissions, few quotes |
A quote in a tier-1 outlet is worth:
A quote in a tier-3 outlet is worth:
Decision rule: if you can sustain 5 hr/week of quality responses for 90 days, this is worth it. If you can only do 1 hr/week, skip it and invest in proactive pitching instead.
Before you start responding:
Without these, you're spamming and wasting their time and yours.