AI-written pitches are hurting PR and media is saying it out loud

Roger Johnson is director of media strategy at Method Communications. 

According to Cision, more than 53% of journalists report being actively opposed to receiving AI-generated pitches. And according to a Global Results Communications survey, 43% of journalists expressed negative views about AI-generated pitches, specifically because they “read as a bot wrote it,” lack perspective, and erode editorial trust. (And honestly, I think these numbers are on the low end.)

Countless reporters have publicly expressed frustration about AI-written pitches. Fortune’s Diane Brady shared how the number of AI-generated pitches she is receiving has increased 5X over the past year. The New York Times’s Mike Isaac posted on X about how he sends AI-written pitches directly into the trash. On LinkedIn, Sam Blum at Inc. even compared those who use AI to write pitches to “the behavior of someone who wears clown shoes.”  

Jordyn Holman at The New York Times shared with me that “Even before AI, many journalists’ inboxes were overstuffed with pitches and outreaches. Unfortunately, our inboxes are now stuffed with AI-generated pitches and outreaches. That’s a turnoff. For journalists, we value time spent communicating with real people.”

How can PR professionals stand out in this influx of AI-generated slop in journalists’ inboxes? For starters, don’t use AI to write media pitches.

While AI has so many great uses for PR professionals, using it to write entire pitches for you isn’t one of them. At times, AI can be used to do research for and improve existing pitches, but it shouldn’t ever be used to create pitches from scratch.

If you turn to the likes of Claude or Gemini to write pitches, you’re going to get some generic bot-sounding garbage like the reporters alluded to above. Where AI can be used though, is to improve an existing pitch. For example, after writing a pitch, it’s OK to use it to help with ideas to make it punchier or tighter. When I do, I might pull one or two elements like a better intro or subject line, but I wouldn’t use the fully revised pitch that it suggests. 

As Brady noted above, there are telltale signs that pitches are written by AI. Avoid using the format, “[name] can speak to” followed by three/four bullet points. Also, as Roberto Torres of CIO Dive mentioned on LinkedIn, don’t include “it’s not this, it’s that” type of framing in a pitch – another dead giveaway. Similar to people getting accused of using AI because of em-dash usage, whether they used it or not, even if you previously wrote pitches using these types of elements, now is not the time. Reframe the pitch. It’s not worth risking the chance of making it on a reporter’s black list. 

Using AI to draft pitches removes the human element and can negatively impact crucial media relationships. The best PR professionals don’t just pitch media; they partner with them. An effective media relations strategy happens when you take the time to get to know journalists, follow their work, read past articles, and engage without always making a client ask in ways that feel real and human. When you take the time to do that, reporters notice.

Nick Lichtenberg at Fortune shared with me that, “If you build a relationship with me, where you can text me, even your annoying text is going to be more welcome than a long, terribly written pitch into my email. I’m a person on the other end of the line and so are you, and we can do business that way.”

Julie Hyman of Yahoo Finance also stated that, “I get hundreds of emails daily, many of them cold pitches from PR people I’ve never met. The ones I open and respond to most consistently are from people with whom I have a relationship. There are exceptions – proposals for big CEOs, for example, or particularly timely topics. But in general, it’s not the pitch that draws me in – it’s the person first and pitch second.” 

Every generic pitch in an inbox makes it harder for the next great story to break through –  avoid using AI to make sure yours isn’t part of the noise.