A journalist wants a real person by Thursday
A personal finance journalist is writing about people who switched to an electric car to cut costs, and asks a car leasing client's agency for someone to interview, ideally in the Midlands, by Thursday. The account manager asks the client. The client's marketing team remembers a customer who did a video testimonial last year but is not sure if she agreed to press. Someone else suggests a customer who posted a nice review online.
Two days of emails later, the client finds someone willing, in Kent. The journalist has already used another company's customer.
Why a willing customer is so hard to find
- Case studies are collected by the client's marketing team for their own website and never shared with the agency as a list.
- Consent to appear on a website is not the same as consent to speak to a national journalist, and nobody recorded which was given.
- People move, change their circumstances or go off the idea.
- The same enthusiastic customer is used repeatedly and gets tired of it.
- Journalists want specifics: location, age range, a particular experience, a photo on the day.
What each person has agreed to, and how their details are held, is for the client and their own data protection adviser to decide. We build around whatever consent process they use.
What the scramble costs
Case study requests are some of the best coverage opportunities, because real people make stories that get read. Losing them to slower searching means losing coverage the client would value. Using the same person repeatedly also carries a risk: they become recognisable and the stories look staged.
How we build the case study register
- For each client, customers who have agreed to take part are held in one register, shared between the client and the agency with access controls.
- Each entry records what the person has agreed to: website, local press, national press, broadcast, photos. It also records when and how consent was given, and a review date.
- Topics and attributes are tagged, such as product used, reason for choosing, region, and anything the person is happy to talk about.
- Each use is recorded: which journalist, which title, when, and how it went, so over-used people are visible.
- When a request comes in, the account manager filters by topic, region and consent level, and sees who is available and not recently used.
- A short form lets the client's customer team add new volunteers, with the consent wording the client has chosen, and sends a confirmation to the person.
| Field | Why the journalist request needs it |
|---|---|
| Consent level | Whether they can speak to this kind of outlet |
| Region | Most requests want a local person |
| Topics and story | Matching the angle the journalist is writing |
| Last used | Avoiding the same face in every piece |
| Review date | Checking the person is still willing and circumstances unchanged |
Answering the next request
The same kind of request arrives on a Tuesday. The account manager filters the register for national press consent, electric car, Midlands. Three people appear, one used last month. She asks the client to contact the other two, who were both confirmed as willing within the last few months. By Wednesday morning the journalist has a name and a phone number.
The use is logged against the person, and the client's marketing team sees that the register is producing coverage, which encourages them to keep adding to it.
The review dates do quiet work in the background. A few weeks before a volunteer's consent is due for review, the client's customer team gets a list of names to check in with. People who have moved, changed their circumstances or lost interest are marked inactive rather than deleted, so their past uses stay on record but nobody puts them forward by mistake.
Recognise your client's case studies here?
- Journalist requests for real customers take days to answer.
- Nobody knows what each customer agreed to.
- The same customers appear in coverage again and again.
- Case studies exist only on the client's website.
- Consent is not reviewed after it is first given.