The structure journalists expect
A release that follows the convention gets read faster. Headline with the news, not the adjective. A dateline with city and date. A first paragraph that answers who, what, when, where and why on its own, because many journalists read no further. Supporting detail in descending order of importance, one or two quotes, then the boilerplate, a media contact with a name and phone number, and a clear end marker: 'Ends' in UK style, '###' in US style, with notes to editors set apart from the story. Generated drafts tend to bury the news under context and add superlatives; strip both. Journalists cut adjectives before they cut facts.
Quotes come from people, not from the model
A quote in a press release is a statement attributed to a named person, and journalists reproduce it as that person's words. A generated quote that nobody said is a fabrication, however plausible it sounds and however senior the person it is attributed to. The workable practice is to interview the spokesperson or send them talking points, let AI help shape what they actually said into a clean sentence, and get their written approval of the final wording before release. Keep that approval on file. The same applies to partner and customer quotes: the partner's own comms team signs off their spokesperson's words, not yours.
Embargoes, listed companies and disclosure rules
An embargo line states the exact release time and time zone, such as 'Embargoed until 00:01 GMT, Tuesday 3 March', and it binds only journalists who have agreed to it. For listed companies, the order of release is set by law, not by the comms plan. Under the EU Market Abuse Regulation (596/2014) and its UK equivalent, inside information has to reach the market through the regulated announcement channel before any briefing to the press. In the US, Regulation FD forbids selective disclosure of material non-public information to analysts and investors, and a release over a widely circulated wire service is one recognised way to make it public. Drafts of such news sit inside the insider-list perimeter, so keep them off public chatbots.
Legal review and regional versions
Legal review checks what a draft cannot check itself: that every figure matches the source document, that comparisons with competitors can be substantiated, that forward-looking statements carry the cautionary language US reporting companies need to rely on the safe harbour in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act 1995, and that names, titles and trade marks are right. Regional versions are more than translations. Trade press in Germany, Japan or Brazil wants a local angle, a local spokesperson where possible, local currency and date formats, and the dateline of the local office. The studio localises copy into 30 languages with terminology and approved claims enforced, then routes each version to the right reviewer.
Updated 25 September 2026