# The Economist Submission Strategy Guide
## Amoral Intelligence Article - Complete Submission Package

**Prepared:** 2025-10-20
**Project:** Agentic Governance Research Initiative
**Target Publication:** The Economist

---

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document outlines the complete strategy for submitting the "Amoral Intelligence" article to The Economist, including:
- Primary and alternative submission paths
- Key contacts with email addresses
- Rules of engagement and editorial expectations
- Timeline and follow-up protocol
- Backup strategies if declined

**Key Strategic Shift:** Moving from NYT (general public, emotional appeal) to The Economist (decision makers, analytical evidence) based on:
1. Target audience: Business leaders, policymakers, executives who make AI deployment decisions
2. Tone: Evidence-based, analytical, slightly contrarian (not activist or emotional)
3. Angle: Governance improves performance (counterintuitive finding for business readers)
4. Length: 920 words (Economist optimal range vs NYT 900 words)

---

## SUBMISSION OPTIONS

### OPTION 1: Direct Pitch to Technology Editor (PRIMARY STRATEGY)

**Contact:** Henry Tricks, US Technology Editor
**Email:** henry.tricks@economist.com
**Phone:** The Economist main office: +44 207 830 7000
**LinkedIn:** linkedin.com/in/henry-tricks-5b045b48/

**Why This Approach:**
- Most direct path for feature article placement
- Technology editor has authority to commission pieces
- Can request "By Invitation" if pitch strong enough
- The Economist prefers section-specific pitches over general submissions

**What to Send:**
1. Pitch letter (included in main document)
2. Full article in email body (920 words)
3. Link to supporting documentation: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs.html
4. Offer availability for fact-checking and editorial discussion

**Email Subject Line:**
"Article Proposal: The NEW A.I. - Amoral Intelligence"

**Expected Response Time:**
- 2-4 weeks if interested
- No response typically means declined (per Economist practice)
- May send to fact-checkers or article authors for technical verification

---

### OPTION 2: Letter to the Editor (BACKUP STRATEGY)

**Contact:** Letters Editor
**Email:** letters@economist.com
**Phone:** Same as main office

**Why This Approach:**
- Open submission (no pitch required)
- Published regularly (every issue has letters section)
- All letters begin with "SIR" (traditional British convention)
- Maximum length: 250 words (typically 100-150 words published)

**What to Send:**
- 247-word letter (separate file created: Economist-Letter-Amoral-Intelligence.md)
- Plain text in email body (no attachments)
- Include full name and contact details

**Email Subject Line:**
"Letter to Editor: Amoral Intelligence and AI Governance"

**Expected Response Time:**
- 1-2 weeks if accepted
- No response if declined
- May edit for length or clarity without notifying author

**Strategy:** Use this if:
- Full article pitch declined or no response after 4 weeks
- Want to respond to future Economist AI coverage
- Seeking to establish credibility before re-pitching full piece

---

### OPTION 3: "By Invitation" (ASPIRATION PATH)

**Contact:** Editorial team (invitation-only section)
**Email:** Pitch through henry.tricks@economist.com or main editorial

**Why This Approach:**
- Prestigious guest essay section
- Higher profile than regular articles
- Personally invited by editors (not open submission)

**What to Send:**
- Same pitch as Option 1, noting interest in "By Invitation" if appropriate
- Strong pitch may prompt invitation even if not initially solicited

**Expected Response:**
- Invitation typically comes from editors proactively
- Strong article pitch may lead to invitation
- If invited, editors provide specific guidelines and deadlines

**Strategy:** Mention in pitch to Henry Tricks that material would suit "By Invitation" format, but don't insist on it.

---

## KEY EDITORIAL CONTACTS

### Primary Contacts

**Henry Tricks** - US Technology Editor
- Email: henry.tricks@economist.com
- Role: Oversees technology coverage in US
- Based in: United States (The Economist has global correspondents)

**Letters Editor**
- Email: letters@economist.com
- Publishes 3-6 letters per issue
- Typical length published: 100-250 words

### Structural Contacts

**Main Editorial Office:**
The Economist Newspaper Ltd
25 St. James's Street
London SW1A 1HG
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 207 830 7000

**Email Format:**
The Economist uses: first.last@economist.com
(82.7% of work emails follow this pattern)

### Other Relevant Editors (If Technology Redirects)

**Science & Technology Section:**
- Check media directory at economist.com for current editor
- London-based section editors handle most commissioning

