unturned blog

Why Journalists Ignore Your PR Survey & How To Fix It

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 11:53:38 GMT

How to create PR survey stories that cut through the noise and land coverage

PR surveys don’t fail because journalists dislike data stories. They fail because they’re predictable, vague or create more work for already time-poor journalists.

PR surveys have had a rough reputation lately. Journalists are more sceptical, inboxes are more crowded, and the same tired headlines keep circulating. It’s fair to ask… are PR surveys still worth it?

The short answer is yes, but only when done properly. To land coverage today, survey stories need to go beyond a quirky headline or a single stat designed to shock. They need to support a genuinely interesting story, underpinned by credible data and a clear, robust methodology.

Where PR Surveys Go Wrong

A big reason PR surveys fail to land is because they feel predictable. Journalists have seen it all before, vague findings, overgeneralised claims, and data that doesn’t actually say anything new.

Common pitfalls include overly hypothetical questions (“Would you consider…?”), unclear or inflated sample claims, weak narratives and results that feel more like advertising than insight.

The result? Journalists skim, shrug, and move on.

Why PR Surveys Still Work

Despite the challenges, PR surveys remain one of the most effective tools in a communications strategy, when used as part of a wider story, not in isolation. Surveys provide credibility and trust (especially important in a world of AI slop ), add a human perspective to wider trends, and turn assumptions into evidence-backed insights.

We also use PR surveys to…

Create ‘new’ news when there is a quiet moment in the content calendar
Provide exclusive data for journalists
Support thought leadership pieces for brand leaders
Form the foundation of multiple pieces across earned, owned and paid channels

For example, a simple survey on sleep could become a page-lead in a newspaper, a sofa-slot on a morning news programme, a regional data story, a thought-leadership piece on productivity and create social & marketing content, all from one data set.

In a media landscape that values exclusivity and evidence, strong data is still incredibly powerful.

Using PR Research as Part of a Bigger Strategy

The mistake many teams make is treating surveys as a standalone tactic. In reality, they work best as part of an integrated approach.

PR research should support or replace an existing narrative, not try to create one. By combining a survey with expert commentary, case studies and supporting data sources, you are providing a journalist with a ready-made story, not just a quick stat.

Survey data is the foundation, but the angle and the assets are what will make it land.

How to Get Better Results from PR Surveys

Execution is everything. The difference between a full-page and tumbleweed often comes down to how the research is designed.

Ask about real behaviour, not intentions
The most valuable insights come from what people are doing , not what they might do . Behavioural data is concrete, credible, and far more newsworthy.

Instead of asking what people plan to do, ask what they have already done or are actively doing. This leads to stronger, more actionable stories that create conversation.

2. Be precise with your questions
Be specific and avoid broad or vague framing.

For example, instead of asking if someone struggles with work after a bad night sleep, ask what specifically they struggle with (keeping focused during tasks etc).

Well-structured multi-choice questions not only improve response quality, they also provide multiple useable stats from a single question.

3. Don’t overestimate sample size needs
There’s a common misconception that bigger is always better. For B2B audiences, smaller, well-targeted samples can still be representative (and far more cost-effective). Margin of error is important but ensure you brief your researcher on intended use & results and ask for consultancy from them.

For consumer insights, representation matters more than volume. Ensuring your sample represents the population (age, gender, region) often adds more credibility than simply increasing numbers.

4. Design for headlines from the start
Work backwards from the story that you want to tell.

Ask yourself would someone read this? Then build your questions to support this story.

It’s fine to have a hypothesis, but the questions must remain objective. And if the results don’t land as expected, look for alternative angles in the demographics rather than forcing a new angle.

5. Stay objective in your question design

Leading questions might deliver the result that you want, but they undermine credibility and will often be questioned by journalists.

Instead of asking Do you agree that productivity is impacted by a bad night sleep?

Ask What impact, if any, does a bad night sleep have on your productivity?

This avoids bias and often uncovers more interesting insights.

6. Focus on tension or surprise
The strongest stories challenge assumptions or highlight contradictions.

70% of Brits want to eat healthier is not news but 70% of Brits want to eat healthier, yet 55% are ordering unhealthy takeaways once a week is.

Look for contrast!

What Journalists Actually Want – Quick Tips:

Lead with a clear, surprising stat
Focus on real-world behaviour, not opinions
Keep findings simple and easy to understand
Tie data to current trends or news moments
Make it relevant to the publication’s audience
Provide regional or demographic breakdowns where possible
Include a strong expert comment and/or case study to add context
Write in page ready copy, not jargon
‘Re-nose’ the angle or add additional supporting content if it doesn’t land first-time
Make it effortless to cover. If a journalist has to work to find the story, they won’t cover it

The takeaway? PR surveys aren’t incapable of landing…but lazy ones are. The brands that succeed are the ones treating research as storytelling, not just data collection.

