by Leo Wiles
03 August 2017
Hi Jess. Thanks for writing in. This really is a case of the chicken or the egg, isn’t it? As a former print editor, my view would be that if the story has legs, I’d like to know what the hook is that makes it newsworthy, unique and fresh – and how the writer intended to tell the story. I never actually needed a writer to drill down to the nitty gritty of which experts were going to be contacted. What I wanted was a broader point of view in the pitch and an assertion that the writer would represent all three sides of the story (by finding someone who was supportive of the angle, someone who was against the angle and someone someone who actually lived it).
Having said that, I worked mainly on lifestyle mags. If you were writing for The Lancet or The Wall Street Journal I can imagine you would definitely need to divulge sources. And in that case, I’d make it very clear with the potential interviewee that you cannot promise anything but would love to pitch his/her book, movie, show, record life experience etc. to said title (otherwise known as ‘buttering them up’). Or, you could be more vague about where you will pitch it so that when it ends up in Reader’s Digest and not The Lancet you’re not receiving irate calls from pissed off interviewees and their PR team. The same goes with telling them which issue it’s meant to appear in – never a good move either, unless you want a million phone calls before it actually goes to print.
I would also stress that you should not treat this initial call as a preliminary research mission. Do so and a) you’re going to waste your time and theirs if nobody commissions you and b) it’s career suicide to base your pitch on the relaxed informal chat you had with the interviewee. Why? Because when you’re in a bar chatting to someone or even on the phone having an informal chat, interviewees can open up in all sorts of ways that they then refuse to have on record. If you thought pitching the wrong angle was a rookie mistake, try telling an editor that the cover story of the century you offered is now nothing more than a space filler on page 39 because the interviewee suddenly has a serious case of amnesia or cold feet. Ooops.
Going back to your original question, Jess, if you have already lined up the eager interviewee only to pitch and burn, then why not pitch a different angle or suggest a way to make it more topical, or aligned with the title? Failing that, once you know the piece is dead in the water, simply explain to the interview that it’s not going to happen and eat some humble pie (or lie). Let them know that the outlet published a piece like it too recently, they already have something in the pipeline, they just had their budget slashed and aren’t taking any out of house work right now – or ‘fess up that it wasn’t the right fit for whatever reason. If you really think your story has merit add that you’d still like to find it a home if they’re okay with that. And start over…
Do you pitch first or line up sources first?