**Business Section:**
- If framed more as enterprise/business strategy
- May be interested in governance ROI angle

---

## THE ECONOMIST: STYLE & EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

### Writing Style (from The Economist Style Guide)

**Required:**
- Essay structure: beginning, middle, end (coherent whole)
- Each paragraph follows logically; article suffers if sentence removed
- Clarity above all: "plain, straightforward words"
- Readily understandable to intelligent non-expert readers
- Facts presented as story, not just information stitched together

**Prohibited:**
- Hectoring or arrogant tone ("those who disagree are not stupid")
- Self-congratulation ("we correctly predicted")
- Too chatty ("surprise, surprise")
- Academic jargon or empty buzzwords
- Long words disguising absence of thought
- Stale metaphors

**Tone Characteristics:**
- Confident but not boastful
- Analytical, not emotional
- Evidence-based conclusions
- Slightly contrarian or counterintuitive findings welcome
- International perspective (not US-centric)

### Structural Preferences

**Length:**
- Feature articles: 600-1200 words (sweet spot ~800-950)
- Letters: 100-250 words maximum
- "By Invitation": typically 800-1000 words

**Anonymous Byline:**
- The Economist does NOT use bylines on regular articles
- Publication speaks with "one collective voice"
- Author credits only in "By Invitation" or special features
- This means: don't expect prominent author attribution

**Evidence Standards:**
- Claims must be fact-checkable
- May send article to technical experts for verification
- May send to authors of cited work for validation
- Provide supporting documentation proactively

---

## RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

### DO:

1. **Pitch to specific section editor** (not general submissions)
   - Identify relevant section (Technology, Science, Business)
   - Find section editor via media directory
   - Tailor pitch to section's typical coverage

2. **Provide supporting evidence**
   - Link to technical documentation
   - Offer fact-checking contacts
   - Make data/metrics available for verification

3. **Follow up professionally**
   - Wait 3 weeks before first follow-up
   - Send brief reminder email (3-4 sentences)
   - Accept no response as decline after 4 weeks

4. **Accept editorial control**
   - The Economist will edit for style, length, clarity
   - May not notify author of edits
   - Publication owns final version

5. **Time pitches strategically**
   - Relate to recent cover stories when possible
   - Connect to current news cycles
   - Offer timely perspective on developing stories

### DON'T:

1. **Don't submit simultaneously to multiple Economist sections**
   - Choose one section editor for initial pitch
   - If redirected, follow that direction

2. **Don't expect rapid response**
   - 2-4 weeks normal for consideration
   - No response typically means declined
   - Editors receive hundreds of pitches

3. **Don't demand byline or attribution**
   - Regular articles are anonymous
   - "By Invitation" does include attribution
   - This is fundamental Economist policy

4. **Don't be overly promotional**
   - Avoid "visit our website" in article body
   - Supporting materials fine in pitch/submission
   - Focus on analysis, not advertising framework

5. **Don't argue if declined**
   - Accept decision gracefully
   - May pitch different angle later
   - Maintain professional relationship for future

---

## TIMELINE & FOLLOW-UP PROTOCOL

### Week 1: Initial Submission
- **Day 1:** Send pitch + article to henry.tricks@economist.com
- **Day 1:** Set calendar reminder for 3-week follow-up
- **Day 2-7:** Check for automated receipt or initial response

### Week 2-3: Waiting Period
- No action required
- Editors review, may fact-check, may discuss internally
- May not acknowledge receipt (standard practice)

### Week 3: First Follow-Up (if no response)
**Send brief email:**
```
Subject: Following up: Amoral Intelligence article pitch

Mr. Tricks,

Following up on my October 20th pitch regarding AI governance
and performance (article: "The NEW A.I.: Amoral Intelligence").

Happy to discuss if timing/angle adjustments would strengthen
relevance for Economist readers.

Best regards,
John Stroh
research@agenticgovernance.digital
```

### Week 4: Decision Point
- If no response by end of week 4, consider declined
- Move to backup strategy (letter to editor OR alternative publication)
- Don't send additional follow-ups

### Alternative Timeline: If Accepted
- Expect editorial queries and fact-checking requests
- Turnaround typically 1-2 weeks for revisions
- Publication may be weeks or months after acceptance
- No guarantee of publication even if accepted (news cycle dependent)

