I've spent fifteen years as a journalist, writing for The Guardian, The Times, Wired, the BBC, and others. I've received thousands of press releases about research. I've deleted most of them without reading past the subject line.
I've also been on the other side. Through Stokel Publishing, I help universities and research projects get their work into the news. I've seen what works and what doesn't from both directions.
Here's what I've learned: the standard university press release is one of the least effective communication tools ever invented. It's a format designed for an era when journalists had time, newsrooms had staff, and inboxes weren't overflowing. That era is over. If you want your research to make the news in 2026, you need a different approach.
Why Press Releases Fail
A typical university press release does the following things, in roughly this order:
- Announces that the university is pleased
- Names the funder and the grant amount
- Summarises the research in language the researcher wrote for the journal
- Includes a quote saying the researcher is delighted
- Buried in paragraph seven: the one fact that might actually interest a journalist
Journalists read subject lines and first paragraphs. That's it. If the subject line is "University of X announces breakthrough in Y" — delete. If the first paragraph is "Researchers at the University of X are pleased to announce..." — delete. The journalist has moved on to the next email, of which there are always several hundred.
The press release isn't the problem. The format is the problem. Here are seven things that work better.
1. Write the Story Before You Pitch It
This sounds obvious, but most universities don't do it. They send journalists a press release — a document written for journalists — and expect the journalist to extract the story from it. But a press release is not a story. It's a bundle of facts, quotes, and institutional scaffolding. The journalist has to do the work of turning it into something publishable.
What works better: write the story yourself. Not a summary. Not a list of findings. An actual 600-word news article, written in journalistic style, with a lede that grabs attention, a narrative arc, and quotes that sound like a human being said them. Give the journalist something they can publish with minimal editing.
Does this mean the journalist might use your copy verbatim? Sometimes, yes. And that's fine. You're not trying to win a Pulitzer. You're trying to get your research in front of a wider audience. If a busy science correspondent at a national newspaper can file your story in twenty minutes instead of two hours, they're far more likely to run it.
2. Find the Angle Before You Send Anything
Journalists don't cover research. They cover stories. The difference is an angle — a reason why this research matters right now, to the audience that reads this particular publication.
Your research on battery technology is important. But a journalist at The Times needs a different angle than a journalist at The Telegraph, who needs a different angle than a journalist at Wired. The Times might want the policy angle: "New battery breakthrough means Britain could hit net zero five years early." The Telegraph might want the consumer angle: "Why your next electric car could cost half as much to run." Wired might want the technology angle: "The nanostructure breakthrough that could make lithium-ion obsolete."
Same research. Three different stories. If you send all three journalists the same press release, you're making each of them do the work of finding their own angle. Most won't bother.
Instead: read the publication you're pitching. Understand their audience. Frame your research in terms that audience cares about. Put that frame in the subject line and first paragraph.
3. Make the Researcher Available — Actually Available
Nothing kills a story faster than a press officer who says "the researcher is available for interview" and then makes it impossible to actually interview them.
I've lost count of how many times I've responded to a pitch within an hour, asked for a fifteen-minute call with the researcher, and been told: "They're available next Thursday between 2 and 2:30." By next Thursday, the story is dead. The news cycle has moved on. I've moved on.
If you're pitching research to journalists, have the researcher briefed and available that day. Ideally within the hour. If that's not possible, negotiate: "She's in the lab until 4 but can call you then. Can we hold the story until tomorrow morning?" Journalists will work with you if you're responsive. They won't wait around if you're not.
4. Offer Exclusives (Strategically)
A mass email to 200 journalists is easy. It's also ineffective, because every journalist who opens it knows they're in a pack of 200 — and few want to run the same story as everyone else.
An exclusive — offering a story to one publication before anyone else — is harder to arrange but far more likely to result in coverage. The journalist feels valued. They know they'll have the story first. They'll invest more time, produce a better piece, and give it more prominent placement.
The trade-off: if the exclusive publication doesn't bite, you've lost time. So choose carefully. Pitch to a journalist who has covered your field before, at a publication that reaches your target audience. Give them 24 hours. If they pass, move on to the next.
5. Use the News Peg You Already Have
The most common reason research stories get killed: "There's no news peg." Translation: this is interesting, but there's no reason to run it today.
Sometimes the peg is the publication itself — the paper has just been published in Nature, and the embargo has lifted. But even when the paper is weeks or months old, you can still find a peg. Is there a related news event? A government announcement? A conference happening this week? A anniversary or milestone?
One of the most effective pitches I ever sent as a journalist was for a story about antibiotic resistance. The research was six months old. But the peg was World Antibiotic Awareness Week, and every health editor was looking for a story to run that week. The piece got front-page placement because it landed at the right moment.
6. Don't Overclaim
This is the fastest way to lose credibility with journalists. If your press release calls preliminary laboratory findings "a breakthrough that will revolutionise cancer treatment," the journalist who covers medical research for a living will roll their eyes and delete your email. Worse, they'll remember your institution as one that overclaims, and they'll be less likely to open the next one.
Be precise about what your research found, what it didn't find, and what the limitations are. Journalists respect honesty. They don't need every finding to be world-changing. They need it to be true and interesting.
7. Build Relationships Before You Need Them
The most effective pitch is the one you send to a journalist who already knows and trusts you. That trust isn't built in a day. It's built over months and years of sending them useful, accurate, well-framed stories that their readers actually want.
Identify the 5–10 journalists who most often cover your institution's research areas. Follow their work. Understand what they write about and how they write it. Send them things that are genuinely relevant — not everything your press office produces. When you have nothing to pitch, don't pitch. When you have something good, they'll open your email because they know you don't waste their time.
At Stokel Publishing, this is what we do. We know how journalists think because we are journalists. We write stories that publications want to publish — in the format, tone, and style that makes a busy editor say yes. If your research deserves to be in the news, we can help get it there.