A new direction
Op-ed pitch reviews from an op-ed editor
Laid up with Covid over the last few weeks, I’ve had a lot of time to think. One thing I’ve thought about is the future of this newsletter.
I’ve gotten a really positive reaction to the idea of evaluating op-ed pitches from the perspective of an op-ed editor. After doing a pitch review in the previous edition, I remembered how much I enjoy it.
I feel confident that I have a unique opportunity to help aspiring op-ed writers and the PR/communications professionals who support them to pitch better.
So I’ve decided to rename this newsletter Pitches Get Stitches. Going forward, I’ll be writing critiques of op-ed pitches and advice on how to overcome common errors.
Many of you originally subscribed for my headlines of hypothetical op-eds I’d like to read. I’ll be pausing that for now, though I may continue it at some point in the future. For now, I’ve decided that it’s best to focus my efforts on what will be most helpful for writers.
If you’re interested in submitting a pitch for evaluation, email me at jake@getopinioned.com. If I select it, I’ll offer my thoughts in this newsletter at no cost. (I’m happy to omit any identifying information from the pitch, if you’d like the author to remain anonymous.)
I won’t go easy on you. But I can promise that I’ll give honest and thorough feedback, which I hope will help you improve your op-ed pitching and writing going forward.
Okay, on to the pitch review.
But first, subscribe to Pitches Get Stitches!
Wanting change doesn’t create change
Something is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.
Scan any op-ed page, and you’ll immediately find an op-ed written in this format. It’s the bedrock of persuasive writing.
But if you’re trying to land an op-ed in a major media outlet, it’s not enough.
While most op-ed pitches demonstrate a desire to solve a problem, few of them actually explain how to solve that problem. They just say the problem should be fixed, and “call on” some individuals or institutions to fix it. These pitches read more like wishlists than blueprints.
I probably don’t need to tell you which of those editors prefer.
Below you’ll find a pitch that gets the basics right—it has a clear thesis and it’s easy to understand—but doesn’t tell us enough about how to solve the problem it presents.
The Pitch
The “Fatal fentanyl overdoses up 279% since 2016” article highlighted the devastating consequences fentanyl continues to have on our communities. What the report also points out is the challenge in actually identifying fentanyl.
It’s no secret that fentanyl is contaminating the street drug supply—the supply to which addicted patients have turned to when their supervised pain management options expire. Yet the data is difficult to come by. It doesn’t have to be.
[We] would like to offer the attached article highlighting the utility of wider fentanyl testing in hospital laboratories. As accentuated in the above report, many opiate drug panels available in hospitals today exclude fentanyl entirely. In fact, only 5% of toxicology screens are currently testing for fentanyl.
Hospitals are uniquely positioned in the community to collect data on fentanyl in order to concretely uncover the prevalence in our communities. With testing, and the corresponding data collected, we can gain the critical level of awareness necessary to help facilitate proper treatment, prevent overdoses or recurrent overdoses, guide public health initiatives, and ultimately save lives.
The Stitches
Don’t tell editors what they already know
This pitch begins with data attempting to establish the depth of the fentanyl problem. That’s a waste of their time?
Media editors are constantly consuming news about big issues affecting society. You should assume they already know about the pressing issue of fentanyl overdoses. They don’t need any convincing.
Instead, start with a punchier statement. Write something like, “Fentanyl testing in hospitals make a huge difference in the fentanyl epidemic. But almost no hospitals are doing it.” That would compel me to read on.
You can still include data on the extent of the problem later in the pitch, if it doesn’t take up too much space. But don’t waste that precious space at the top.
Guide me from A to B
The final line of the pitch suggests better data collection could lead to better treatment of people using fentanyl. But it doesn’t say exactly how one leads to the other.
When I’m evaluating, I want to know the precise connection between cause and effect. Remember that I’m probably reading dozens of pitches a day. My mind might be melty goo by the time I’m reading your pitch. If you don’t make it explicit for me, I may decide to just pass.
The answer, of course, might be in your draft. But that means the editor needs to dig into the draft to find out. They might not be in the mood.
Demonstrating cause and effect allows you to provide details few others can. You can refer to research you or others have done, or specific scenarios you can recall from your own experience.
This is the type of analysis only an expert can provide. Take the opportunity, then, to show us how much of an expert you are.
Solve the problem
How do we actually get to the point where hospitals are thoroughly tracking fentanyl usage, helping to improve treatment outcomes and saving lives? The pitch doesn’t tell us.
As an editor, this leaves me frustrated. I want to know the answer!
One bad piece of conventional advice I often hear is that when pitching, the shorter the better.
Now, that’s definitely something you need to hear if your pitch is full of extraneous background information and digressions. But if you’re not doing that, then a brief breakdown of how you’d actually solve the problem is not just fine, it’s encouraged.
Instead of that, this pitch highlights the “utility” of wider testing and says "hospitals” are “uniquely positioned” to do it. That doesn’t tell me anything about how this is going to be accomplished.
I assume that since it hasn’t happened yet, there are barriers. Possibly those barriers are so high that the author’s proposal isn’t realistic. This is what starts to enter my mind as my questions are left unanswered. I start to fill in the blanks myself.
Editors are skeptical by nature. Don’t give them any more reason to be.
They’re looking for you to demonstrate your expertise by confidently telling us how to get to your proposed solution. They want you to make them feel as comfortable as possible. That they can trust you.
To reinforce that trust you need to get down and dirty. Address up front any questions you anticipate they might have.
Tell us why hospitals aren’t already doing this. Are legal or administrative barriers standing in the way? Are greedy hospital owners uninterested because there’s no profit incentive in tracking fentanyl? I have no idea … but I want to!
Once you’ve addressed these questions, tell us how to confront the obstacles. What changes need to be made so hospitals are more willing to screen for fentanyl? Or if hospitals aren’t the problem, then what is? And how will that be overcome? This level of detail is what you’ll need if you want to impress an editor.
I’m Jake Meth, founder of Opinioned, a consulting firm that helps thought leaders publish op-eds in top media. Previously, I built and edited Fortune’s opinion section. I’ve worked in journalism and communications for 15 years.
I’d love if you shared my newsletter with anyone who might be interested.