---

## BACKUP STRATEGIES

### If Full Article Declined:

**OPTION A: Submit Letter to Editor**
- Use 247-word version (already prepared)
- Send to letters@economist.com
- Establishes presence in publication
- May prompt future interest in full piece

**OPTION B: Alternative Publications**
1. **Financial Times** (similar audience, business focus)
   - Contact: ft.com/contact
   - Style: Similar to Economist, slightly more business-focused

2. **Wall Street Journal** (US business leaders)
   - OpEd page: wsj.com/news/opinion
   - Conservative-leaning but respects rigorous analysis

3. **MIT Technology Review** (technical decision makers)
   - More technical depth acceptable
   - Contact: editors@technologyreview.com

4. **Harvard Business Review** (enterprise strategy focus)
   - Governance ROI angle strong fit
   - Contact: hbr.org/guidelines-for-authors

5. **Wired** (broader tech audience)
   - More narrative style acceptable
   - Contact: wired.com/about/contact

**OPTION C: Revision & Resubmission**
- Wait 6 months
- Revise based on new developments
- Re-pitch with updated evidence/events
- Different angle or section

### If Letter Published:

**Leverage for full article:**
- Wait 2-3 months
- Reference published letter in new pitch
- Propose expanded treatment: "My recent letter on AI governance (published [date]) prompted questions about implementation..."
- Demonstrates Economist has already validated core argument

---

## SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

### Pre-Submission:
- [ ] Review article for Economist style compliance
- [ ] Ensure supporting documentation accessible (https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs.html)
- [ ] Prepare fact-checking contacts if requested
- [ ] Confirm all empirical claims are defensible
- [ ] Check article doesn't sound AI-written (human editorial review)

### Primary Submission (Technology Editor):
- [ ] Send pitch letter to henry.tricks@economist.com
- [ ] Include full article in email body
- [ ] Attach .docx version as backup
- [ ] Subject: "Article Proposal: The NEW A.I. - Amoral Intelligence"
- [ ] Include supporting links in pitch
- [ ] Set 3-week follow-up reminder

### Backup Submission (Letter to Editor):
- [ ] Prepare 247-word letter version (completed)
- [ ] Hold for 4 weeks after full article pitch
- [ ] If no response, send to letters@economist.com
- [ ] Plain text in email body (no attachment)
- [ ] Subject: "Letter to Editor: Amoral Intelligence and AI Governance"

---

## KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

### What Makes This Pitch Strong:

1. **Counterintuitive Finding:** Governance improves performance (challenges business assumption)
2. **Evidence-Based:** Production metrics, ROI calculations, incident analysis
3. **Decision-Maker Relevant:** Addresses liability, compliance, competitive advantage
4. **Timely:** Enterprise AI deployments accelerating; regulatory frameworks forming
5. **Economist-Appropriate Tone:** Analytical, confident, slightly contrarian
6. **Clear Implications:** Business strategy + policy implications outlined

### Potential Weaknesses to Address:

1. **Limited Track Record:** Authors not widely known (counter with: data speaks for itself)
2. **Narrow Deployment:** Production evidence from limited deployments (counter with: preliminary but rigorous)
3. **Technical Complexity:** May seem too technical (counter with: executive summary focus)

### How Pitch Mitigates Concerns:

- Opens with surprising finding (hooks business readers)
- Uses plain language, not academic jargon
- Provides concrete examples (medical AI, hiring AI)
- Quantifies ROI (4,500,000% return speaks to business audience)
- Offers clear policy implications (not just theoretical)

---

## POST-SUBMISSION EXPECTATIONS

### If Accepted:

**Expect:**
- Editorial queries about technical claims
- Fact-checking verification requests
- Potential length cuts (may reduce to 800 words)
- Style edits without consultation
- Publication weeks/months after acceptance
- No byline on regular article (anonymous Economist voice)
- Possible "By Invitation" upgrade if pitch very strong

**Be Prepared To:**
- Respond to fact-checking within 24-48 hours
- Provide technical expert contacts
- Accept significant editing
- Defend empirical claims with data
- Wait patiently for publication timing

### If Declined:

**Don't:**
- Ask for explanation (usually not provided)
- Argue about decision
- Burn bridges with defensive responses

**Do:**
- Thank editor for consideration
- Ask if different angle would be of interest
- Move to backup publication strategy
- Maintain professional relationship for future pitches

**Consider:**
- Was timing off? (resubmit in 6 months with updates)
- Was angle wrong for Economist? (try business publication instead)
- Was evidence insufficient? (strengthen with more deployment data)
- Was tone wrong? (more analytical? less technical?)

