PR Daily: How to Turn Subject-Matter Experts Into Credible Public Voices

The most useful media source in any organization is often the person colleagues already call when a problem gets complicated — yet ask that person for a quote, and you may receive a job description, a credentials list or an explanation too technical for the audience. Jennifer Ransaw Smith, CEO of The Personal Elevation Lab, lays out a working process for communications teams in a piece published by PR Daily on turning internal experts into public voices who can hold an audience's trust.

Her core argument is simple. "Sometimes even smart people need a little guidance," Ransaw Smith writes. The communicator's job is to make the assignment specific, build the evidence, rehearse the boundaries and measure usefulness after publication.

Start with a question the expert can answer

"Tell me about your expertise" asks someone to summarize an entire career. Instead, Ransaw Smith recommends asking: "What decision do people regularly come to you for help making?" followed by "What do they tend to misunderstand before they talk with you?"

The communicator should listen for a recurring problem and a specific audience. "Operations" is a department; "helping managers spot gaps in how work moves between teams" gives a communicator something to explore. She suggests a working sentence — "I help [audience] understand [problem] so they can [make a decision or take action]" — tested against the expert's actual responsibilities. Narrow the subject until the expert can defend it under a difficult follow-up question.

Build the evidence before the biography

Ransaw Smith advises walking the expert through one relevant project: what was happening, what they personally contributed, who else was involved, what changed, and how they know. Record the answers in a short evidence file noting each claim's source, the expert's role and whether the information is cleared for external use. Observed results should stay separate from interpretations — a change that followed a project does not establish that the project caused it.

Her example: an operations manager who revised an internal handoff process. "I transformed organizational efficiency" says little and claims a great deal. A better account explains how the team found an unclear approval step, assigned an owner and checked whether work stopped accumulating there. Any numerical improvement needs verification before publication.

Translate the example for readers

An internal accomplishment becomes an editorial opportunity when it helps an outside reader act differently. The test question: "What could a reader learn from this without buying anything from us?" The organization supplies the experience; the reader receives a method — for instance, advice on diagnosing stalled handoffs before purchasing another workflow tool.

The finished explanation should contain the reader's problem, the expert's recommendation, an approved example and one action the reader can try. Strip company acronyms. Then hand it to a colleague unfamiliar with the work: if that person cannot explain the advice back accurately, revise before expanding its reach.

Rehearse a point of view and its limits

Experts need a position specific enough to be useful. Ransaw Smith has them finish the sentence: "When people face this problem, I recommend they start by …" — then defend it: why, when it does not apply, and what evidence would change their mind.

She prescribes a 90-second practice answer with a communicator playing the interviewer, including a skeptical follow-up. Watch for unsupported certainty, long detours and language that sounds unlike the expert. Rehearse boundaries too: "I can explain the process, but I cannot discuss that client's results" and "That falls outside my area of expertise" are answers worth practicing, with a redirect to an approved example rather than improvisation.

Make preparation part of the assignment

Agree on topic, format, preparation time and review process before offering a public opportunity. Confirm who checks factual accuracy, who approves sensitive material and when. An enthusiastic invitation still creates work, and room must be made for it with the expert and their manager. For a first contribution, Ransaw Smith suggests an approved written Q&A or a narrowly focused article, moving into live formats only when the person is willing and prepared.

Assess usefulness after publication

Review whether the contribution answered the intended question accurately, whether the editor needed substantial clarification, whether audience questions revealed a missing explanation, and whether the expert felt equipped. Use those answers on the next assignment — reach alone cannot tell you whether a source was clear, accurate or helpful.

The starting point, she writes, is one expert, one question, one supported contribution. A public voice becomes credible when audiences can understand the advice, see its basis and know where its limits lie.