PR Suggestions

Overview#

PR Suggestions is where the PR Media Scout puts its monthly research. Every item is an article worth placing in a publication you do not own, together with the outlets to approach and what the placement is likely to cost.

This is deliberately not the same thing as Content Suggestions. Those are pieces you publish on your own channels, and the only cost is your writing time. These are placements you pay a publication to run, so the bar is higher and the list is shorter: the scout proposes fewer, stronger opportunities rather than filling a quota.

The page is available on request. If you do not have it yet, the screen offers a Request access button and the team will get in touch.

Finding a recommendation#

The page keeps every recommendation the scout has made for this project, not just the newest run, so it grows month by month.

Search matches the topic, the candidate headlines, the brief and the reasoning. Alongside it you can filter by article type, by proactive or reactive, and by the day a recommendation was generated. Active filters appear as chips above the list, with Clear all to drop them, and they are kept in the page address, so a filtered view can be bookmarked or shared and survives a refresh.

The tabs below choose which states you are looking at: everything, still open, tracked, or dismissed. Results are paged twenty at a time, newest first, and each card carries when it was generated.

Inside a recommendation#

Each card carries an article type and a trigger, then expands to the full recommendation.

The article type is what actually gets written, and it decides both which publications are plausible and what the placement costs:

• Thought leadership is an executive byline taking a position.
• Expert commentary is a quotable reaction to something in the news, with a short window.
• Data study is your own data or survey. It is the most linkable format and the most re-cited.
• Announcement covers a launch, a funding round or a milestone.
• Interview is a founder or executive profile or Q&A.
• Roundup inclusion is getting added to a list that already ranks.
• Sponsored feature is explicitly paid branded editorial.

The trigger says why now. Proactive means a subject nobody in your field has taken properly. Reactive means a named competitor published something, and this is the answer to it. A reactive card always links the piece it responds to, so you can judge the timing yourself.

Expanding a card shows Why now, the Candidate headlines to choose between, the full Brief, anything listed under Before you can run this, the Target publications table, and the Research sources every claim came from.

Before you can run this#

Some pieces cannot be written until something else exists. A data study needs fieldwork; a regulated subject needs clinical or legal sign-off; an interview needs a named person willing to be quoted. Where that applies, the card lists it, marks whether it is Required or Optional, and names providers who can do the work in your market, each with its own price and the same provenance rules as a publication's rate.

Required means the piece cannot run without it. Optional means it would strengthen the piece. Only required items count toward what the recommendation costs.

If the research found nobody suitable, the card says so rather than implying a provider exists.

Contacting a publication#

Each target names the market it serves and, where the research found one, how to reach the desk that sells or commissions placements: an address, an enquiry form, or the team to ask for.

A contact is only shown when it came from a page the research actually retrieved, so anything on the card is checkable. Where only the team name was found, you will see who to ask for without an address. Where nothing was found, nothing is shown: an invented address would be worse than none, because you would be pitching a stranger under your own brand.

The link beside an outlet is labelled by what it is (Submission guidelines, Media kit or Advertise with them), so you know what you are opening before you click.

Reading the cost column#

Cost is the field to read most carefully, because you will budget against it. Seerly never shows a price without saying where it came from.

• A solid figure with a Rate card or Marketplace listing link is one we found published. Follow the link to confirm it.
• A dashed figure marked est. is inferred from comparable publications. It is a planning number, not a quote, and hovering it explains the comparison.
• Contact for pricing means the outlet does not publish rates. This is the most common answer and it is not a gap in the research. Most publications quote on enquiry.

Every figure shown is the total for the work described. Where the only rate available is a subscription, retainer or per-respondent price, it is not shown as a cost. A monthly fee is a fact about a supplier and a false answer to what a project costs, and one shown as a band once made survey fieldwork worth lakhs look like ₹1,119. Those rates appear in the supplier's note instead, and the cost reads "on enquiry". Nothing is ever multiplied up to reach a project figure, because the multiplier would be a guess.

Prices are shown in the publication's own currency, so an Indian outlet appears in rupees and a UK one in pounds. Nothing is converted, because a converted figure would be a guess wearing the appearance of a quote.

Where a recommendation requires preparation, its cost appears next to the placement cost rather than folded into it, so a data study might read "₹50K–₹1L, + ₹2.5L–₹6L to prepare". They are kept apart for the same reason nothing is converted: the fieldwork and the placement can be priced in different currencies, and adding them would produce a number nobody quoted. Read them together, because for a data study the preparation is often the larger figure.

Interpreting results#

Target publications are ordered by reach and fit, not by price. The first outlet in the table is the one the research judged the strongest match for the piece, whatever it costs.

An AI-cited badge means AI engines already cite that publication when answering questions in your space. It does not change the ordering. Treat it as a tie-breaker between two outlets you were already weighing.

The Why this one column is the argument for approaching that outlet, and it names something they published recently on the subject. If a publication cannot show that, it does not belong on the list.

A run that returns three suggestions instead of eight is not a failed run. Each of these costs real money to act on, and a padded list is worse than a short one.

Each run avoids what the last three months already recommended. The scout is given its own recent output and told not to repeat it, including rewording it, since the same argument aimed at the same reader is the same recommendation whatever the headline says. Anything you dismissed will not return, and neither will anything you are already working on.

Three months is a rolling window rather than a permanent ban, so an angle that was simply too early can come back once the market moves. When it does, the Why now should say what changed. This is also why a quiet month can be a short month: once the strongest angles are taken, the scout is expected to return fewer rather than reach for weaker ones.

Acting on a suggestion#

Track moves a placement into Tracked Actions as one you intend to pursue. Dismiss asks for a reason, and the reason is worth writing: a recommendation has four independent parts you might be rejecting, and saying which one teaches the next run something useful. "The outlet is wrong for us" and "we do not want to talk about this" lead to very different research next month.

Seerly does not contact publications for you. The recommendation is yours to take to whoever runs your PR.

What to keep in mind#

• The scout runs once a month, so the page changes on that rhythm rather than daily.
• If a run could not determine your competitor set, the page says so under the summary. That means the sweep was skipped, not that you have no competitors.
• Every URL on a card came from a page the research actually retrieved. If something looks wrong, the source link is there to check it against.

Next steps#

• Agents for how the scouts fit together.
• Content Suggestions for pieces you publish yourself.
• Competitors for the tracked set the monthly sweep is built from.