Media Relations
Win the journalist's request, fast
Buyers used to ask a search engine who to trust. Now they ask an AI assistant, and the assistant answers with the brands it has seen cited, quoted, and covered. Earned media is how you become that answer. The fastest way to earn it is to stop chasing reporters and start answering the ones already asking.
Every day, journalists post what they need. A fintech reporter in Singapore wants a founder who can explain real-time payments. A climate writer wants a company with hard numbers. A B2B editor wants one sharp line from an operator who has done the thing. They name the topic, the format, and the deadline. The demand is sitting in the open.
This is reactive PR: responding to reporters who are actively asking for sources. It has the highest hit rate in the business, because the reporter already wants what you have. You are answering a brief that already exists, which is easier and lands far more often than inventing a reason to interrupt someone.
This guide is the full operating system. Where the requests live now, how to watch for them without drowning, how to qualify and respond fast, how to scale it without spamming, and how it sits alongside your proactive pitching and brand work. It is written for founders and lean teams, Asia-first, where speed and language are an edge. Read it once, then run the loop.
Chapter 1
Cold pitching and reactive PR look similar from the outside. Both end with a reporter quoting you. They are opposite motions, and understanding why reactive wins tells you when to use it and when to put it down.
When you cold pitch, you interrupt a reporter who did not ask for you. You are guessing at three things at once: the story they are working on, the angle they want, and the moment they are open to hearing it. Miss any one and the pitch dies. Most do. A reporter on a daily desk can get more pitches in a week than they will ever read, almost all of them about the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Reactive flips the motion. The reporter has already posted what they need. They told you the story, the angle, the format, and the deadline. The guessing is gone. You are meeting demand that already exists instead of creating it. Think of a cold pitch as knocking on doors to sell something, and a reactive response as answering a notice that says wanted, today, this exact thing.
That difference has little to do with effort or talent. A skilled cold pitch can still miss because the reporter simply was not working on that story this week. The same skill applied to a live request lands, because the story is the one in front of them right now. Reactive does not make you a better writer. It points your writing at a target that is already lit up.
Three forces decide whether a pitch lands: intent, timing, and fit. In cold pitching you have to win all three by luck. In reactive PR the reporter has solved all three for you before you say a word.
That is why a good reactive response gets read and often used, while a cold pitch of the same quality gets ignored. The reporter is leaning toward you instead of away. You are closing a gap they already feel, and that changes everything about how your message is received.
There is a quieter reason too. A reporter who posts a request has usually already pitched the story to an editor and had it approved. The slot in the article exists. Your job is to fill it cleanly. With a cold pitch, you are often asking the reporter to go create that slot first, which is a far bigger ask and the reason so many pitches land in the trash.
Founders and small teams have almost no time for PR. That scarcity is exactly why reactive is the right first move. Every hour you spend goes against requests where the probability of landing is highest, because the reporter raised their hand. One founder, two check-ins a day, and a ready kit can earn real coverage with no press list, no agency, and no news hook of their own.
The wins also compound. A landed quote gives you a clip you can reuse on your site, in later pitches, and as proof for the next reporter. It opens a relationship with a journalist on your beat who now knows you are fast and useful. A later chapter is about turning that single interaction into something lasting.
Picture the week in practice. On Monday a founder spends twenty minutes setting up a watch system. For the rest of the week they glance at one feed twice a day. On Wednesday a reporter asks for a source on digital banking in Vietnam, which is squarely the founder's beat. Ten minutes later a clean quote and a proof point are sent. On Friday the story runs with their name in it. No agency retainer, no cold list, one clip and one new contact, from under an hour of total work.
Reach for reactive PR when:
In these cases reactive is the shortest path from where you are to a real clip, and it works the same day.
Reactive is not the tool for everything. Put it down when:
The discipline to skip a request you cannot serve well is what makes the responses you do send land. Spraying weak answers at every request is the fastest way to ruin the advantage, and it has its own chapter later.
