How Research Makes Your PR Pitch Stand Out

Ever wonder why some PR pitches get immediate attention while others languish in crowded inboxes? The secret might be in how you're using—or misusing—research data.

Nathan Richter of Wakefield Research pulls back the curtain on the powerful relationship between public relations and data research, revealing how these disciplines must work in concert rather than as separate functions. With experience on both sides of the equation, Richter speaks directly to the challenges PR professionals face when trying to make their stories stand out.

The conversation tackles a widespread problem in communications: the tendency to equate complexity with sophistication when presenting research. As Richter explains, "Many PR people, when they have data in hand, tend to be extremely excited and eager to publicize it... unfortunately, many equate complexity with sophistication or quality. Nothing could be further from the truth." In an environment where journalists face a barrage of pitches daily, clarity and credibility become your most valuable currency.

Perhaps most valuable is Richter's breakdown of the "broken process" most organizations use to develop research for public consumption. Rather than the common approach of brainstorming questions without clear intention, he advocates for a hypothesis-driven methodology that starts with desired outcomes. This approach triangulates what brands want to communicate, what media wants to hear, and what can actually be discovered through research—creating stories that truly resonate.

For PR professionals looking to elevate their media relations through research, this conversation offers practical guidance on building credibility, avoiding common pitfalls, and developing partnerships with research specialists who understand the unique demands of earned media. Whether you're pitching complex healthcare data or consumer trends, the principles remain the same: simplify, clarify, and validate your story with data that journalists can trust.

Take your PR strategy to the next level by understanding how research can transform from merely supporting content to becoming your strongest competitive advantage in a crowded media landscape.

Information on NEW podcast website.

Chapters

• 0:00 Making Research Actionable for PR
• 3:37 Converting Data into Meaningful Stories
• 9:20 Building Credibility as a Data Provider
• 13:52 Industry Complexity and Simplifying Data
• 17:12 Audience Selection and Collaborative Research
• 21:54 The Value of Hypothesis-Driven Research

Transcript

PeterWoolfolk: 2:10

His approach is all about making research actionable for communications professionals and fails to breakthrough skepticism and that just filled file with steps. His insights are uniquely valuable, including how to design research that general journalists don't just cover, but they genuinely trust it. His background is in both public relations, and research allows him to speak the language of communicators at all levels. Now joining me today from Arlington, Virginia is Nathan Richter of Wakeville Research. Nathan, welcome to the podcast. Well, that's first of all, let's talk about how you merge the public relations and data research.

NathanRichter: 2:59

Yeah, happy to. So uh most uh PR folks, when they're doing research, are uh tend to silo those two things. They think of PR as one function and research as another, but really they they work in concert with one another and they they must work in concert with one another. Um the way I like to think about it is this the the story you're pitching to media at the end of the day is uh it shares all the characteristics of of what makes media compelling, right? It's differentiated, it's new, um, hopefully if you're doing your job well, it's carrying brand messaging on behalf of your brand. Um and and that is the story. But what research does when used properly is it validates that story. And it gives media, particularly top-tier media or media that's facing uh you know a barrage of pitches every day. Uh anyone that's on that side of it knows what that can be like. Um it gives them a way to identify your pitch as being better than the others. Um so these things have to work in concert.

PeterWoolfolk: 4:00

So basically what I hear you're saying is that by adding the uh statistical data in there, it it gives you uh it it how would I put it, uh sets you above the rest, so to speak, because you begin uh providing a more comprehensive story to them.

NathanRichter: 4:18

Absolutely. You know, if we think about what makes stories compelling generally, we know the list, and I just reviewed some of that there, right? Um but there are additional considerations for for survey-based pitches, and there are some very uh easy traps that PR professionals tend to fall into. And keeping in mind that I've I've worked for an agency PR, I've done political communications as well, even before um approaching it from the research perspective. So I've lived this a little bit. I I empathize with with your with many of your listeners. Um, but there are um areas that that become problematic. So one is a lot of PR people, when they have data in hand, they tend to be extremely excited and eager to publicize that because it is a something of a relief to have something real and credible to pitch. A lot of PR pitches, we've all been there, are tend to be things that we kind of cooked up ourselves with our colleagues and and perhaps with our clients. And there's things that we're sort of using our credibility as an agency to say, oh, this is a real thing. But data allows you to kind of convey that credibility through a third party. And that's wonderful. Unfortunately, many PR people in that environment equate complexity with sophistication or complexity with quality. And really nothing could be further from the truth because in earned media relations, Peter, you know the story must be clear, it must be concise, it has to be easy to convey. And so if we aren't doing that, and if we're using data to sort of uh confuse and overwhelm, then it's not doing its job. But if it's complementing the story, if it's validating the story, now you're differentiating your pitch from everyone else's, and you're not making up your pitch, you're you're sharing insights.

