Nirit Cohen

The pitches that get my attention are the ones that clearly understand the conversation I'm already part of. They don't just offer a person, a product, or a report. They connect them to my narrative.

This is what makes them stand out. It signals that someone has actually read the work, followed the thread, and thought about where this fits — not just sent a list of journalists and hoped for the best.

I also always look at the person behind the pitch. If someone is positioned as a thought leader, that perspective should show up somewhere. I'll check what they've written, how they show up online, and whether there's a consistent point of view.

When there's no real presence — or when it's clear the narrative is entirely constructed by a PR firm — it immediately weakens credibility. The content and the person behind it need to align.

What quickly turns me away is when a pitch feels like a generic asset being distributed at scale. A book summary, a leadership framework, or a data point without context is not enough anymore.

These are crowded spaces. If you don't show why this matters now, for my content, for my audience, and how it adds something distinctive to the conversation, it becomes very easy to ignore.

Another issue I see often is follow-up that ignores the response. If I've taken the time to reply and explain that something isn't a fit for my scope, continuing to pitch the same angle signals that the relationship is transactional rather than thoughtful.

In some cases, repeated outreach after a clear response leads me to filter or block the sender. Beyond the individual interaction, this creates a broader problem — it reduces the time and attention I have for other pitches, including ones that may actually be relevant but get lost in the noise.

The best PR professionals treat a response as input. They refine the angle, ask for clarity, or move on.