Takeaway: Reactive PR wins because the reporter already asked, which solves intent, timing, and fit before you write a word; use it when you can genuinely serve the request, and hold back when you cannot.
Chapter 2
Reactive PR only works if you can see the requests. For years that meant one place. Now it means several, and the center of gravity has moved from a closed inbox to the open web.
Help a Reporter Out, known to everyone as HARO, defined this category for more than a decade. It was an email digest sent three times a day, full of reporter queries you could answer by email. Its owner, Cision, rebranded it as Connectively and then wound it down at the end of 2024. A lot of people assumed source requests died with it.
They did the opposite. The requests moved into the open. Reporters realized they did not need a middleman to find sources, so they started posting what they needed directly, where anyone could see it. The gatekeeper is gone and the access is better than it was. The tradeoff is that the signal is now spread across more surfaces, which is the problem the rest of this guide solves.
Reporters prefer the open post for good reasons. It reaches more potential sources in seconds, it lets them see who is responsive at a glance, and it spares them an inbox full of pitches that ignore what they asked for. For you, the lesson is simple: the request is public, time-stamped, and specific, so there is no excuse for a vague or late reply.
Today a reporter's request shows up in one of three kinds of places.
You will not work all three at once. Most founders find their reporters cluster in one or two of these places. Spend a week watching broadly, note where the requests on your beat actually appear, and then concentrate there.
A request is usually short. A sentence or two names the topic, says who they want to hear from, and states the format. The format is the part people miss. A reporter will specify a short written quote, a single data point, an introduction to a customer, or a quick interview. They will say how to reach them, by reply, by email, or by direct message. And they will give a deadline.
Read the request like a brief, because that is what it is. It tells you exactly what a usable answer looks like. If a reporter asks for a two-sentence comment from a logistics operator by 4pm, that is the whole specification. A brilliant answer in the wrong shape still loses. The reporter is not grading your effort, they are filling a hole in a story, and the piece that fits the hole wins.
The shape differs by channel. A service brief on Featured or Qwoted is usually structured: a headline, the outlet, the exact questions, a word count, and a hard deadline field. A social post on Bluesky or LinkedIn is looser, a few lines in the reporter's own voice, so you have to read for the implicit format. Either way the ingredients are the same, and your response has to name them back.
Reactive PR runs on a clock. Many requests carry a same-day deadline, and some give you only a few hours. Daily news desks move fast, and so do the reporters feeding them. The practical consequence is blunt: the first good, usable response often wins, because the reporter stops looking the moment they have what they need. A perfect quote sent the next morning is worth nothing.
Speed is a structural advantage here, which is good news for a small team. You do not need a large staff to beat a large competitor to a reply. You need to see the request early and have your answer ready to assemble. The open shift helps you, because you can see a request the moment it posts instead of waiting for a digest. It also means more noise, since the requests are mixed in with the rest of the feed.
One regional note that the final chapter expands: requests from Asian markets appear on these same platforms and services, often in the local language, and often on a clock set to Singapore, Hong Kong, Jakarta, or Tokyo business hours. If you are in the region and awake, you are already ahead of a team answering from another time zone.
Takeaway: The requests did not vanish when HARO closed, they moved into the open across Bluesky, X, LinkedIn, and services like Featured, Qwoted, and SourceBottle; read each one as a brief, and remember the first usable answer usually wins.
Chapter 3
The failure mode of reactive PR is not missing a request. It is drowning. Open the feeds without a system and you get a wall of queries, most irrelevant, and you either burn hours or give up. A watch system fixes that. It is light, and you can build it in an afternoon.
Before you touch a platform, write three lists.
These three lists are your filter. Every request you see gets checked against them in seconds. If it does not touch your topics, your markets, and your formats, you skip it and feel nothing.
Writing these down matters more than it sounds. In the moment a request appears, you have seconds to decide, and a vague sense of your beat leads to slow, hedged calls. A written list makes the decision binary. Either the request hits two of your three lists or it does not, and you move on without second-guessing.
