On this page12
- Why do most partnership announcements get ignored?
- The Partnership News Ladder: is this worth pitching?
- What makes a partnership worth announcing in the first place?
- The "now you can" rewrite: a worked example
- What a partnership that got covered looked like
- How to split the work with your partner
- When this approach doesn't fit
- FAQ
- Should a partnership announcement be a press release?
- Who should announce first, us or the partner?
- How long before launch should we pitch a partnership story?
- What if the partner wants a different angle from us?
To announce a partnership that gets covered, lead with what users can now do that they couldn't do yesterday, not with the two logos. Put the user change in the headline, back it with one proof point (a number, a first, or a well-known name), agree the timing and quotes with your partner in writing, and pitch the story to a short list of reporters who cover that user change. A partnership is news when it changes behaviour. Otherwise it's a social post.
Why do most partnership announcements get ignored?
Because they announce a relationship, not a result.
"Protocol A partners with Protocol B" tells a reporter that two teams had a call and signed something. It doesn't say what's different for anyone. Crypto newsrooms get a steady stream of these, and almost all of them go straight to the bin. The ones that run are usually paid placements, which is a different product.
I've said it bluntly before:
every other launch is important to the company & promotional to the media of it doesn't have a high impact value associated w it! Shilika Jain on X, 11 Oct 2024
A reporter's job is to tell their readers something useful. A logo swap is useful to the two companies involved and to nobody else. So the work of a partnership announcement is translating "we signed" into "you can now".
The Partnership News Ladder: is this worth pitching?
Before anyone writes a word, I put the partnership on a five-rung ladder. Each rung up makes the story more likely to run. Be honest about where it sits.
| Rung | What it is | Typical outcome | What to do |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Logo swap | MoU, "strategic partnership", co-marketing intent | No earned coverage | Social posts from both sides, no press push |
| 2. Integration live | Something is technically connected | Trade newsletters, maybe | Short update post, developer channels |
| 3. New user capability | Users can do a specific new thing | Trade and crypto media | Full announcement, targeted pitch |
| 4. Proof attached | Capability plus a number, a first, or early users | Crypto tier-1 becomes realistic | Embargoed pitch to the right reporters |
| 5. Category signal | A Web2 giant, regulated institution or cultural name in crypto | Mainstream or business press too | Exclusive or embargo, plus regional angles |
Most announcements sit on rung 1 or 2 and get pitched as if they were on rung 4. That mismatch is what burns relationships with reporters. If yours is on rung 1, that's fine. Announce it on your own channels and save the press effort.
Moving up a rung usually means waiting. A partnership announced when the integration is live and has its first users is a far better story than the same partnership announced at signing.
What makes a partnership worth announcing in the first place?
The deal itself has to make sense. You can't PR your way out of a partnership that only one side wanted.
you can close partnerships only if the parties involved have a mutual benefit! Shilika Jain on X, 3 Oct 2022
Mutual benefit shows up in the announcement. When both sides gain something concrete, both comms teams push the news, both founders give quotes they actually believe, and both communities share it. When one side is doing a favour, you get a lukewarm quote from them, a single repost, and a story with no energy.
A quick check I use: ask each partner to finish the sentence "this matters to our users because" without it sounding forced. If one of them can't, the announcement will feel one-sided in print too.
The "now you can" rewrite: a worked example
Here's the rewrite I run on almost every partnership draft. Take a generic version:
Before: "Wallet X announces strategic partnership with Chain Y to drive Web3 adoption."
That headline has two names and a cliché. Now run it through four prompts:
- The user: Wallet X's existing users.
- What they can do now: Bridge to Chain Y and use its apps without leaving the wallet.
- What it took before: Three apps and a manual bridge.
- The proof: Supported apps on day one, or test users who tried it.
After: "Wallet X users can now use Chain Y apps in one tap, without a separate bridge."
Same partnership. Different story. The second version tells a reporter what to write and tells a reader why to care. The partnership is still in the body, along with both quotes, but it's the reason the change happened rather than the headline.
