Playbook replay
Monthly PR executive summary
Two paragraphs a CEO will read, with reprints separated from originals and an explicit list of what the coverage did not do.
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.
"Quoted as an authority" and "covered as a launch" produce identical placement counts and completely different outcomes. The split is the whole report.
Reading the ten pieces before counting them. The goal was authority rather than volume, so what matters is whether Lumira appears as a source or as a subject.
August coverage summary
Lumira appeared in ten pieces in August, of which six were original articles and four were reprints of the same trade wire item. Against the month's goal of establishing refill authority rather than launch coverage, the result is mixed: four of the six originals covered the product launch, and two quoted Mei Tan as a source on refill logistics in stories that were not about Lumira. Those two are the ones that met the brief.
The most valuable placement was not the national business daily. It was a supply chain trade title with a fraction of the readership, which quoted Lumira twice in a piece about regional take-back economics and named the company as a reference point rather than an example. That is the shape of coverage the goal was asking for, and it came from a pitch that led with a number rather than a milestone. The national daily piece, by contrast, ran as a product story with a photo, which is good for awareness and does nothing for authority.
The split
| Type | Count | Met the goal? |
|---|---|---|
| Original, quoted as a source | 2 | Yes |
| Original, covered as a launch | 4 | No |
| Reprints of one wire item | 4 | No |
Counting all ten as placements would be defensible and misleading. Six is the honest number, two is the number that matters.
What the coverage did not achieve
- No sustainability desk ran anything. That audience was in the target and is entirely absent. The lifecycle assessment was never used in a pitch, which is likely why.
- No piece mentioned the collection network, which is the actual differentiator. All six originals described the pouch.
- No second placement from any outlet. Every original was a first-time cover. Authority is built on being called back, and nobody called back.
- The national daily piece did not quote anyone. It was written from the release.
Point 3 is the one to act on. Two source-quotes in a month is a reasonable start; the test in September is whether either of those two journalists comes back without being pitched.
One limitation. Two of the ten pieces are paywalled, and I read them from headline and standfirst only. Both are trade titles and both appear to be reprints of the wire item, but I have marked them as such rather than confirmed it.
Naise created an artifact
Two paragraphs against the authority goal, reprints stripped out, and four things the coverage did not do.
The honest count
| Type | Count | Met the goal? |
|---|---|---|
| Quoted as a source | 2 | Yes |
| Covered as a launch | 4 | No |
| Reprints of one wire item | 4 | No |
Best placement was not the national daily. A small supply chain trade title quoted Lumira twice as a reference point. The national ran a product story written from the release.
Did not achieve
- No sustainability desk ran anything
- No piece mentioned the collection network
- Nobody called back unprompted
Limitation: 2 of 10 paywalled, read from headline only.
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