PeterWoolfolk: 6:04

You know, I think you maybe just answered my uh next question would be how do you how can PR teams convert data into meaningful stories that journalists will actually use? And I think you began to uh you know touch on that. Uh so if if there are any way that you can expand on that, uh that part would be helpful as well. Happy to.

NathanRichter: 6:23

Yeah, no, happy to. I mean, I I would say that the the process by which most people, whether they're in public relations or they're working in in research, the process by which they develop research for public release and thought leadership is is broken for many people. Um most agencies, uh most research firms even, tend to uh through one means or another, uh maybe in a group project or maybe over email or maybe even as a solo operator, they tend to throw a bunch of questions into a document and then they hopefully work with a research provider to essentially clean it up. And I'm asked that all the time from clients, you know, we need this cleaned up. What that means is a technical review. And what that produces is a uh kind of uh you know, kind of pray and spray approach where you're asking a bunch of questions but without intention. And so when it comes time to translate the data that you ultimately return from that process into a credible pitch and into a good story, now you're putting together a Franken story, you're sort of cobbling together uh your your data points, and you're wishing you would ask this, and you're wishing you would ask this something differently. Um it's it's a really broken process. And so the way that you use this process on behalf of brands is to take a hypothesis-driven approach. Um, the the the the chief delineation is this the former approach, the broken way, is people come up with questions, but with a hypothesis-driven approach, it's the answers that matter. What helps tell our story? Is it new? And then if we ask a fair question, is that thing discoverable? And so in that way, we're connecting what the brand wants to say, which uh to my PR friends out there is a tough job because often what the brand wants to say is not news. Um, you're combining that with what the media wants to hear, and then triangulating that with, well, what is actually discoverable in research? And that is a very difficult thing to do, but by assessing the media landscape, by assessing the research landscape, um, by by kind of applying the skills of our various trades, um, you can produce really compelling database survey pitches. So it's a little bit of science and and a little bit of magic too.

PeterWoolfolk: 8:40

So I think you're beginning to also uh let me just ask this question then. How can PRCF build credibility as both data provider and reliable communicator? And I think you began to touch on that as well.

NathanRichter: 8:52

A hundred percent. You know, what when when I was on um your side of the ball, uh, you know, in strictly your earned media uh PR, uh credibility was um the currency of the realm, and and I'd like to think it remains so. Um, particularly these days, an environment where for anyone pushing earned content, the media landscape has, of course, been contracting for what do you think, Peter, you know, 20 years. But now the number of editors and producers within the remaining outlets is contracting as well. And so there's there's to maintain credibility uh is so important because if you don't, you are going to burn a relationship. That is particularly true if you are pushing survey data that was collected uh incorrectly or analyzed incorrectly. And it's never been a more dangerous time for PR agencies and PR professionals to uh sort of DIY this this kind of tactic. Um there are a number of pop-up shops out there, there's all kinds of kind of do-it-yourself options, and um to me, you are in you are inviting, and I see this all the time, you are inviting chaos because when pitching top-tier media, they're going to be looking for things within the data that um that convey that credibility. Um these are things like setting representative points against an audience, making sure questions are asked properly, making sure the data is reported out properly. And you know, it's very, very difficult for a lot of PR folks, given all the other things that they're managing, to do that. This is a essentially a specialty, right? Um I think it's very similar to sort of you know DIY home improvement projects. You know, I would often say this that you could attempt it, um, you might succeed. Chances are you're going to spend more time, more money, and you may even hurt yourself in the process. Um, and in the case of PR, you may hurt your brand by pushing out something that is less than credible. Um, that the the lasting impact of that is so uh much less than um than the maybe saving a few dollars by doing it yourself. So credibility matters both in in in the ideas, of course, but also how we validate those ideas through the research.

PeterWoolfolk: 11:13

Now the the other thing as I listen to you, as you said, you know, getting uh PR people to the point that they can comfortably present this information. Uh do you recommend that they do it collaborate with uh, you know, who will they collaborate as they're a data person, bring them in for the first couple of trials to make sure that so they can gain their own comfort level rather than okay, here's what the researcher gave me and then present it. The problem with that to me is that if I walk in SLSA naked, I'm just gonna read to you what we present it and other questions come up I can't answer, that could be uh a a big issue.

