Press Release - New Program Launch
Media announcement for program milestone or launch
The Prompt
The Prompt
Draft a journalist-ready press release announcing the launch of [PROGRAM NAME] by [ORGANIZATION NAME].
The press release should:
- Be 450–550 words; follow AP style; use people-first, plain language; short paragraphs (1–3 sentences); no exclamation points or jargon.
- Use this order: Headline; Optional subhead; “For Immediate Release” or “Embargoed until [EMBARGO DATE/TIME TZ]”; Dateline (CITY, State — Month Day, Year); Lead; Body; Quotes; Call-to-action/assets; Boilerplate; Media contact.
- Write a headline (8–12 words) in active voice that includes [CITY/REGION] or a compelling [LOCAL HOOK]/stat; avoid puns/colons.
- Include release/embargo line and dateline as above.
- Lead paragraph answers who/what/when/where/why/how: name [PROGRAM NAME], [LAUNCH DATE], [LOCATION/ONLINE], [PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES], [PROBLEM STAT], expected change, and scope (serve X people in Y timeframe).
- Body (P2–P3): convert [PROGRAM DETAILS: 3–5 BULLETS] into concise sentences; include [PARTNERS], funding if relevant, and one [SUPPORTING STAT/STATISTIC + SOURCE] with hyperlink; tie to [LOCAL HOOK].
- Quote 1 (25–40 words) from [ED NAME, TITLE] on [ED QUOTE THEME]; specific and human (no “we’re excited”); include one vivid outcome or detail.
- Optional Quote 2 (20–30 words) from [PARTNER SPOKESPERSON] or [BENEFICIARY FIRST NAME—with consent]; respectful, people-first.
- Call to action for media: interview/site visit timing, [CALL TO ACTION], [PHOTO/ASSET LINKS], [WEBSITE URL]; plus a 6–9 word email subject line and a 2–3 sentence pitch tailored to [MEDIA TARGETS].
- Boilerplate (75–100 words): [ONE-SENTENCE MISSION], core programs, geography, annual reach (# served), year founded, website.
- Media contact: [CONTACT NAME], [CONTACT TITLE], [CONTACT EMAIL], [CONTACT PHONE].
- Tone: [TONE = FORMAL (neutral, reporter-ready) / WARM (community-centered, plain) / CONVERSATIONAL (local-friendly, approachable)]; no byline—attribute quotes to speakers.
A strong release is newsy (not promotional), local, and concrete: quantify goals, timelines, and beneficiaries; attribute stats; avoid clichés (“transformative,” “world-class”), acronyms, and savior language. Center community impact and dignity. If any bracketed detail is missing, ask up to three quick clarifying questions before drafting.
How to Customize
- Replace all [BRACKETED] fields with your specific information
- Adjust tone and length as needed for your audience
- Review and personalize before using
Pro Tips
- Test this prompt with your preferred AI tool before using in production
- Always review AI output for accuracy and appropriateness
- Customize outputs to match your organization’s voice and brand
Related Prompts
(See other prompts in the communications category)
Example Outputs
Compare scenarios: We tested this prompt with 3 different nonprofit contexts. Each scenario shows outputs from GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini. Select a model above each scenario to compare.
Small Community Org
Neighborhood-led food access nonprofit on Chicago’s South Side; small staff, volunteer-powered; supported by local donors and small family foundations.
View scenario details
I can draft the release now, but I have three quick questions to ensure accuracy:
1) Scope/impact: How many residents do you expect to serve and over what timeframe (for example, 8,000 in the first 12 months)?
2) Funding: Do you want to name key funders and the total launch budget? If yes, please provide the funders and amount.
3) Program scale: Please confirm that the plan is 15 fridges across ten host sites (some sites with more than one fridge).
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
The AI correctly identified critical gaps in the scenario data before drafting, demonstrating professional judgment. The three clarifying questions are precise, relevant, and would prevent common press release errors. This approach models best practice for nonprofit communications.