You do not need every platform and every service. You need the handful where your reporters actually post. Pick one or two open platforms and one or two services that fit your beat and region.
For most founders that means Bluesky plus LinkedIn on the open side, and one service such as Featured, Qwoted, or SourceBottle on the structured side. A B2B operator might swap in Help a B2B Writer. Start narrow. You can add a source later if you find a gap. Ten half-watched sources are worse than two you check well, because the half-watched ones train you to ignore the feed.
Now cut the volume down to signal.
Then route everything to one surface. Send alerts to a single Slack channel, a filtered email label, or one saved column in whatever tool you use. The goal is one place to look, not ten tabs. A lean operator should be able to scan the day's relevant requests in a couple of minutes.
Be ruthless about muting. Every keyword that pulls in off-topic noise costs you attention you need for the real thing. If a saved search keeps surfacing requests you always skip, tighten it or drop it. The feed should earn your trust, so that when something appears in it, you already know it is worth a look.
Speed comes from preparation, not heroics. The reason most people miss the window is that they start from a blank page when a request lands. Build the kit once, keep it in a single document, and you assemble a response instead of writing one from scratch.
Your kit holds:
With the kit ready, a strong-fit request becomes a ten-minute job: pick the stance, drop in the proof point, match the format, send.
You do not have to watch all day. Constant monitoring is how reactive PR eats a founder alive. Pick two or three check times that fit your market's news rhythm, for example mid-morning and mid-afternoon in your main time zone, and hold to them. Requests with longer deadlines wait fine. For the truly fast ones, the feed and list you built will push the best candidates to the top when you look.
Doing it lean costs nothing. Free platform search, free tiers on the services, and one shared document for your kit will carry you a long way before any spend is justified. The system is small on purpose, because a small system is one you will actually run every week.
Give yourself a fast triage rule for each check-in. Scan the new requests, mark the one or two genuine fits, and ignore the rest in the same pass. Do not save a maybe for later, because later it is stale. A fit gets your next ten minutes now. Everything else is gone, and that is the point.
Takeaway: Define your topics, markets, and formats first, watch only the few sources where your reporters post, filter hard into one place, keep a ready kit so you can respond in minutes, and check on a fixed cadence instead of all day.
Chapter 4
You saw the request early. It fits your beat. Now the whole game comes down to the message you send. Reactive responses are won or lost on two things together: speed and fit. Fast and off-target loses. Perfect and late loses. You need both.
Speed you solved in the last chapter with your watch system and ready kit. Fit is what the reporter judges in the first few seconds of reading. Fit means your response matches the brief so closely that the reporter can use it with almost no work. The easier you make their job, the more likely you are the one they pick. Every bit of friction, a missing detail, the wrong length, a link they have to chase, pushes them toward the next response in the pile.
A response that gets used almost always has the same four parts, in this order.
That is the whole shape. Short, complete, usable. It fits in the body of an email or a direct message with room to spare, and it never makes the reporter open an attachment to find the good part.
The order is deliberate. The reporter learns who you are, gets the usable line, sees the evidence, and then hears the offer, in the sequence they need to make a decision. Lead with the offer or the backstory and you bury the one thing they came for. Put the quote where their eye lands first.
The liftable quote is the heart of the response, and it is where most people fail. A usable quote makes a single point and says it with a spine. It takes a real position or states a concrete fact. It does not hedge, it does not stack three ideas into one sentence, and it does not sell your product.
Picture the reporter pasting your sentence into their draft and adding your name after it. If that works with zero editing, you wrote it well. If they would have to cut it down, untangle it, or strip out a plug, you made them work, and the next source who made it easy will win the slot. Give them language they would be comfortable printing under their own byline.
A simple test helps. Read your quote out loud and ask whether a stranger would understand the point with no other context. If it only makes sense after reading your website, it is too inside. Strip the jargon, name the thing plainly, and keep the one idea a reader would remember an hour later.
Reporters tell you exactly what they want. Give them that, precisely.
