The template
Everything in [brackets] must be replaced with something specific. If you can't fill a bracket with something real, don't send the email — that bracket is telling you that you haven't done the research yet.
Hi [Name], [One sentence proving you actually read their work — a specific reference to a recent piece, argument, or data point of theirs, and why it stuck with you. This sentence cannot be reusable.] I'm reaching out because [the specific asset — study, dataset, tool, guide] might be useful for [their beat, or the specific story angle you're suggesting]. The short version: [the single most interesting finding or capability, in one sentence, with a number if you have one]. [One or two sentences of substance: methodology in brief, or the two or three findings most relevant to their audience. Give them enough to quote you without clicking anything.] Here's the full piece if useful: [URL] If you'd like the underlying data, a custom cut for [their audience/region/industry], or a quote, I'm happy to provide any of those — no strings. Either way, thanks for [specific thing from sentence one, briefly]. [Your name] [One-line real credential — who you are and why you're a citable source on this] [Website]
Why each part is there
- The opener earns the read: journalists get dozens of pitches a day, and the first sentence is where they decide you're a human or a mail merge.
- The 'short version' respects their time: one finding, one sentence. If they want more, everything else is one click away.
- Giving quotable substance inside the email means you can be cited even if they never click — a mention with your name is still a win (and mentions are the strongest measured correlate of AI-search visibility).
- The 'custom cut' offer is the highest-converting line in the template: offering the data sliced for their audience turns a pitch into a collaboration.
- 'No strings' and no link request: you never ask for a link. Editorial placements happen when linking to you is the natural way to credit the source.
Personalization: the part that actually matters
Let me be blunt about what personalization is not. Inserting a first name is not personalization. Inserting the site's name is not personalization. "I loved your recent article" with the title macro-inserted is not personalization — it's the exact pattern every spam filter, human and algorithmic, is trained on. If 80% of your email is identical across recipients, you sent a template, and recipients experience it as one no matter which tokens you swapped.
Real personalization is a research artifact: it proves you spent minutes, not seconds, on this person. Reference the argument they made, not the fact that they made one. Connect your asset to their specific angle. Disagree respectfully with a point if you genuinely do — nothing signals a real reader like informed pushback. My working rule: the first sentence and the 'why this fits your beat' sentence must be unreusable. If you could paste them into an email to anyone else, rewrite them.
| Fake (template with tokens) | Real (research artifact) |
|---|---|
| "Hi Sarah, I loved your recent article on local SEO!" | "Hi Sarah — your point that review recency beats review count matched exactly what we saw in our own client data, with one exception worth flagging." |
| "I think my article would be a great fit for your audience." | "Since your piece focused on NJ service businesses, I pulled the NJ-only slice of our data — 3 of the 14 findings look different from the national picture." |
| "Would you consider linking to my resource?" | "Happy to share the methodology or a quote if useful — no strings either way." |
The follow-up (send exactly one)
Hi [Name] — following up once on the [asset] I sent over [day]. One thing I didn't mention that might be more relevant to you: [a genuinely new finding, angle, or offer — not a restatement]. If it's not a fit, no need to reply, and I won't follow up again. [Your name]
The Backlinko/Pitchbox data found that following up improves reply rates, but the returns come from the first follow-up — send it three to five business days later, add something new, and honor the promise not to send a third. Persistence past that point converts approximately nobody and burns the relationship for every future pitch.
Before you send: the pre-flight list
- The asset is genuinely citable — original data, a real tool, or a resource better than what currently ranks. If not, fix the asset before writing any email.
- This person covers this topic — you've read at least two of their pieces, and the pitch references one specifically.
- Every [bracket] is filled with something that could not apply to another recipient.
- You're offering value (data, quotes, custom cuts), not requesting a favor. The word "link" ideally appears nowhere in the email.
- Your list is small: 20 well-researched sends beat 500 blasts on both replies and reputation — large-volume blasts perform several times worse in the outreach data.
- Your from-address, name, and site make you instantly verifiable as a real person.