Expert Sourcing and Journalist Quote Placement Programme

The platform this service is named after no longer exists. Cision retired Connectively, the product HARO had become, in December 2024. The requests moved to Qwoted, Featured, Source of Sources, Help a B2B Writer and ResponseSource, and to the private contact lists individual journalists keep. Anyone still selling HARO links as a product line has not looked at the market in over a year. In German-language media the open request feeds barely exist at all: German trade editors ask the sources they already have, by email. That is slower to build and considerably better to own. What we answer: Fewer than one in twenty of the requests that fit on paper. Answering everything is how a name gets filtered by the desks that matter, and a byline attached to fourteen generic quotes a month is worth less than one attached to two good ones. We answer where your expert has a first-hand observation a journalist cannot get from a search: a number out of your operation, a decision that went wrong, a mechanism they can explain because they have run it. What a used quote has in it: A number, a first-person observation, and no product. Two to four sentences. It answers the question that was asked rather than the question you wish had been asked. We draft in your expert's register, they approve it on a call or in writing before it goes out, and the approval is logged with a timestamp. We do not put words in a founder's mouth and hope nobody asks them about it in an interview six months later. What we need from your expert: A real person with a name, a face and a title, reachable inside one business day, willing to take a twenty-minute call when a journalist wants more than the quote. That last part is where most of these programmes fail. If your chief executive cannot be interrupted, nominate somebody who can. A head of operations with three years in the category makes a better source than an unreachable founder. The entity work underneath: An author page on your own domain carrying a credential a stranger can verify. A Muck Rack profile. Bio and title consistent across LinkedIn and the site, with sameAs markup pointing at both. Journalists check whether a source is real before quoting them, and so do the systems that decide whether a mention attaches to a person or to nothing at all. We do not: Pay for inclusion in roundups. Answer under a staff member's name on a subject they do not work on. Send an AI-drafted response the named expert has not read. Chase outlets that publish every submission, because those pages are read by nobody and the link is a liability rather than an asset. Wrong fit: Companies whose only available expert is the agency. If we are the source, it is our practice being built and not yours, and you should not pay for that. Also wrong: brands who want volume. A well-run sourcing programme produces a handful of placements a month, some with no link at all, and the value compounds through the return visits. A journalist who used you once asks again, and the second ask is not a competitive process. What you receive: A response log covering every request seen, the decision to answer or pass, and the reason. Placements recorded with date, outlet, journalist, the quote as published and the link status. A quote library so your expert stops answering the same question from a blank page each time.