A reporter says yes to the story and asks who they can talk to. In most companies the answer arrives by seniority: the CEO, because they are the CEO. Sometimes that is right. Often it costs you the strongest version of the piece, because the person who can authorise a statement and the person who can support it are not always the same human being.
The frame that settles it: the right spokesperson is whoever is closest to the evidence the story rests on. Not the most senior person, not the most comfortable talker, not whoever is free. Work out what your story asks the reader to believe, then send the person who can answer the question that follows — how do you know that? — without deferring to anyone.
Start with the claim, not the org chart
Every story has one load-bearing claim. Write it in a sentence and the choice narrows, because claims come in three shapes:
- A claim about the company — a decision, a direction, a bet, a number you are accountable for. Only someone who owns that decision can carry it.
- A claim about an outcome in the world — something changed for somebody. The person it changed for is the evidence.
- A claim about how something works — a mechanism, a pattern, what a shift actually means for people in the field. That needs the person who does the work.
Most spokesperson mistakes are a mismatch here: a founder asserting an outcome only a customer can vouch for, or an engineer asked about strategy they have no standing to describe. If you are still hunting for that claim, finding a newsworthy angle is the earlier step, and worth finishing first.
The four criteria that decide it
Judge every candidate on these, in order.
1. Standing. Can this person answer "how do you know?" from direct knowledge? A source who has to say "I would need to check with the team" on the story's central point is not the source; they are a relay.
2. Availability. Weighted far higher than people expect. Journalists work to deadlines that are frequently the same day, and an excellent source who replies in four days loses, every time, to a good source who replies in forty minutes. On a reactive story this is the criterion, which is why it dominates responding to journalist source requests.
3. Latitude. How much can this person say without clearing it first? Someone who must have every sentence approved is not a spokesperson, they are a document with a face. If the only voice you can offer needs three approvals per answer, send a written statement instead and stop pretending otherwise.
4. Durability. Can they do it again in six months, and again after that? Coverage compounds around a name a reporter recognises, and rotating a different executive through every story restarts that relationship from zero — the opposite of what media relations is built on.
Option one: the founder or executive
Choose them when the story is about the company's own decision, direction, or accountability — a strategy shift, a hard call, a bet placed publicly, an apology. Nobody else can speak with authority about why a company chose something, and a reporter can tell instantly when they are hearing it second-hand.
What you gain: accountability the reader can feel, a narrative voice that carries across several stories, and a profile that gets easier to place as the name becomes familiar to a beat.
The trade-off, stated plainly: everything the founder says is the company saying it, permanently, and the two brands fuse in a way that is hard to unpick later. A founder voice also has a limit — credible about conviction and decisions, much weaker about evidence they did not personally gather. "Our customers save enormous amounts of time" from a founder is marketing; the same sentence from the customer is reporting. Founder time is also the scarcest resource in the building, so spending it on a mechanism piece an engineer would answer better is a real cost.
Option two: the customer or user
Choose them when the claim is that something worked. An outcome story has one credible witness, and it is not you.
What you gain: the most trusted voice available, precisely because the speaker has nothing to sell. A customer's specifics — what they did before, what changed, what still annoys them — turn an announcement into a story with people in it.
The trade-off: you do not control this voice, and any attempt to control it destroys the value that made it worth having. Expect a slower path, since many customers route media requests through their own comms or legal teams, and those cycles are frequently longer than the news cycle you are chasing. Treat it as a favour with a real cost, too: a customer will do this a limited number of times, so spend it on stories that deserve it.
One rule keeps this clean: brief the reporter, never the customer's answers. Tell the journalist what the customer can speak to and how to reach them. Coaching a customer on what to say turns your best asset into your weakest, and a scripted customer is the easiest tell in the trade.
Option three: the internal expert
Choose them when the story turns on how something works, why a pattern is emerging, or what a change means for people who do this work daily. The engineer, the clinician, the operations lead, the analyst.
What you gain: depth, and a source who is genuinely interesting rather than merely quotable. Trade and specialist press often prefer this voice outright, and it entangles far less personal brand with the company than a founder does. Experts also tend to handle the follow-up question well, which is where quotes are earned.
The trade-off: many do not want visibility and should not be pushed into it, and most need preparation — not polish, but the habit of answering the question asked rather than the one they find more interesting. Detail is their strength and their failure mode. They also usually have no standing on company direction, so a reporter who wanders into strategy will get an answer that has to be walked back.
Two options people forget
The independent third party. Someone with no stake — an academic, a practitioner elsewhere in the field, an association. You cannot assign this voice and must never try to place words in it, but you can point a reporter to where such people exist. A story with an outside voice in it is more likely to run and more likely to be believed.
Nobody, in person. For legal or fast-moving situations, a written statement is a legitimate answer, and the right call when latitude is genuinely zero. Say so plainly rather than putting up a spokesperson who cannot speak.
How to break a tie
When two candidates both clear the four criteria:
- Deadline measured in hours? Availability wins outright. The best source who cannot be reached before filing is not a source.
- Trade or specialist outlet? The expert wins. That audience reads for mechanism, and a founder's framing lands flat there.
- Business or national desk, story about the company? The founder wins. That desk is asking who decided, and why.
- The claim is an outcome? The customer wins, or the claim comes out of the story. If you cannot get them, re-angle to something you can evidence rather than asserting the outcome in a weaker voice.
- Still tied? Pick whoever can do this again next quarter. Continuity beats a marginally better quote today.
Offering a reporter a choice — "our founder on the decision, or the engineer who built it on how it works" — is not indecision; it is useful, and reporters generally appreciate it. What fails is the committee-written composite quote attributed to someone who never said it out loud. That is instantly recognisable, and it makes every future pitch from you a little weaker, which is part of why a good pitch names the source and their standing.
Prepare the one you picked
Choosing well is most of the job; the rest is a short, honest preparation.
- The three things they must be able to say in their own words, without notes.
- The one thing they must not say — the unannounced thing, the number not yet public, the customer not yet cleared.
- The "how do you know?" drill. Run every key claim through it once. Anything that cannot survive the question should not be in the story.
- The boundary. What they can answer, and what they hand back with "let me get you the right person on that" — far better than a guess.
- Availability, agreed in advance. A window when they will pick up the phone, held until the piece runs.
FAQ
Should the CEO always be the media spokesperson? No. The CEO is the right source when the story is about a company decision or direction they own. When it turns on an outcome or a mechanism, a customer or an internal expert is more credible and more useful to the reporter.
How do I get a customer to speak to press? Ask early, be specific about what is involved, and route it through whoever handles their communications rather than around them. Offer to handle scheduling, and accept a no without pushing — a reluctant customer is worse than no customer.
Can I offer a journalist more than one spokesperson? Yes, and it usually helps. Describe each person by what they can speak to — the decision, the outcome, the mechanism — and let the reporter choose.
What if our best source is a poor interviewee? Prepare rather than replace, unless the interview is live. Most nerves come from not knowing the boundary, so give them the three things to say and the one to avoid. Swapping in a smoother speaker with no first-hand knowledge trades credibility for polish.
Is a written statement ever the right answer? Yes — on legal or sensitive matters, or when nobody available has the latitude to speak freely. Send it quickly. A prompt statement beats a spokesperson who cannot answer the second question.
The source is a decision, not an admin detail: it sets what the story can claim and how far the coverage travels. Match the voice to the claim, weigh availability more heavily than feels natural, name the trade-off you are accepting, and prepare the person you chose. More playbooks on angles, pitching, and the relationships behind them are at prrush.com.