NathanRichter: 11:50

Yeah, exactly right. So something that we really um emphasize here at Wake Wakefield Research is by working with us, you will learn a lot about research and you will become uh a better PR practitioner and a and and someone who is better able to wield research. Um but have that doesn't make you a researcher. Um so making sure that you're working with someone uh that can um that can represent the research, that can answer questions from media on how it was conducted, um, that can uh make sure that you're presenting things correctly is really crucial. And and something we do here, and we do this at no cost, and this isn't an advertisement for us, but it's sort of a good uh illustration of what you're talking about, is we review our partners' press materials for data accuracy if they like, it's an option, uh, before they go out to media or before they go out to their client or whoever they're sending it to. And the reason we do that is, of course, to be helpful, but also because it is so easy to um to change a word or to misread a statistic and present something that is inaccurate or that is not uh accurate enough. And when we are doing research with a partner, our brand is attached to it too. In fact, that's a large part of what makes it mediable, is knowing it is conducted with a credible organization. So we are all in the same boat together. So we really emphasize providing that backstopping um ability. Um it's something that uh I think um you know most folks uh when they are sourcing a provider don't really think about. But it matters a great deal when you are when you have an opportunity with a really important um media outlet or when there's maybe an issue with something you've presented, or a perceived issue, which is often the case. There's often sort of a question, a driving question. You want to have a team in your corner that is um accomplished in the in in research and that is accustomed to talking to media, and I think that understands the stakes of talking with media. Um that is you know, that's the difference between sort of weing it and and really having a team uh behind you.

PeterWoolfolk: 14:01

Now, are there areas, uh when I say areas, I mean let's say retail and maybe educational health, that data from those particular areas and others uh are some much more difficult to explain to people who aren't familiar with hearing it in in their uh particular areas?

NathanRichter: 14:20

You know, well, there there's there are certainly sectors that are more likely to invite um complex ideas or stories that require more knowledge, um, you know, industry knowledge or knowledge about a given audience than others. And you know, we we we run the gamut here, and and a lot of your listeners I'm sure do too as well. We you know, working with uh a pharma company that is exploring opinions amongst a specific patient population or a specific provider population, doing that work globally. You know, we work in 96 countries, so doing that work in Europe, for example, where there are real um kind of uh constraints on on what can be communicated and how data is collected, um, that that is certainly more complex than um another category of surveys we like, you know, the the the goofy holiday surveys that people tend to do, or the relationship, you know, the kind of the soft news kind of consumer packaging relationship stuff. So there are differences there. But whether you're talking about a comp a complex patient population or whether you're talking about sort of you know what what your dad wants for Christmas, um the rules of the game are the same. You have to simplify, it has to be um clear and concise and and easy to convey. And as I've said before, a lot of PR professionals, when they get data, they try to pitch complex analysis. And this is made worse by research providers that they might be contracting with, or even researchers in their own agencies that that don't understand, really understand PR and what it's like to pitch PR in an earned media environment. And the the research industry is notorious for hiding behind complexity, right? I'm I'm a wizard in a tower doing a you know a dark magic that you don't understand, trust me, it's fine. That is not how research should feel, but but that's just because most researchers are not communicators and it's such an unforced error. Um so we regardless of the issue, the questions should be elegant and simple and easy to understand and easy to report out, even if the knowledge required to know if a question is interesting or how to properly report that out is complex and requires sort of a deep well of experience, the tool itself should be very, very clean and very easy to use.

PeterWoolfolk: 16:35

Now, uh in terms of uh the data of the collection, do you collaborate with your clients? Do they give you the target, uh market, if you will, or audience that they'd like to get the data from?

NathanRichter: 16:48

Sometimes. So um on occasion, um you know uh we have folks come to us with with you know a specific audience, and after discussing with them what they hope to learn or what they hope the story they hope to tell, or the media they hope to bring that to, we'll we we have no private object. We have an audience that's right. Usually, as often, uh, we're looking for um diplomatic ways to steer them in a more productive uh direction. And you know, one of the things that we try to emphasize here, and one of the ways your your your listeners can improve their research, is really thinking about um the the sort of the story they want to tell and where and to who they want to tell it. Because oftentimes we see one of the mistakes we see our partners make at in in the early stages is they're really focused on audience. They'll say, and this is more demand gen, which is obviously intersecting with with PR, but they'll say, our customer is this certain type of executive. And it may be the case that a survey amongst that executive is exactly the right story to tell based on their objectives. But as often it's not, because perhaps what that executive, that buyer uh needs to hear is they need to see data from their customers or they need to see data from people that are more uh that that are less senior in their organization, and that's what it would actually appeal to them. And so we want to begin with what media are we bringing this to? What other types of public uh communications are we engaging in? Is there a sales component here? Um specifically, what editors or features are you hoping, or producers are you hoping to pitch? And then working backwards from that. And so it does become a bit of a chicken and egg. Um ultimately you're better off, I guess with the chickens and the end result, you're better off starting with the chickens and the egg. But we have to start with the egg too.

