The Contrarian Coverage-Gap Angle
Give reporters the bold opposing view on a trending topic they're already covering positively.
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 3
- Confidence
- 88%
Reporters covering a hot topic are flooded with pitches echoing the consensus. Gerber's method is to supply the missing counter-view: take a topic getting uniformly positive press, examine it critically, and offer a thoughtful contrarian take (often as an op-ed) that the reporter needs for a balanced article. It must be a strategic position the business is willing to own publicly.
Origin
Emilie Gerber, Six Eastern; she applies it especially with AI clients where reporters seeking balance want the dissenting stance among many similar pitches.
Core principles
- 01Reporters writing balanced pieces actively need the opposing view
- 02Pointing out a genuine gap in someone's coverage shows real critical thinking, not flattery
- 03The contrarian take needn't be pure opposition — a more thoughtful/critical reframe works
- 04The stance must be a deliberate business decision, not reckless controversy
How to run it
- 1
Find the topic getting one-sided positive press
Identify a trend your client can credibly speak to that's currently receiving uniform, unexamined coverage.
Pro tip Among many companies with the same stance, being the one with the opposing stance makes you the reporter's pick.
Watch out Don't wade into regulatory or charged topics the business doesn't actually want to be associated with.
- 2
Examine it critically and form the reframe
Look at the popular take critically and identify what it misses — the reframe can be 'this is good but doesn't address X,' not a total takedown.
Pro tip A constructive 'here's what would actually be needed' angle is more publishable than pure negativity.
- 3
Pitch it as the coverage gap (often an op-ed)
Approach the reporter noting you've seen them cover the topic from one angle but no one's addressing this other angle; package it as an op-ed by the exec if it warrants length.
Pro tip Framing it as a gap you noticed demonstrates you're paying attention to their work critically, unlike the generic 'I liked your article on X.'
In the wild
When Shopify won uniformly positive press for canceling recurring meetings, Clockwise (a calendar-optimization tool) reframed it critically: blanket meeting deletion isn't enough to change meeting culture sustainably. It became an op-ed titled 'Shopify's meeting cost calculator does not address the issue of wasted time.'
→ Fast Company published the piece by CEO Matt Martin — a placement a 'this is great too' echo pitch would never have earned.
Common mistakes
Echoing the consensus
Writing another piece agreeing with a popular take gives reporters nothing new; no one wants to publish what's already been said a million ways.
Flattery-then-pitch
'I liked your article on X' followed by a pitch is a transparent PR move; naming a real gap in their coverage shows genuine engagement.
Is it for you?
Best for
Companies with an executive willing to take a bold, strategic public stance on a trending topic in their space
Not ideal for
Businesses that shouldn't be associated with the controversy (e.g. regulatory fights) or execs unwilling to own a public position
From the transcript
“having something like pretty controversial to say”
“they want to write a balanced article they need that opposing view and so we really push our clients to have something you know unique…”
“the title was shopify's Medan cost calculator does not dress address the issue of wasted time”
“hey my client's noticing this trend um I know you've covered it from this point of view but no one's talking about it from this…”
From the episode
The ultimate guide to PR
Emilie Gerber (founder of Six Eastern)