Data-Led Digital PR for Regulated Categories

A data story that lands in three national titles typically returns between six and twenty linking root domains, and roughly a third of those will be syndication copies pointing at the same URL. That is the honest arithmetic, and it is why we build campaigns around datasets rather than around opinion. A journalist can decline your comment. A figure they cannot generate themselves is harder to write around. Where the stories come from: Public data that newsrooms can reach and have no time to query. In Poland we work regularly with NFZ reporting on treatment volumes and waiting times, GUS demographic and health series, ZUS absence records, the KNF register of authorised entities and UOKiK decisions. Internationally, Eurostat, ONS, EBA disclosures and clinical trial registries. Some campaigns run instead on the client's own operational data, aggregated and anonymised, which is usually the strongest asset in the building and the one your legal team is most nervous about. The method: We find the cut that answers a question a desk editor already wants answered, then test whether it survives a hostile reading by someone who knows the field. The methodology is published on your own domain: sample, source, date range, and what the figure does not show. That page is what gets linked and what defends the story when a specialist disputes it on a Tuesday afternoon. Then embargo, an exclusive where an exclusive is worth more than reach, and a short pitch list rather than a blast. Approvals, built into the schedule: In pharma, medtech and regulated finance, the interpretation of a dataset clears the same review as any other claim. We write the pitch, the methodology page and the spokesperson quote for that review in a single pass, so the embargo date is set after sign-off rather than negotiated against it. Campaigns that skip this step die in the final hours and your press office pays for it in credibility with those desks, not just in fees. Spokesperson work: Journalists link to people. We prepare the named expert on what they can say, what they must not, and the two or three questions they will be asked that are not about the data. That briefing happens before the interview requests arrive, not in the ten minutes after one does. What we refuse: Panel surveys of two thousand adults dressed up as research. We will not run survey campaigns at all in health categories, because an invented-looking statistic about symptoms remains attached to a medtech brand long after the links have been counted. No outcome claims in a release, no implied comparative efficacy, no study-finds framing over a dataset that is not a study. We decline campaigns whose purpose is coverage of a funding round or an award, which earns mentions and almost never earns links. Reporting: Placements, linking root domains, whether each link points at the methodology page or the homepage, and every mention that ran unlinked with a note on what we did to convert it. We also report the pitches that were declined and the reason given, because declines shape the next campaign more reliably than the wins do. Who this is not for: Companies wanting a monthly release cadence. That is a press office function and a good in-house one does it better and cheaper than we will. Brands with nothing proprietary and no appetite to fund original data work, because without either this becomes commentary and commentary earns mentions. Anyone who needs coverage by a fixed date, since embargoes move whenever a bigger story does and we will not pretend otherwise in a contract. We operate in Polish and English, across Polish national and trade press and English-language trade titles in health, finance and endurance sport.