Chat to our research team for more information:

Broadcast PR in 2026: Does anyone actually care?

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:40:39 GMT

'Broadcast isn't relevant in 2026 communications'

This is something we hear often as brands focus on their ‘digital’ strategies. But as we will delve into below, broadcast feeds your digital content and brings brands to life.

According to the latest RAJAR data, radio still reaches 50 million adults every week - roughly 86 % of the UK population - with more than one billion hours of content consumed per quarter. That level of reach remains unmatched by most digital platforms and shows that broadcast still forms a huge part of our daily lives.

So, with that in mind, it’s the most important question in PR - and the simplest: does anyone actually care?

PR isn’t written for brands. It’s written for journalists, who choose stories for their audience. If your story doesn’t matter to real people, it won’t make it out of the inbox.

As a rule of thumb, if you wouldn’t bring it up at a dinner party, it’s probably not a story.

Businesses are full of smart ideas and ambitious campaigns. But too often they drift into marketing territory, which of course serves its purpose but isn’t the aim of our game!

Marketing says, “look at us.” News says, “here’s something that matters - and why.”

In 2026, with tighter newsrooms and fiercer competition for attention, that distinction is everything. We use 5 filters to pressure-test every story:

Impact - Who does it affect, and why should they care?

Timeliness - Why now? What makes it relevant today?

Tension - What’s new, changing, surprising or challenging?

Proof - Is there credible data, insight or real-world evidence?

Bigger Than the Brand - Is this about more than “we launched something”?

If it fails these filters, it’s probably marketing - not news. But even a strong story can fall flat in broadcast if it isn’t delivered properly.

Broadcast in Present Day

The industry isn’t operating the way it did 5 or 10 years ago.

With restructuring across organisations like the BBC, increased regional hub models, shared production teams and centralised output, there are fewer people - producing more content - at a faster pace.

Stories need to be clearer, sharper and easier to execute and contributors need to be confident, concise and genuinely editorial.

Producers don’t have the time to mould a key messaging into a story, so it must arrive as one.

Regional still matters enormously, but increasingly within hub structures that serve multiple areas. That makes strong regional case studies even more valuable. If you can offer voices from different parts of the UK, you give producers flexibility and make their job easier.

And when you make a producer’s job easier, your increase your chances of getting noticed.

Spokespeople still matter!

An internal branded spokesperson needs to have an opinion that matters. This may sound obvious, but too often they’re media-briefed into neutrality and broadcast isn’t about reeling off approved marketing lines while sitting firmly on the fence. It’s about being able to express a clear, confident view on an issue and hold your own in a live conversation.

Broadcasters are journalists, so they are looking for a story - and often for tension. We can guide the conversation as much as possible, but spokespeople must be prepared to bridge challenging questions back to the topic at hand.

If they’re not confident doing that, media training and clear briefing isn’t a “nice to have” - it’s crucial.

Celebrities can be an incredible way to generate wider interest, but only when they’re genuinely relevant. A natural, authentic link to the story is essential - producers and audiences can see straight through a pay-day partnership, so this just won’t cut the mustard.

Case studies can be worth their weight in gold. They humanise your message and make it relatable. Better still, a range of case studies from different regions across the UK helps broadcasters tailor the story for regional audiences and makes it resonate far beyond a single postcode.

But we want national TV…

Everyone wants national TV. With this ambition in mind, we need to think visually from day one. For example:

How do we bring the interview to life?

Is there a live filming opportunity where a presenter can come on-site?

Can we pre-record in situ?

Do we have strong b-roll that genuinely showcases what we’re talking about?

Broadcast is a visual and audio medium so if it looks and sounds compelling, it stands a far better chance of piquing the interest of producers.

Busting myths on viewer/listenership

There’s a persistent belief that radio and TV are only effective if you’re targeting older demographics and this is simply not true.

Yes, traditional linear audiences remain strong, but broadcast content now lives far beyond its original slot. Interviews are clipped for social, shared across platforms, embedded online, and consumed on demand. Radio is streamed, TV is watched back and content travels far and wide.

If your audience exists in the real world, they are consuming broadcast - just not always in the way they were 10 years ago!

Dismissing radio and TV as “just for older people” means overlooking one of the most powerful credibility drivers available.

In summary…

Broadcast PR in 2026 is less about louder pitches and more about sharper stories, delivered by credible voices, backed by real people and brought to life in a big way.

