Playbook replay
Newsjacking angles
Five angles on a live story, two already taken, one flagged as a brand risk, and an honest read on how long the window stays open.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
Newsjacking has a shelf life measured in days. Knowing which angles are taken is more valuable than generating more of them.
Checking what has already been written before suggesting anything, because the fastest way to waste a pitch is to offer a journalist the angle they filed yesterday.
Fourteen pieces in five days. Here is what is already covered.
| Angle | Pieces | Status |
|---|---|---|
| What the rules say, explainer | 9 | Saturated |
| Cost to small brands | 3 | Taken, but thin |
| Consumer confusion | 2 | Taken |
| Refill and decant implications | 0 | Open |
| Enforcement, who checks | 0 | Open |
The explainer angle is gone. Nine outlets have run it and none of them need a founder quote to write the tenth.
The two open ones are open for different reasons: refills are a genuine gap nobody has thought about yet, and enforcement is open because it is boring and nobody has found the hook.
Five angles, strongest first.
1. Refills have no label. Subject: The new labelling rules did not consider refills
A pouch is not a bottle and the rules assume one label per container. Mei can explain what a refill brand actually has to do to comply, which nobody has written about because almost nobody sells refills. Trade press and the packaging desks.
2. Who is actually checking. Subject: New cosmetic labels, and nobody to read them
The enforcement question. Riskier: it invites a story about non-compliance that could later include you. Business and regulatory desks.
3. The small-brand cost, with a real number. Subject: What relabelling six products actually cost us
Three outlets have run this angle without a figure from anyone. A real number from a real brand is what makes it a story rather than a complaint. Requires you to disclose a cost you may not want public.
4. Why this is good, actually. Subject: A small brand that welcomes the labelling rules
Contrarian and therefore easy placement, because every other quote is a complaint. Only works if you genuinely mean it.
5. What the label still will not tell you. Subject: The rules changed. The thing customers want to know is still missing.
Broadest and weakest. Sits closest to marketing, which the good desks will smell.
Flagged, angle 2. Commenting on enforcement attaches Lumira to any subsequent story about brands failing to comply. If your own labelling is not finished, do not offer this one.
Window. Coverage peaked on day 2 and the volume has halved since. Angles 1 and 2 stay live for roughly another week because they are unwritten. Angles 3 to 5 are already late. If you are pitching on Monday, pitch 1.
Naise created an artifact
Five angles ranked against what has already been written, with one brand risk and a window estimate.
What is left
| Angle | Already written? |
|---|---|
| Explainer | 9 pieces, saturated |
| Cost to small brands | 3, thin |
| Refill implications | 0, open |
| Enforcement | 0, open |
Lead with
"The new labelling rules did not consider refills." A pouch is not a bottle, the rules assume one label per container, and almost nobody else sells refills.
Risk: the enforcement angle attaches you to future non-compliance stories.
Window: coverage halved since day 2. Angles 3 to 5 are already late.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free