# HARO Statistics (2026): 100M Emails, 2M Pitches, AI Trends - Published: 2026-08-31 - Author: [Featured](https://press.featured.com/author/featured.md) - Topics: [Research](https://press.featured.com/research.md) - Source: https://press.featured.com/research/haro-statistics/ - Publisher: Featured Press Room These figures come from **HARO**, Featured’s journalist-request network. Here is how those pitches are written, how journalists choose to receive them, and how requests and accounts are reviewed. **21%** of pitches submitted through HARO are written entirely by AI. > More than one in five pitches submitted through HARO are written completely by AI — and journalists are about three times more likely to use a human-written pitch instead. ## Key Definitions - **HARO** — Help A Reporter Out, Featured’s journalist-request network. Journalists publish requests for sources; sources reply with pitches. - **Pitch** — A response a source sends to a journalist’s request. HARO classifies whether that response was written by a person or generated entirely by AI. - **AI-generated pitch** — A pitch classified as written completely by AI, with no meaningful human authorship. Journalists can choose to block these when they submit a request. - **Journalist request** — A query a journalist submits seeking sources, quotes, or expertise. Featured reviews the journalist, publication, and request before it is sent to sources. ## Five findings ### 21% — One in five pitches is written entirely by AI More than one in five pitches submitted through HARO are written completely by AI. ### 35% — A third of journalists now block AI-generated pitches More than one-third of journalists now choose to block AI-generated responses when submitting a request. ### 23 min — A user is banned every 23 minutes HARO bans users primarily for spam and violations of its terms of service. ### 32% — Nearly a third of journalist requests are rejected Nearly one-third of journalist requests are rejected during the approval process after reviewing the journalist, publication, and request for quality and legitimacy. ### ~3× — Human-written pitches are far more likely to be used Human-written pitches are about three times more likely to be used by journalists than AI-generated pitches. ## Human-written pitches still win Journalists are about **three times more likely** to use a human-written pitch than an AI-generated one. More than a third now block AI-generated responses when they submit a request. | Pitch | Relative use rate | | --- | --- | | Human-written | 3× | | AI-generated | 1× | Relative likelihood that a journalist uses the pitch. Human-written pitches are scaled to the AI-generated baseline. - **21%** of pitches submitted through HARO are written entirely by AI - **35%** of journalists block AI-generated responses on their requests - **32%** of journalist requests are rejected in approval review - **~3×** more likely that a journalist uses a human-written pitch ## Method notes - **Pitches.** Pitch figures cover responses submitted through HARO. A pitch is counted as entirely AI-generated when the submission is classified as written completely by AI, with no meaningful human authorship. Use rates compare how often journalists use human-written pitches versus AI-generated pitches. - **Journalists.** Journalist blocking is the share of journalists who opt to exclude AI-generated responses when they submit a request. - **Review.** Ban frequency is the average interval between HARO account bans, issued primarily for spam and terms-of-service violations. Request rejection is the share of journalist requests declined during Featured’s approval review of the journalist, publication, and request for quality and legitimacy. ## Pitch journalists who still read every response Featured matches you to HARO and journalist requests in your beat — and helps you send a human pitch, the kind journalists actually use.

See journalist requests