Honestly, I've got to push back on this. Calling it "underrated" is a stretch - it's one of the most overhyped tactics in the SEO echo chamber right now.
Sure, journalists need visuals, but how many of those Canva graphics actually get a dofollow link versus a "source: [random site]" mention that passes zero equity? I've tested giving away data visuals in my own niches. Most of the time, the writer uses the chart and credits the source with a nofollow or no link at all. The ROI on time spent creating those assets is garbage compared to just buying a handful of niche edits.
And the whole "respond to journalist requests" thing? Been there. You're competing with hundreds of other brands who also read the same Request for Comment feeds. The conversion rate is tiny unless you have a truly unique dataset or a founder with a controversial opinion. Even then, you're lucky to get a mention, let alone a backlink that moves the needle.
What actually scales is building relationships with journalists before they have a request - but that takes months of genuine interaction, not a tool that pings you a Slack notification. That approach you're selling is just reactive outreach dressed up as "digital PR merging with SEO." It's still the same cold response game, just with a slightly different subject line.
If I'm spending time creating assets, I'd rather host them on my own domain with an embed code that forces a link back. At least then you control the attribution. Handing out free assets to journalists without a clear link policy is a race to the bottom.
