Your named experts quoted in answer to live press briefs

In a normal month, roughly 300 journalist requests reach us across Qwoted, Featured and Connectively for one spokesperson in one B2B category. We answer 12 to 20 of them. About one answered brief in six gets published, and rather more than half of those published quotes carry a link back. The rest carry a name, a title and a company, which is the part a buyer actually reads. Anyone promising a fixed number of published quotes per month is either answering everything or writing on behalf of experts who never see the copy. The decision rule: A brief gets answered when three things hold at once. Your expert has actually done the thing being asked about. The outlet is one your buyers read, or one your sales team gets asked about. And the deadline allows the answer to be written properly rather than quickly. Fail any of the three and we pass, with the reason logged, so you can see the shape of what is being turned down and argue with it. Why most briefs are declined: Some are open casting calls that will quote fourteen people and link to none. Some come from sites that ask for a fee once the quote is in; we flag those by outlet and never pay one. Some ask a question your expert could only answer by guessing, and a guess in print becomes a liability the day a real reporter checks it. The awkward category is the last one: the brief is good, the outlet is good, and your expert's honest answer would undercut a claim your marketing team is currently making. We send the honest answer or we pass. We do not write around it. Before anything is sent: Each named expert sits for a recorded 40-minute interview, and we build a position sheet from it: 8 to 12 things this person will say on the record in their own phrasing, and the 3 to 5 they will not. That sheet is what makes a four-hour response possible without a sign-off chain, and it is what stops every quote sounding like the same agency wrote it. It is rebuilt each quarter, because positions move and a stale sheet produces a quote your expert has to disown. What your side provides: One person who can approve an unusual answer within a working day, and an expert who will take a 15-minute follow-up call when a reporter wants more than the quote. That call is where a single quote turns into a standing source relationship, which is the part of this work that compounds. Clients who cannot free anyone for it get published less, and we will say so at the second monthly review rather than the twelfth. Boundaries: We write in your expert's name from their own recorded words, and they see the copy before it is sent. We do not invent a spokesperson, do not answer as a persona, and do not use a generative model to fill a brief; several platforms now screen for it and a suspended account cannot be reopened under a new email. We do not pay for placement anywhere. We do not report on domain metrics, because the asset here is the named human, and an unlinked mention in a title your buyers read is worth more than a followed link in a site they have never opened. Not for you if: Your target is a monthly count of published quotes. That number is set by what reporters happen to be writing about this month, not by how hard anyone works. Your experts will not be named. Anonymous commentary is not commentary. You need coverage in one specific publication. Journalist requests are inbound demand; a single must-have masthead is an outreach problem and belongs in a different engagement. You are in a field where every statement needs written compliance review. Financial promotions and clinical claims can be handled, but the position sheet has to be signed off before the first brief goes out, and that adds two to three weeks at the front of the engagement.