We inherited a media list of four hundred names, and it was worse than having none

We inherited a media list of four hundred names, and it was worse than having none

A new client handed us a contact list their last agency built — four hundred reporters, neatly tagged. The alternative was building our own from scratch, slowly, by reading. We tested both on the same campaign to settle the argument.

The inherited list was seductive: huge, instant, ready to blast. We sent a hundred pitches off it and got a 2% reply rate and one angry 'how did you get my email.' Half the contacts had changed beats or outlets. The list was scale without relevance — a spray.

The built list was twenty-five names, assembled over a week by actually reading recent articles and noting who covered our exact topic. We pitched personally, referencing each reporter's recent work. The reply rate was 28%, and three of them remembered us for later stories. Twenty-five right names beat four hundred wrong ones every time.

"You'd clearly read my last piece," one replied. "That's why you're getting an answer."

Lesson: a big inherited or bought list is scale with no relevance and rotting data — it converts like spam because it is spam. A small list you build by reading is slow but every name is a genuine fit, which is the only thing that moves reply rates. Never confuse the size of a list with the quality of a campaign. Twenty-five beats four hundred.