Key takeaways
• Editors do not expect press releases to be completely neutral. They expect promotional claims to be supported by evidence and industry relevance.
• Generic customer testimonials or executive quotes often fail because they tell readers how the company feels, rather than explaining why the development matters.
• Strong media relations focus less on what the company wants to say about itself and more on what helps industry audiences understand the news.
A common piece of feedback we hear from editors is that a press release is ‘too promotional’.
For many marketing teams, that can feel confusing. Surely the entire purpose of a press release is to promote a product, service or brand?
In most cases, that is true.
Whether announcing a product launch, customer project or investment, organisations are usually trying to generate positive awareness, strengthen reputation or support commercial goals.
So, if promotion is the objective, why do editors sometimes push back?
In our experience, when editors describe a press release as too promotional, they are rarely criticising the fact that a company is promoting itself.
More often, they are questioning whether the release has provided enough evidence to justify what it is saying.
Editors are not asking whether something is positive
Editors are constantly evaluating information through the lens of their audience.
They’re looking for insight, context, and practical industry relevance, which leads them to ask questions such as:
• Why does this matter?
• What has actually changed?
• How significant is the development?
• What impact will it have?
• What can readers learn from it?
When a press release answers those questions clearly, it is often viewed as useful.
When it doesn’t, it can start to feel promotional regardless of how carefully it is written.
Sometimes the significance has not been established
A company may be genuinely excited about an announcement because it represents an important internal milestone.
But internal and industry importance are not always the same thing.
Editors are looking for evidence that the development has relevance beyond the organisation itself.
For example:
• A new product launch may be significant because it solves a longstanding customer challenge.
• A facility investment may matter because it increases production capacity in response to growing demand.
• A partnership announcement may matter because it opens access to a new market or capability.
Without that wider context, even legitimate news can feel self-referential.
The editor is left asking:
“Why should my readers care?”
Sometimes the claims are bigger than the evidence
Another common trigger is the use of language such as:
• groundbreaking
• market-leading
• innovative
• revolutionary
• game-changing
• unmatched efficiency
Occasionally, these descriptions are justified.
The problem is that many press releases present them as conclusions rather than proving them through facts.
Editors are naturally sceptical of unsupported claims because they see them every day.
Simply describing something as innovative does not make it innovative.
Explaining what is genuinely different, what problem has been solved, or what measurable outcome has been achieved is far more persuasive.
The issue is not enthusiasm. It’s evidence.
Sometimes the praise adds little value
Customer quotes can create a similar challenge.
Many organisations understandably want testimonials that demonstrate strong relationships and positive experiences.
But comments such as:
“It was a pleasure to work with Company X.”
or
“The team exceeded our expectations.”
rarely give editors much to work with.
This is not because the feedback is untrue, but because it does not help readers understand what happened.
Editors are generally more interested in specifics.
• What challenge existed?
• What changed?
• What result was achieved?
• What practical benefit was delivered?
Those details provide proof. Praise alone does not.
Sometimes the problem is a lack of detail
This is often the most sensitive area.
Many organisations are understandably cautious about sharing detailed figures, performance improvements, commercial outcomes, or operational specifics.
There can be valid reasons for that.
Commercial sensitivity, customer confidentiality, competitive considerations or legal constraints all play a role.
However, there is a practical reality that communications teams sometimes have to confront.
If an organisation is unwilling to explain why something matters, it becomes difficult for editors to explain why it matters either.
That does not mean every press release requires extensive disclosure.
But it does mean there usually needs to be enough substance for an editor to understand the significance of the story and communicate that significance to readers.
Without that, content can quickly drift into what editors often describe as ‘marketing fluff’ or ‘corporate guff’.
Why we challenge clients during the drafting process
This is one reason we occasionally push back when clients ask for more excitement, stronger superlatives, or broader claims.
Not because we want the content to feel less positive.
And certainly not because we have forgotten the commercial objectives behind the communication.
It is because we know how editors are likely to respond.
In our experience, the most effective press releases are not the ones that make the biggest claims.
They are the ones that make credible claims and support them with enough evidence, context, and relevance to be believed.
Counterintuitively, removing a little hype often makes a story more persuasive.
Good media relations is not about hiding promotion
It is about earning credibility.
The strongest press releases are still promotional. They promote innovation, expertise, and commercial success.
But they do so in a way that helps editors serve their audiences first.
Because ultimately, editors are not asking companies to stop promoting themselves.
They are simply asking them to provide enough substance to support the story they are trying to tell.
And when that happens, the chances of securing meaningful coverage improve significantly.
Hannah Kitchener
Associate Director
About the author
Hannah is an associate director in the UK, leading strategic campaigns for industrial clients across the EMEA region. A professionally qualified journalist (NCTJ), she combines specialist sectoral knowledge in construction, energy, and materials handling with a strong network of trade media contacts to secure valuable coverage. Her expertise in inter-cultural communication, honed by degrees in modern languages and translation, is key to executing campaigns that succeed across diverse European markets.