Leading with the request topic helps too. Open your email subject line or your first sentence with the thing they asked about, so they know in a glance that this is a response to their query. A reporter scanning twenty replies should be able to file yours instantly.
After enough reactive responses, the pattern is clear.
What gets picked: a specific, quotable line from a clearly named and credible source, backed by one concrete proof point, in the exact format requested, sent while the window is open, needing no editing.
What gets cut: a generic comment anyone could have written, a wall of text, a sales pitch wearing a quote, a reply that says hop on a call to learn more with nothing usable in it, attachments and links the reporter has to open, the wrong length, and anything that arrives late.
One more rule holds the whole thing together: be honest. Do not claim expertise you lack, do not stretch a number, and do not offer a customer who has not agreed. A reporter who gets burned once will never use you again, and reporters talk to each other. Your accuracy is the reason they come back, which is where the next chapter begins.
Timing beats polish when the two conflict. A clean, correct response sent in the first hour will usually win over a slightly better one sent near the deadline. If you can only do one thing well under pressure, be early with something solid and offer to refine it on a quick call.
Takeaway: Win on speed and fit together, send a four-part response of a one-line bio, a liftable quote, one proof point, and a deadline-friendly offer, match the reporter's format exactly, and never trade your accuracy for a placement.
Chapter 5
Reactive PR has an obvious temptation. If answering requests earns coverage, answer every request, as fast as possible, forever. That instinct will wreck the thing that makes reactive work. Scaling well means doing more of the right responses, not more responses.
Blasting a weak answer at every request feels productive. It is the fastest way to become the source reporters avoid. Journalists remember the people who waste their time with off-topic, generic, or salesy replies, and they stop opening them. The dedicated services track response quality, and some let reporters rate or block sources. Spraying does not scale your coverage. It scales your reputation as noise.
The lever is relevance, applied with discipline. Respond only when you can add something real: genuine expertise, a real proof point, a true fit with the brief. If you would have to stretch to answer, pass, and spend that time on a request you can own. Five sharp responses in a week beat fifty sprayed ones, every time.
There is a hidden cost people miss. Every weak response you send also trains you to lower your own bar, until sloppy becomes your default. Holding the line on relevance keeps your responses sharp and keeps your own standard high. The filter protects your craft as much as your name.
Your reputation with a reporter is the real asset reactive PR builds, and it is worth more than any single clip. A journalist who asked for a source, got a fast and accurate and quotable answer from you, and shipped their story on time now knows something valuable: that you are reliable under deadline. That memory is what you are protecting every time you choose whether to respond.
One strong interaction is worth more than fifty forgettable ones. It can turn into a direct line, a spot in the reporter's mental list of go-to sources, and coverage you never had to chase.
Reporters move outlets often. The relationship travels with the person, so a journalist you helped at one publication may bring you along when they join another. You are investing in the human, and that investment outlasts any single masthead.
A landed quote is a beginning if you treat it as one. After the story runs:
Over a few months this turns a scatter of one-off wins into a small roster of reporters who know you, which is the closest thing a lean team has to an agency's relationships, built for free.
The spirit behind all of this is to give before you ask. Share a useful data point even when it will not be quoted. Flag a story idea that suits them with no angle for yourself. Reporters notice who makes their job easier, and they repay it with access when it counts.
You cannot sharpen what you do not track. Keep a plain log, a spreadsheet is enough, with a row for every response you send:
Once a month, read it. Which topics landed. Which outlets and reporters respond to you. Which response shapes got used and which got ignored. The answers tell you where to aim. Feed them back into your beat definition and your ready kit, so next month's responses are tighter than this month's. This is the same loop serious PR runs at scale, kept small enough for one person to turn.
The log tells you things instinct hides. You may find that one outlet uses you every time while another never replies, or that your data-led responses land twice as often as your opinion-led ones. That pattern is your roadmap. Put more of your effort where the evidence says it pays.