- • Asks exactly the right questions: scope/reach metrics are essential for a newsworthy lead paragraph and missing from the scenario
- • Identifies the 15 fridges/10 sites discrepancy that could confuse journalists—shows attention to detail
- • Funding question is strategic: many small nonprofits forget to include this, but it adds credibility and newsworthiness
- • Stops to clarify rather than fabricating data or producing an incomplete draft—ethically sound and professionally appropriate
- • Questions are concise and answerable, respecting the user's time
- • The phrasing 'I can draft the release now, but...' sets clear expectations and maintains momentum
- • The opening phrase 'I can draft the release now, but' is slightly formulaic and could be more conversational given the WARM tone requested
- • Could have acknowledged which elements are already complete/strong in the scenario to build confidence alongside the questions
- • Minor: doesn't explicitly confirm the WARM tone will be applied, though the question style suggests understanding
Mid-Size Professional Org
Regional workforce nonprofit serving rural Appalachia; mid-size staff with training centers; funded by corporate partnerships and state/federal workforce grants.
View scenario details
Thanks — a few quick details will help me nail the lead and boilerplate:
1) How many participants will Fiber Futures Fellowship serve, and over what timeframe (e.g., first year or first two years)? 2) What funding source(s) and amounts can we cite for the launch? 3) Boilerplate check: What year was Appalachian TechWorks founded, your annual reach (number served last year), core programs and service geography, and the website URL you want listed?
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.2/10)
The AI correctly identified missing critical information and asked targeted clarifying questions before drafting. This demonstrates excellent professional judgment and prevents producing an incomplete press release. However, it technically did not fulfill the deliverable (a complete press release), which significantly impacts completeness score.
- • Demonstrates strong professional judgment by refusing to fabricate missing data points (participant numbers, funding amounts, founding year)
- • Questions are precisely targeted to gaps that would weaken journalist credibility (quantifiable scope, attribution, verifiable organizational facts)
- • Tone is appropriately professional and collaborative, treating the user as a partner rather than simply executing a flawed request
- • Shows understanding that a press release with invented statistics or vague claims would harm the nonprofit's credibility with media
- • The three questions asked are exactly the right ones: scope/scale (Q1), funding legitimacy (Q2), and boilerplate accuracy (Q3)
- • Did not produce the requested deliverable (a complete press release), which may frustrate users expecting immediate output
- • Some requested information actually exists in the scenario (WEBSITE URL is provided as https://apptechworks.org/fiberfutures, though asking for confirmation is reasonable)
- • Could have offered to draft a partial release with bracketed placeholders for missing data as an alternative approach
- • No acknowledgment of timeline—a real communications director under embargo pressure might need a draft today even if imperfect
Large Established Org
National environmental health nonprofit with city partnerships; large budget and national donor base; launching a metro-scale heat resilience initiative in Phoenix.
View scenario details
I can draft this now, but a few quick details will make it accurate and ready to send:
1) Scope: How many people will Cool Corridors Phoenix serve, and over what timeframe (e.g., Summer 2026 or 2026–2027)? 2) Funding: Do you want to include total budget and primary funders? If yes, please share amounts and names. 3) Quote 2: Should the city quote come from Maria Torres, Deputy Director, City of Phoenix Office of Heat Response and Mitigation, or another spokesperson? Please confirm name and title.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
The AI correctly identified missing critical information and asked targeted clarifying questions before drafting. This demonstrates strong understanding of press release requirements and professional judgment. However, the output is not yet a deliverable—it's a pre-draft request for information.
- • Excellent professional judgment: recognized that scope (number served, timeframe) is essential for the lead paragraph and cannot be fabricated
- • Asked precisely the right questions: scope/reach, funding details, and quote attribution—all common gaps in nonprofit briefs
- • Appropriate tone in the request: conversational, efficient, and collaborative rather than robotic
- • Demonstrates understanding of press release structure by linking questions to specific sections (lead paragraph needs scope)
- • Shows restraint by not hallucinating data or making assumptions about budget, timeline, or spokesperson details
- • The phrasing 'I can draft this now, but...' is slightly generic AI language; a human comms professional might say 'Ready to draft—just need three quick details'
- • Could have been more specific about why scope matters (e.g., 'The lead paragraph requires reach/timeline to answer the journalism 5Ws')
- • Minor: Question 3 about Maria Torres is somewhat redundant since her name/title were already provided in PARTNER SPOKESPERSON—could have assumed or asked only if a different person is preferred
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 7.04/10 • Total validation cost: $0.0878