The client asks a simple question
A client emails on Friday: did the Financial Times get our release, and did anyone follow up? The account manager knows it went out on Wednesday. It was sent in three batches, one from her Outlook with the nationals in BCC, one through a mail merge to trade titles, and a third by a colleague to regional press using a slightly updated version with a corrected quote.
To answer, she opens three sent folders, searches for the right subject lines, checks which version each batch used, and asks her colleague whether he rang anyone. It takes most of an hour and the answer is still, honestly, probably.
Why distribution leaves no trail
- Releases are sent from several people's mailboxes and more than one tool.
- BCC sends hide recipients from anyone looking at the thread later.
- Corrected versions go to part of the list, so different journalists hold different text.
- Follow-up calls and replies are recorded, if at all, in a campaign spreadsheet that drifts from what was sent.
- The media database distribution feature, where used, keeps its own report that nobody links back to.
Each tool does its job. None of them was built to answer the question the client asks, which is about the release as a whole rather than one batch of emails.
Where the gaps show up
Follow-up is where it matters most. Sell-in calls depend on knowing who received the release and who has not replied, and a patchy record means some journalists are rung twice and others not at all. When a journalist asks for the embargoed version or the high resolution images, nobody is sure whether they were on the original send.
Client trust takes a knock too. An agency that cannot say who got the release looks less in control than one that can, even if the actual work was identical.
What we build for each release
Each release becomes a record, and every send, reply and call attaches to it.
- The release is created once with its versions: draft, approved, corrected, each with a timestamp.
- Sends from connected Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace mailboxes, and from mail merge or distribution tools that provide logs, are matched to the release and version.
- Each recipient appears once with the version they received, the time, and whether it bounced.
- Replies from journalists are linked to the release and flagged for the account team.
- Follow-up calls are logged from a short form or a mobile view, with outcome: interested, not for us, wants images, wants interview.
- A client-ready view shows the list of titles reached and the outcome so far, without internal notes.
| Column | What it answers |
|---|---|
| Recipient and title | Who it went to |
| Version sent | Whether they have the corrected quote |
| Delivery status | Bounced, delivered, or unknown |
| Reply | Whether they responded, linked to the email |
| Follow-up | Who rang, when, and the outcome |
We do not track opens with hidden pixels unless you ask for it and have decided it is appropriate, because many journalists block them and some object to them.
Answering the client in two minutes
The account manager opens the release record, filters to national titles and sees the FT desk received the approved version on Wednesday at 7.02am, no reply yet, and a colleague logged a voicemail on Thursday. She sends the client a short note and a link to the client view, and asks the colleague to try again on Monday.
When a regional editor asks for the updated quote, she can see he received the older version and resends the corrected one in a click, which is logged too.
Could this be your team?
- Releases go out in several batches from different mailboxes.
- Answering who received a release means searching sent folders.
- Some journalists hold an older version of a corrected release.
- Sell-in calls are tracked in a spreadsheet separate from the send.
- Clients ask for distribution details and get an approximate answer.