~20,000 founders and comms leaders start their week with The Brief.
Join them to receive insights into the media, communications, and PR industry.

TL;DR: Raising money ≠ guaranteed coverage. The number isn’t the story—the narrative is. And if you’re still mass pitching, you’re already behind.

It’s Tuesday (this newsletter may be Tuesday’s only redeeming quality 🫠) and we know, we know. It’s early. But we need to chat about funding announcements.

Specifically: why they’re not hitting like they used to. 

Hydrate (read: caffeinate) and get comfy. We've got thoughts.

A few years ago, a $15M–$30M raise was a real moment. It gained traction and momentum. People paid attention. Now, though…it’s not that it doesn’t matter. It just simply doesn’t stand out the same way. ​​🤷‍♀️

As billion-dollar rounds dominate headlines and $200M raises drop all casually, the bar’s shifted. What used to feel big now lowkey feels uneventful (womp womp).

Here’s the shift teams are starting to feel: 

💡 Funding used to be the headline; now it’s basically just the receipt.

What actually gets attention is the narrative; things like the shift a company represents, a defined category, or a followed trend. The funding helps validate the story, but it doesn’t carry it on its own.

Without a clear narrative, even a strong round can feel like just another number in a crowded cycle.

We talk about the power of storytelling—of making your news matter to people—often:

There was a time when you could email 40 reporters, cross your fingers, and call it a day. Respectfully… that era is over. 🥀💔

When everyone gets the same pitch, there’s not much incentive for a reporter to turn it into something meaningful.

Enter: the exclusive.

Give one reporter the scoop, and the dynamic changes. There’s space to build something more thoughtful and complete instead of just copy-pasting numbers.

In this environment, that depth makes a difference. 

One well-told story is better than a dozen unanswered emails, after all.

Exclusives are effective, but they raise the stakes. You’re choosing one outlet, one reporter, one angle. If it lands, it really lands. If it doesn’t, that window closes quickly.

It’s also risky—with how crowded the media landscape is, it’s not always easy to suss out who will deliver. Which makes this less about getting coverage and more about getting the right coverage. 🤝

Plus, even with the right story and the right outlet, timing can still make or break any of us.

There’s simply more competition for attention. Strong stories can still get buried without the right setup.

It’s a more coordinated effort than it used to be. And it shows in the outcome.

The bigger takeaway is pretty straightforward: Raising money doesn’t guarantee coverage anymore. What earns attention is the story around it.

The funding is still important…it just plays a different role.

The funding is the proof. The narrative is the plot.

And the story? That’s what gets published.

Ash & Lizzy

Who's going where and why it matters. Not just job shifts - power dynamics, layoffs, and who's headed out.

💔 Heather Kelly, a technology reporter at The Washington Post, was laid off from the outlet

🌁 Jemima McEvoy, features reporter for The Information, has moved into the eye of the storm, as it were, and relocated to San Francisco, where she’ll continue to write about the biggest things in tech

📢 Tom’s Guide, a spinoff of Tom’s Hardware, overhauled its homepage, adding a section for live tech news and reactions from experts, a relaunch that ultimately helps “readers find the right product faster”

🧳 Rebekah Valentine has taken a seat at Kotaku’s growing table, coming on as a senior reporter as the site expands under new ownership (owner Keleops says that traffic has doubled in under a year)

Get to know Ashley and Lizzy, learn more about The Colab, or pass The Brief along to a friend who should be reading this too.