Based on our conversations with Anastasia Anisimova, head of media relations at Outset PR, this piece goes deeper into the mechanics behind media partnerships. We’ve already discussed what really working collaborations look like in an earlier overview. This article goes further: it takes a closer look at where the logic breaks, why most “partnerships” don’t compound, and why trust in Web3 media can’t be bought.
The quota deal problem: when “partnership” is just a transaction
In practice, a typical media partnership looks simple:
- You sign a contract
- Agree on a fixed number of publications per month
- The pieces go live
- The interaction ends.
The projects often assume that once a deal is labeled “a partnership,” all the rest will happen automatically: trust with the audience follows, association with the media brand should rub off and the reputation should start accumulating.
However, that rarely happens. Editorial teams are often not involved in these agreements at all. Journalists don’t see the project as a source worth returning to. And after publication is live, the contact goes cold until the next paid slot.
The core issue is the gap between the word and the substance. Partnership is declared, but there are no relationships, no regular interaction, no shared history. Money is exchanged for a quote, and that’s not a collaboration.
What happens after the piece goes live, and why nothing compounds
Once the article is published, KPIs are formally closed and both sides move on. There are no follow-up updates, no repeated mentions, no sense of familiarity inside the newsroom. From the media’s perspective, the project is just another one-off client, not an expert source. Not a brand that comes to mind when a relevant topic appears.
The result is often quite predictable: a short spike of attention, and then no long-term value, no media presence, no reinforcement of the name. It works like a single activation, not part of a strategy.
Real partnerships look different. They’re built around reputation, safety, and trust. Media work for years with brands they know won’t put them at risk. That’s why some names keep appearing organically, while others vanish after just one paid feature.
The biggest misconception: treating media like a performance channel
A common request in Web3 PR sounds like this: “We invested X, we need Y in traffic or conversions.” This logic doesn’t necessarily work with the media, because editorial coverage isn’t performance advertising. PR isn’t CPM math and outlets don’t sell guaranteed purchases or signups. Instead, they work with attention, context, and trust.
That’s why most publications either don’t calculate ROI in a classic marketing sense or refuse to promise it. Not to avoid responsibility, but to avoid false expectations.
The same mistake shows up in SEO-driven approaches. In many cases, teams come in with a single requirement: “We need links, quality doesn’t matter.” As a result, KPIs are closed, reports look full, but reputation doesn’t move. Mentions appear in places no one reads, bylines carry no weight, and the brand remains invisible to the people who matter.
When teams bring pure marketing math into media relations, they usually kill the relationship before it starts. The conversation shifts from meaning to bargaining. From stories to numbers that don’t reflect real value.
Why dealing with sales doesn’t buy editorial loyalty
Sales teams in media sell placements. Their KPIs are deals closed and budgets secured. Editorial involvement, journalist interest, and long-term relationships are not part of that equation.
Sales don’t control what matters most for a project. They don’t decide editorial priorities and don’t influence whether journalists will return for comments later. They don’t shape how the brand is remembered inside the newsroom.
This creates a structural disconnect: sales promise “special conditions” vs. editorial teams cut links, adjust wording, or reject angles entirely. So when, let’s say, AI filters flag content or quality checks fail, sales often can’t explain why, because they don’t work with editorial logic daily.
The outcome is friction on all sides. Editors are irritated, clients feel misled. As follows, trust erodes. While a sales deal closes a placement, it doesn’t build a relationship.
Editorial fit: what it looks like in real life
Editorial fit isn’t about budget or brand size. It’s about compatibility.
From the editorial side, the topic must make sense for their audience and the format has to match the outlet’s tone. The material should solve a reader’s problem, not push a product.
From the project side, it requires adaptation:
- Speaking the media’s language, not the press release’s
- Shaping the story for a specific outlet
- Dropping the urge to force brand messaging into every paragraph.
When the fit is real, the dynamic changes. Editors ask questions and suggest improvements, genuinely helping refine the angle. The interaction stops feeling like moderation and starts looking like collaboration. That’s the moment where one-off placements turn into potential relationships.
Where Outset PR comes to help
The hardest and most time-consuming part of media work is interaction with people:
- Finding the right contacts
- Understanding editorial logic
- Maintaining relationships without becoming noise
- Following up with context
- Being present without pushing
This is exactly what we built our Press Office around. It works as an infrastructure: years of relationships, editorial understanding, and predictable processes that let teams focus on product and growth instead of rebuilding trust from zero every time. Not as a simple shortcut, and not as a quota-buying system.
And yes, obviously it’s not just some kind of magic or a miracle pill. Without a live project, real updates, and willingness to engage, PR won’t save anything. Money spent without substance turns into negative ROI.
Our role is to remove friction, shorten the path, and make media presence predictable without turning it into a transactional game.
No shortcuts, only people
The Web3 media market is overheated and burned more than once. Editors have seen strong-looking projects turn into problems. It’s fair to say that everyone starts kind of at a minus one trust level.
There are no shortcuts. No smart contract programming language fixes that. No logo swaps. No “partner” labels. The only currency that works is human relationships built on clear communication and respect for editorial work and consistency over time.
