As Pride Month begins, public-facing LGBTQ+ campaigns across the Asia Pacific and beyond appear to be more subdued in comparison to previous years. For communications teams, the shift raises a more complex question than whether brands are pulling back or simply evolving.
Isabelle Demaude, Head of Executive Training & Development at The Hoffman Agency and Diversity & Culture Group Chair at PRCA APAC, spoke to Telum Media about inclusive policies, leadership representation in market-sensitive communications, and how brands can show support.
We've seen fewer large-scale public Pride campaigns globally in recent years, with many brands instead shifting towards quieter internal inclusion efforts and year-round DEI initiatives. In your view, does this reflect a decline in corporate support or an evolution in how brands are approaching LGBTQ+ engagement?
Earlier this year, March was also suspiciously quiet. A month that used to overflow with purple panels, empowerment campaigns, and corporate declarations of solidarity, instead continued with business as usual.
Now we're entering June - historically synonymous with logos turning into rainbows - and this year feels decidedly muted.
Does this reflect a decline or an evolution? Probably both.
There are organisations that have genuinely shifted towards year-round inclusion work: embedding representation in hiring practices, sponsorship decisions, and leadership pipelines rather than concentrating energy into a single awareness month. That is, unambiguously, progress.
But I'd be cautious about using that framing as a blanket explanation. From speaking with global peers, I haven't heard of significant evidence that education and internal celebrations are happening in many organisations.
The data is worth noting: women's representation in senior leadership has stalled - and in some markets, begun to decline - as of early 2026, reversing years of gradual progress (The State of Women in Leadership 2026, LinkedIn Economic Graph). Meanwhile, social media platforms are becoming measurably less safe for LGBTQ+ users (Social Media Safety Index 2026, GLAAD).
A quieter public posture is understandable in a volatile geopolitical climate. But what concerns me is whether it reflects genuine commitment or simply the quiet comfort of returning to familiar leadership profiles and corporate structures.
There's growing criticism around "performative allyship" and rainbow-washing. From a communications perspective, what now separates an authentic Pride campaign from one that feels purely symbolic?
The difference is almost always visible in the infrastructure, not the campaign.
What needed to be asked: Who was promoted this quarter? Who received a stretch assignment? Who shaped the strategy, and did they represent the communities the campaign claimed to champion? A Pride campaign launched by a leadership team that looks exactly the same as it did five years ago isn't allyship. It's marketing.
Authentic communications in this space tend to be specific, internally consistent, and a little quieter. They name real programmes, real people, and real accountability measures. They don't need superlatives. The organisations that actually do this work rarely need to announce it loudly. The evidence shows up in who holds influence when the spotlight isn't on.
How are brands in Asia Pacific adapting their LGBTQ+ inclusion strategies to reflect differing cultural and political sensitivities across markets such as Singapore, Thailand, Australia, Taiwan, and more conservative markets?
This is where generalisations tend to break down fastest, and where I think the real sophistication in communication lies.
APAC is not a monolith. Taiwan has marriage equality. Singapore has repealed Section 377A, but messaging remains nuanced. Thailand's cultural openness coexists with complex legal frameworks. Australia operates under entirely different social expectations.
A single regional strategy is not just inadequate, it's a reputational risk.
What I see the more considered brands doing is separating their internal commitment from their external expression. The internal work, such as inclusive policies, psychological safety, and representation in decision-making, can and should be consistent.
External communications are calibrated market by market and informed by genuine cultural intelligence rather than by headquarters-led assumptions about what "inclusive" looks like.
As Pride communications evolve, what are the most meaningful ways brands and PR agencies can continue to support LGBTQ+ communities beyond Pride Month?
The honest answer is: it's less about communications and more about organisational behaviour.
The most meaningful thing a brand can do for LGBTQ+ communities is ensuring that the people who represent those communities are trusted with decisions, resources, and visibility - not just for one month, but consistently. That means auditing who is sponsored, whose ideas move forward, and whose voice shapes the product or policy.
For those of us in comms, the opportunity often isn't in the Pride campaign at all - it's in the conversations that happen the rest of the year. Employer branding, talent attraction, and market entry into more progressive markets are the moments when inclusion stops being a values statement and starts being a business argument.
That's where PR professionals can quietly reintroduce the conversation, and where brands tend to be most receptive to it.
But it only works if there's something real to say. I've had companies approach me to write hiring pages, positioning themselves as inclusive employers. However, when I asked for the evidence, the initiatives, the actual company stance, the answer was to make it up.
We turned them down. There's no communications strategy that fixes an empty brief.
Publsh Group adds two wins to its portfolio
You might also enjoy
.jpg)
Every few years, someone declares the death of the media release.
Today, the arguments sound familiar. Journalists don't read them anymore. Everything is social-first. AI is replacing traditional media outreach. It's all about the pitch. Press releases are becoming little more than AI-generated filler.
And yet, when we speak with journalists across Asia Pacific and the Middle East, a different picture emerges.
Media releases aren't dead, but expectations around them have changed significantly.
We've analysed more than 10,000 Journalist Interest Survey responses in the Telum Media platform collected over the past five years, alongside insights gathered from conversations with editors, reporters, and producers across the region.
Key takeaways:
- Journalists still value useful PR content
- Relevance matters more than reach
- The pitch and the release serve different roles
- The best releases reduce friction for journalists
- Modern releases need to support multiple platforms
The conclusion is clear: journalists still value media releases, but they value them for different reasons than they once did.
The media release has evolved from a distribution tool into something far more strategic.
The media release is no longer the story
For decades, many PR professionals treated the media release as the centrepiece of media relations activity.
Write the release. Send it widely. Hope for coverage - “spray and pray”.