When more than one person responds to requests, coordinate or you will embarrass yourselves. Two replies to the same reporter from the same company, in different voices, reads as exactly the spray you are trying to avoid. Share the log so everyone sees what has gone out. Agree who owns which beats. Keep one consistent voice across responses, grounded in the same proof points and stances. A small team that moves like a single sharp source beats a big one that floods the feed.
Decide in advance who speaks for the company on each beat, and let that person own the reply.
Takeaway: Scale relevance, not volume; protect your reputation with reporters as the real asset, turn each win into a lasting relationship, log every response and review it monthly, and coordinate a team so you speak as one source.
Chapter 6
Reactive PR is one half of a system. The other half is proactive. Run them together, in a region built for speed, and you have a PR engine a lean team can actually sustain.
Proactive and reactive are opposite motions that feed each other.
In proactive PR you set the agenda. Your news, your narrative, your chosen outlets, your timing. It is the right tool for a launch, a funding round, a milestone, anything where you need a specific story told on a specific day. It takes longer and lands less often per attempt, because you are creating demand rather than meeting it.
In reactive PR the reporter sets the agenda and you fill the brief. It is the right tool for a steady presence between announcements, for building relationships, and for fast wins when you have no news of your own. It lands more often, because the demand is already there.
They compound. Reactive wins give you clips and reporter relationships that make your next proactive pitch land, because the journalist already knows you. Your proactive narrative and brand work give you the clear, consistent point of view that makes your reactive responses sharp. Underneath both sits brand strategy: a clear message and a defensible stance, so every response and every pitch sounds like the same company saying the same true thing. That join, brand to earned media to the AI answer, is the whole idea behind Cites X.
Most teams lean too hard on one motion. All proactive and you go quiet between announcements. All reactive and you never shape your own story. Running both, on a shared brand foundation, keeps you present every week and in control of the narrative when it matters.
Two features of the region turn reactive PR from useful into an edge.
Language. A request from an Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese, or Japanese reporter is best answered in that language, or with an offer of a spokesperson who speaks it. Most foreign competitors answer only in English, if they see the request at all. A clean, quotable comment in Bahasa Indonesia, Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, or in Traditional or Simplified Chinese puts you ahead of a field that barely shows up.
Time zones. A same-day deadline from a reporter in Singapore, Hong Kong, Jakarta, or Tokyo falls inside Asian business hours. A team responding from the United States or Europe is asleep or a dozen hours behind, and by the time they reply the window has closed. If you are in region and ready, you win on the clock without being smarter, only faster and closer.
The outlets are concrete and reachable: Tech in Asia, e27, DealStreetAsia, and KrASIA across the region, The Business Times and The Straits Times in Singapore, the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, Nikkei Asia pan-regionally. Their reporters post requests on the same open platforms everyone else uses, plus local-language channels.
Context is the third advantage. A reporter covering a Jakarta fintech story wants a source who understands local rails, regulators, and buyer habits, and a transplanted Western template reads as exactly that. If you operate in the market, your answer carries detail an outsider cannot fake, and that specificity is what gets quoted.
Everything in this guide can be run by hand. Cites X exists to run it for you, and to join it to the rest of your brand and PR.
That is brand strategy, earned media, and AI-answer visibility in one loop, which is exactly what buyers now reward when they ask ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, or Gemini for a recommendation.
Run by hand, the loop works. Run with the platform, it keeps running while you build the rest of the company.
Do not wait for a tool to start. This week, by hand:
That is the loop. Run it once by hand and you will feel why it works. Run it every week and the clips, the relationships, and the AI citations compound. When you are ready to run it at scale and tie it to your brand and your AI visibility, that is what Cites X is for.
Takeaway: Pair reactive with proactive on a foundation of clear brand strategy, use language and time zone as your edge in Asia, and start this week by writing your beat, building a ready kit, and answering one real request fast; Cites X runs that loop and reads the AI-citation lift that follows.
Cites X runs the whole loop: build the brand, win the coverage, and become the answer AI gives.
Demander l'accès → More Field Guides →