The brands that win coverage don’t just promote activity. They connect it to something happening in the real world and they’re prepared to show up and talk about it confidently, showing why and how it matters

So, make sure your PR team is asking: would someone outside your business genuinely care?

If the answer isn’t obvious, that’s where the real work begins. Get in touch and let the unturned team help you uncover the story that makes people care.

Chat to our research team for more information:

Why I no longer believe in annual health check ups

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 12:04:59 GMT

Our proactive health research reveals why a once in a year measurement misses the signals that matter most.

From an early age and like many, I have found the occasion of that trip to the local surgery for the annual (ish) check-up somewhat distressing. I’m not sure if it’s that unsettling disinfectant smell, soulless waiting room or the uncertainty that comes with someone unfamiliar checking you over and running tests that leaves me in a cold sweat. Probably a combination of all the above to be fair and an unhealthy dose of hypochondria thrown in for good measure no doubt. However, this has reliably informed the well documented phenomenon of a spike in my blood pressure. Now in the traditional check-up model, context rarely features in the results and for years this single moment of measurement has carried a disproportionate amount of weight for me.

Then in early 2020, pre-Covid, I was introduced to continuous health technology, wearables that track physiological signals across days, weeks and months not just minutes. For the first time, I could see what my body looked like outside the doctor’s surgery. My base lines emerged with visible variability and short-term spikes stopped being mistaken for longer term trends. That shift completely changed my understanding of health data and how seriously I take once a year measurement in isolation.

The point here is not my blood pressure, but that context transforms data and without it even the most accurate measurements can mislead.

We decided to examine this gap properly and commissioned through our research arm, Atomik Research, a nationally representative study of 3003 UK adults balanced by gender, spanning ages 18 – 65 and reflective of the UK’s socioeconomic profile. The aim was to interrogate the structural healthcare hypothesis.

Are we measuring health in a way that reflects how people live?

The results were revealing.

On the surface, engagement appears strong. 91% of Brits say they go to the GP with 45% going onto say they visit regularly.

But beneath that, the day-to-day reality tells a different story.

51% of Brits get 6 hours of sleep or less per night.

28% say they rarely or never sleep sufficiently.

63% experience stress regularly with 13% feeling it daily.

These are not occasional health events; they are recurring physiological inputs.

And yet monitoring remains low.

41% rarely or never check their blood pressure.

57% rarely or never check for irregular heartbeat.

Only 35% frequently check their resting heart rate.

We are living in bodies that generate continuous signals but most of us are not observing them. The disconnect becomes even clearer when looking at behaviour verses intention.

Brits want longevity. On average, people say they’d like 25 additional healthy years. 75% are confident they’ll live long lives.

But 44% are already worried about their future health and when asked what stands in their way, 37% cite motivation compared to just 11% who say knowledge is the barrier. This is not an awareness problem, it’s an activation problem.

And that’s where cadence matters. Among the 34% already using health wearables with a further 38% open to them, behaviours shift noticeable.

87% say wearables improve their motivation to stay healthy. 43% say they do so “very much”.

The difference is not access to doctor’s; it’s the feedback frequency.

When people can see their sleep debt increasing, their resting heart rate trending upwards or their recovery faltering, behaviour becomes tangible. Without that feedback, health remains abstract, something to worry about annually rather than taking ownership and managing daily.

Perhaps most tellingly, 39% rarely or never think about longevity in daily life and 45% never consume longevity focused content. There is both a motivational gap and an educational white space.

We have built a healthcare system that intervenes episodically, but we are living in a culture increasingly aware of longevity yet under equipped to operationalise it.

This is the structural tension piece.

The annual check-up isn’t wrong, its incomplete.

It answers, “where are you today?” but proactive health asks “where are you drifting?” Drifting is where most of the long-term outcomes are shaped.

For brands, insurers, health tech innovators and employers this gap is commercially and culturally significant. The demand signals are there, 72% are open to wearable tracking, 56% already use supplements, younger people are entering the longevity market early. But motivation, monitoring and behaviours remain underdeveloped.

Understanding that gap between optimism and action, access and activation is precisely what this study set out to explore.

When 91% engage with healthcare, yet half of the country is sleep deprived and two thirds experience regular stress, this issue is not awareness. Its alignment.

When I said at the beginning that I no longer believe the annual check-up reflects how health actually works, I didn’t mean it dismissively. I meant it structurally. Health is continuous and our measurement models largely are not. The data doesn’t suggest abandoning doctors it suggests expanding the feedback loop between appointments. The real opportunity isn’t replacing annual moments it’s reducing the drift between them.

We help brands uncover the truths that shape strategy. Get in touch to see what best in class Atomik Research looks like.