---

## CONTACT SUMMARY

**Primary Submission Path:**
- **To:** henry.tricks@economist.com
- **Subject:** Article Proposal: The NEW A.I. - Amoral Intelligence
- **Format:** Pitch letter + full article in email + .docx attachment
- **Follow-up:** 3 weeks if no response

**Backup Submission Path:**
- **To:** letters@economist.com
- **Subject:** Letter to Editor: Amoral Intelligence and AI Governance
- **Format:** 247-word letter, plain text in email body
- **Timing:** 4 weeks after primary pitch if no response

**General Inquiries:**
- **Address:** 25 St. James's Street, London SW1A 1HG, UK
- **Phone:** +44 207 830 7000
- **Website:** economist.com

---

## COMPARISON: ECONOMIST VS NYT APPROACH

| Aspect | The Economist | The New York Times (previous) |
|--------|---------------|-------------------------------|
| **Audience** | Business leaders, policymakers, global decision makers | General educated public, US-focused |
| **Tone** | Analytical, evidence-based, slightly contrarian | Emotional appeal, moral urgency |
| **Length** | 920 words | 897 words |
| **Opening** | Surprising finding (governance improves performance) | Provocative question (alignment to whose values?) |
| **Evidence** | Production metrics, ROI calculations | Conceptual arguments, examples |
| **Angle** | Business opportunity + risk management | Ethical imperative + social risk |
| **Byline** | Anonymous (or "By Invitation" with attribution) | Authors credited |
| **Key Message** | Don't trade safety for performance—get both | Stop trying to make AI moral, make it governable |
| **Call to Action** | Adopt structural governance (business case) | Demand governance (ethical case) |

**Why The Economist is Better Fit:**
1. Target decision makers who can actually implement/adopt framework
2. Business case (ROI, liability reduction) aligns with reader priorities
3. Evidence-based approach fits analytical readership
4. International reach beyond US market
5. Prestigious platform for establishing credibility with enterprise/policy audiences

---

## FILES CREATED

**Primary Submission Package:**
- `Economist-Article-Amoral-Intelligence.md` - Full article (920 words) + pitch letter + supporting materials
- `Economist-Article-Amoral-Intelligence.docx` - Word format for submission

**Backup Materials:**
- `Economist-Letter-Amoral-Intelligence.md` - 247-word letter to editor version
- `Economist-Submission-Strategy.md` - This document (strategy guide)

**Supporting Documentation (already exists):**
- ROI case study: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs/research-governance-roi-case-study.pdf
- Technical framework: https://agenticgovernance.digital/docs.html
- Production evidence: incident reports and performance metrics

---

## FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

### Immediate Action:
1. **Human review** of article for AI-writing tells (ensure it doesn't sound generated)
2. **Send primary pitch** to henry.tricks@economist.com this week
3. **Set calendar reminder** for 3-week follow-up
4. **Prepare fact-checking responses** (have metrics/data ready)

### Medium-term:
1. **If no response by week 4:** Send letter to editor version (letters@economist.com)
2. **Monitor Economist AI coverage:** May provide opportunity for responsive letter
3. **Prepare alternative publication pitches:** FT, WSJ, HBR, MIT Tech Review

### Long-term:
1. **Build evidence base:** More production deployments = stronger future pitches
2. **Publish research papers:** Academic credibility strengthens "By Invitation" prospects
3. **Engage with Economist writers:** Comment on AI articles, build relationships
4. **Track deployment metrics:** Quarterly updates strengthen resubmission case

---

**Strategic Intent:** This is not just about getting one article published—it's about establishing the Agentic Governance framework as a credible solution in the minds of decision makers who can accelerate adoption. The Economist is the optimal platform for this positioning.

**Success Metric:** Not just publication, but generating enterprise inquiries, policy discussions, and framework adoption by organizations that read The Economist and make AI governance decisions.

---

**END OF STRATEGY GUIDE**

**Contact for Questions:**
John Stroh, research@agenticgovernance.digital