That approach was far from perfect, but you could get away with it in an era when newsrooms were larger, competition for attention was lower, and journalists had more time to evaluate incoming information.
Today's reality is very different.
Journalists are producing content across multiple platforms, often with smaller teams and tighter deadlines. Their inboxes are flooded with pitches, announcements, thought leadership submissions, and increasingly, AI-generated content.
As a result, journalists have become far more selective about what earns their attention.
The modern media release is no longer just about news stories. It has become a source-of-truth asset, a newsroom resource, and a content hub that supports broader communications activity.
The best PR teams understand this shift.
“The strongest message from journalists can be summarised in a single phrase: ‘Understand what I cover’. Relevance remains the most important factor in successful media engagement.”
What journalists are actually rejecting
One of the most revealing findings from our analysis is that journalists are not rejecting PR content altogether.
What they're rejecting is low-value outreach.
Across thousands of responses, the same frustrations appeared repeatedly:
- Irrelevant pitches
- Generic outreach
- Mass distribution
- Weak story angles
- Excessive follow-ups
In other words, this is less a rejection of media releases and more a rejection of poor media relations practice.
The strongest message from journalists can be summarised in a single phrase:
"Understand what I cover."
Relevance remains the most important factor in successful media engagement. In fact, our journalist surveys over the past two years have seen a sharp increase in a desire for both relevance and personalisation in pitches.
Journalists increasingly assess pitches within seconds. If the connection to their beat, audience, or current priorities isn't immediately obvious, the opportunity is often lost before the email is even opened.
The pitch and the release have different jobs
One of the biggest misconceptions in modern media relations is treating the pitch and the release as the same thing.
They are not.
The pitch exists to earn attention; the release exists to support the story.
The best pitches are:
- Brief
- Human
- Relevant
- Contextual
- Conversational
The best releases are:
- Structured
- Factual
- Complete
- Reusable
- Easy to reference
At a recent Telum Media event, a senior journalist described the fastest way to kill a pitch with a single word: “Respect”. Or a lack thereof.
A generic greeting. A story unrelated to their beat. A mass-produced email that demonstrates no understanding of their audience.
All signal a lack of respect for the journalist's time and expertise.
High-performing PR teams increasingly write pitches and releases for different audiences. The pitch is written for the journalist. The release is written for the journalist's audience.
That distinction matters.
Why journalists still value media releases
Despite predictions of their demise, journalists continue to actively request media releases.
But they want releases that help them work more efficiently.
The most common requests include concise writing, clear headlines, strong news angles, supporting data (with downloadable images and assets), spokesperson access, and easy-to-use formats.
These preferences reveal the modern role of the release: it functions as a workflow tool.
A strong release helps journalists:
- Understand the story quickly
- Verify information
- Access supporting materials
- Build content efficiently
The best releases reduce friction. And in today's newsroom environment, reducing friction is often more valuable than generating hype.
Think beyond media coverage
Another major shift is that media releases are increasingly serving multiple audiences.
A modern release doesn’t just support journalists; it might also support clients and prospects, employees, investors and analysts, partners, and search visibility.
Rather than creating a single-use document, leading communications teams are building content ecosystems.
The release becomes the foundation for:
- Media outreach
- Newsroom content
- Executive communications
- Social media content
- Email campaigns
- Sales collateral
- Thought leadership activity
This approach not only improves consistency but also increases the return on investment from every announcement.
The role of the modern media release
Not every story needs a release
Perhaps one of the most important lessons is recognising when a media release is the wrong tool.
Releases tend to perform best when there is:
- Genuine news value
- Multiple stakeholder audiences
- A need for factual consistency
- Strong supporting assets
- Broader business significance
They are often less effective for internal milestones framed as major news (or self-congratulatory announcements), generic thought leadership, and untargeted mass outreach.
In some situations, a targeted pitch, LinkedIn strategy, executive commentary programme, or direct relationship-based outreach may be more effective.
Good communications strategy isn't about defaulting to a media release; it's about choosing the right tool for the objective.
A framework for modern media releases
If there is one word that captures what journalists are asking for today, it is respect.
At Telum Media, we summarise this through the RESPECT framework:
R – Relevance
Make it relevant to the journalist, their audience and the moment.
E – Efficiency
Help journalists work faster through clear, concise, and usable content.
S – Substance
Provide genuine value through expertise, data, insight, or access.
P – Personalisation
Demonstrate that you've done your homework.
E – Ecosystem
Think beyond the release and consider how it supports broader communications goals.
C – Clarity
Make the key message immediately obvious.
T – Timing
Reach out at the right time, not simply any time.
What journalists are asking for in a pitch / media release: RESPECT
The future of the media release
The debate over whether media releases are dead misses the point.
The more useful question is how do we make releases work better in today’s media environment?
Journalists still value relevant information, credible sources, strong story angles, and efficient communication. Media releases continue to play an important role in delivering those things.
But success today depends less on the existence of the release itself and more on how strategically it is used.
The media release remains a valuable communications tool.
Just not in the way many of us were taught to use it.
FAQs
Are media releases still useful in 2026?
Yes. Journalists still value media releases, but these days want targeted outreach, relevance to their beat, alignment with their audience, and contextual pitching.
What makes a media release useful to journalists?
Journalists are looking for releases in a format that helps them work efficiently. Which means releases that are concise, factual, with a clear angle, contain usable quotes, and come with downloadable assets and supporting data.
What is the difference between a pitch and a media release?
A pitch earns the journalist’s attention in their cluttered Inbox. A media release supports the story by providing structured, factual, and reusable information relevant to their audience.
With more than 30 years’ experience spanning journalism, corporate communications and media intelligence, Reuben Aitchison is Telum Media’s Head of Insights and Communications.
Explore Telum Media tools that help PR teams pitch with precision.
.jpg)