This works because products get judged on what they let people do. I noticed the same thing on conference floors:
product: folks need to sync on how they can partner/integrate/drive utility etc Shilika Jain on X, 17 Nov 2024
Utility is the story. The partnership is how you got there.
What a partnership that got covered looked like
One of my clients shows the ladder in practice. For Web3Auth, the Google Cloud partnership came with a concrete product: a Firebase extension that developers could use. That's rung 4 or 5, a Web2 giant plus a real capability. It was covered by Benzinga, The Cryptonomist and Cryptonews FR and made the CoinDesk Protocol newsletter in October 2023. The Trust Wallet partnership was covered separately by Yahoo Finance.
What made it work wasn't the Google name alone. It was that developers could do something specific with it, and that the same quarter carried a separate hook (an adoption report), so the company wasn't relying on one announcement to carry everything.
Another one: Hefty Art partnered with Sotheby's for the first phygital auction of Indian modern artist M.F. Husain. "First" plus a cultural institution plus a named artist gave it a clear reason to run, and The Chainsaw covered it alongside Cryptopolitan and NullTX.
How to split the work with your partner
Joint announcements fail on logistics more often than on substance. Two comms teams, two legal reviews, two founders' calendars. Agree all of this before drafting:
- One date and time, in one timezone. Write it down. Confirm it again 48 hours out.
- Who pitches whom. Divide the media list so the same reporter doesn't get two pitches from two teams. The bigger partner usually takes the outlets they already have relationships with.
- Approval chain. Name one approver per side and a turnaround (two working days is reasonable) for the draft and quotes.
- One quote each. Each quote should say something the other can't. Two "we're thrilled" quotes are wasted space.
- Asset pack. Logos, a product screenshot or short demo, founder headshots and a one-paragraph description of each company.
- Social sequence. Who posts first, who quotes whom, and whether founders post from personal accounts.
- Embargo terms, if you're using one. My embargo strategy guide covers how to set them.
Bigger chains and foundations can be slow on this. I've written about delayed responses and missed deadlines from large ecosystem comms teams. Build in buffer, and don't announce until the partner's approval is in writing.
When this approach doesn't fit
There are times the "now you can" frame is the wrong tool.
- Pure investment or ecosystem grants. If the partnership is really funding, announce it as funding. Different angle, different reporters.
- Enterprise deals with NDAs. Sometimes the partner won't let you say what they're using you for. Then you can only announce the relationship, and you should keep expectations low on coverage.
- Very early integrations. If the user change is still months away, announce at go-live, not at signing. An early announcement steals the news from your later one.
- Rung 1 deals you want press for anyway. It's tempting to buy a placement to make a weak announcement look bigger. That's a paid distribution decision, not PR, and readers can usually tell.
The trade-off with waiting for a higher rung is that you lose the momentum of "we just signed". In my experience that's a small loss against the gain of a story that actually runs. And partnerships can also feed your product update posts once the capability ships, so the story gets a second life.
If you're planning a joint announcement and want it built properly, from the angle to the split media list, that sits inside my Web3 PR campaigns work, and there's more on scope on the partnership announcement PR page.
FAQ
Should a partnership announcement be a press release?
Only if it's on rung 3 or above. A press release for a logo swap mostly ends up on paid syndication sites that few people read. For lower rungs, a blog post and coordinated social posts from both teams do more for less money.
Who should announce first, us or the partner?
Neither. Publish at the same agreed minute. If one side has a much larger audience, it's fine for the smaller side to quote-post the bigger one, but the core announcement should go live together so neither looks like they're catching up.
How long before launch should we pitch a partnership story?
For an embargoed pitch, about a week before is a reasonable window for crypto media. For an exclusive, offer it to one reporter a few days earlier so they have time to ask questions. Rung 1 and 2 stories don't need a pitch window at all.
What if the partner wants a different angle from us?
Write down both angles and test them against the user. The one that describes a change for real people usually wins. If you still disagree, each side can lead with its own angle on its own channels while sharing one joint release.
Got a partnership on the way and not sure which rung it's on? Book a 30-minute call and we'll work out the angle before you draft.
