# Human Pitches Still Beat AI Pitches, HARO Data Shows

- Published: 2026-10-16
- Author: [Featured](https://press.featured.com/author/featured.md)
- Topics: [In the news](https://press.featured.com/media-mention.md)
- Source: https://press.featured.com/media-mention/human-pitches-still-beat-ai-pitches-haro-data-shows/
- Publisher: Featured Press Room

*A new HARO report put real numbers behind what many PR pros already suspected: human-written pitches land far more often than AI-generated ones.*

*Online, October 15, 2026 · 6 min read*

Artificial intelligence has made its way into media pitching, but a new report from Help a Reporter Out (HARO) suggests the human touch still matters most. Of the more than 2 million pitches HARO analyzed, 79 percent had some human involvement, HARO CEO Brett Farmiloe told EIN Presswire. The remaining 21 percent were entirely AI-generated.

<p class="button"><a href="https://substack.einpresswire.com/p/yes-ai-can-write-your-pitch-but-can">Read the Full Interview</a></p>

### What the data shows

- **79% have a human hand** — HARO analyzed more than 2 million pitches and found 79 percent had some human involvement; 21 percent were entirely AI-generated, roughly 420,000 pitches.
- **3x more likely to land** — Human-written pitches were about three times more likely to get featured than pitches written entirely by AI, according to HARO's analysis.
- **35% filter out AI** — 35 percent of journalists have switched on HARO's filter that blocks pitches flagged as AI-generated. The filter is off by default.
- **42 pitches per request** — Connectively, HARO's sister platform, sees an average of 42 responses for every journalist request, a sign that volume alone rarely wins.

> Most journalists I speak with say that they can tell when a pitch is AI generated or not, just from a blink test.
>
> — Brett Farmiloe, CEO, HARO

Farmiloe's advice to publicists follows the HARO acronym itself: be Helpful, be Authentic, be Relevant, be On time. Authentic doesn't mean avoiding AI entirely. It means the pitch that goes out has to clear a bar higher than what a generic AI draft would produce on its own.

![Where AI answers pull their citations · From the Featured AI Citation Report, cited in the HARO interview · Editorial sources: ~67% · Brand-owned content: 1.7% · Roughly two-thirds of classified citations traced back to editorial sources; brand-owned content accounted for under 2 percent.](https://featured-com-images.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/featured-sites/press.featured.com/uploads/2026/10/chart-human-citation-sources-ac6c2b12.webp)

### Featured AI Citation Report, by the numbers

| Metric | Figure |
| --- | --- |
| Audits run | 405 |
| Brands covered | 378 |
| Buying questions asked | 1,983 |
| Citations traced | 22,881 |
| Domains identified | 11,499 |
| Median domain authority | 37 |
| Citations to DA 80+ sites | 31.2% |
| Citations to DA under 40 sites | 34.5% |

The pattern matters for communicators, Farmiloe said: media mentions help with model mentions. Earned coverage from independent editorial outlets showed up far more often in AI answers than content brands publish on their own sites.

### HARO's safeguards

- **AI detection on every pitch** — HARO partners with Pangram to screen every submission and runs added checks for fully automated senders.
- **Human review before send** — Every journalist request is reviewed and approved by a person, and websites must meet a minimum Moz domain authority of 20; about 32 percent of requests are rejected at that step.
- **A ban every 23 minutes** — HARO bans an account roughly every 23 minutes for spam or terms-of-service violations. An AI score alone never triggers a ban.

## About Featured

Featured is an AI-powered public relations platform that matches founders and experts with journalist requests to secure earned media coverage. Featured and HARO are sister brands under the same leadership.

## Media contact

Featured Communications  
Featured  
press@featured.com