PeterWoolfolk: 18:40

You know what what I'm getting from this is that uh there has to be a very in-depth and uh a lot of specificity when you have meetings as to what uh uh folks would like to get from this research so that they can be accurate in delivering the information and uh to to their uh their uh uh clients.

NathanRichter: 18:59

Absolutely. Um it that that has several benefits. First, it has a the practical benefit of having um uh uh sort of a monetary uh benefit. And what I mean by that is that oftentimes there's a solution that's not only better, but that costs less. And that's something that a good research provider, if they understand PR and they understand earned media communications, should be able to discuss with you. Um there um there are uh uh you know other benefits here as well, because a lot of what we do and a lot of what your listeners are likely doing is we're constantly educating the sponsors, the brand, the people writing the checks at the end of the day, educating them about PR, and in this case, how to use research for PR. And so the more conversations we have up front about who are your media targets, what are the applications of the data, what is your timing, realistically, if you can share it, what is your budget? These things allow us then to look at the constellation of variables in front of us and to really organize those into a picture that meets objectives and satisfies the realistic and real-world requirements of time and money. And so there's a mistake I think a lot of uh organizations make, um, and a lot of folks in communications make, which is they they've only gone so far as to say, well, we want to survey, we want to survey moms on holiday purchases. Fine, we can do that. We get that instruction all the time. But we are far better served as a group, as a group of people working towards a goal if we can have a really in-depth conversation about, well, well, who are your targets and what are the things that have worked well for brand before, and what are the things you pitched them in uh up to now that uh that they've been excited about? And by the way, how quickly do you need this and what's the budget? And and really thinking about all those characteristics. You know, you wouldn't set out for a cross-country trip just by saying, well, let's get to California, just point west and start walking. You would have to think about transportation and food and how you're gonna get there and the route you're gonna take and the weather, and and and in real-world project management, which ultimately you will not be able to avoid, uh, those things really matter.

PeterWoolfolk: 21:06

So basically what I'm hearing about this is that that there really needs to be a lot of specificity and uh a clear understanding of uh an agency, a PR agency, knowing exactly what it is they need to get researched on, uh the depth of it, the width of it, and uh all the other things that might be involved in making making helping them to make or helping the clients to make decisions about uh certain things that they're looking for.

NathanRichter: 21:33

Yes, it's it's a it's a good start. I would I would add a little a little color, a little nuance to that by saying that the exercise of thinking through that um as you engage with a research provider will put you in a better position to be helped by a good and knowledgeable research provider because you have already thought critically about it. We we don't, and I and I imagine most wouldn't, require anyone to have fully uh conceived and and kind of baked the entire program. Um you know, we the work that we do here, we're we're writing questions for people, we're ideating, we'll come from concepts. Um so we're doing a lot of that heavy lifting, but having the understanding of what are the KPIs and what are the expectations and what does this need to do on a on a practical and on a strategic level is a really great place from which to build an even more intelligent program or more even intelligent tactic.

PeterWoolfolk: 22:24

Well, Nathan, uh, you provided an awful lot of information for our listeners. Anything that you think we miss uh in terms of uh uh having uh data folks and PR folks working together?

NathanRichter: 22:37

Uh well I well first I'd like to say thank you for your your questions, and it's been really, really fun to talk with you. Um and I think your your question phrasing itself is um is really excellent because it is about working together and working with your if you're if you find a knowledgeable research provider, someone you trust, bringing them into the fold and and coordinating, collaborating with them to meet your objective is the right approach. It's a mistake to think of your of any provider as sort of just a vendor. And I know that's a very uh vendor-y thing to say, um, but uh but it is the truth because our job is to work as a consultant. You know, we do work 50 to Fortune 100, we do work in 96 countries, and I think really importantly, we work with every large and medium and small agency you can possibly think of, many of whom have their own internal research capabilities, um, in part because there is value in working with a with a specialist in this area. And so I would say be honest about your needs, be honest about your constraints, and look to find someone in the research role who can be that partner to you. Um, and then if I can just make a small secondary pitch for your listeners to really think about the value of being hypothesis-driven and thinking about outcomes before you get too tied up in uh the right methodology or the right audience characteristics, sort of what do we hope the data will do for us and when do we hope it will do it for us? Those are really important considerations.

PeterWoolfolk: 24:07

Well, Nathan, let me say thank you so very, very much for uh being our guest on the Public Relations Review podcast today. I'm sure that our audience will benefit tremendously from information.