A PR agency is selling an AI tool that automatically answers pitches from journalists on services such as ResponseSource, HARO and Qwoted.
The AI tool, called Synapse (not be confused with PR pitching platform Synapse Media), “reads” questions sent for for expert comment by journalists via the services, then analyses sources such as books, podcasts and reports per query and uses AI to draft email responses.
Journalist-request services such as HARO charge a fee for connecting PR agencies with journalists. PRs can send out story pitches to journalists and also get access to requests for expert comment.
The makers of Synapse, Lithuania-based PR agency Wellstone PR, boast that it has a 7-8% acceptance rate, and that used by a human “editor”, it can answer around 20 pitches per hour with one human PR person able to do the work of five.
Press Gazette was able to test out a demo version of the Synapse tool, and found that it could output convincing responses to different queries within minutes – even on subjects far from an expert’s area of knowledge, such as a finance expert talking about bereavement.
The tool creates two personal-sounding email pitches (complete with fictional anecdotes tying the source to the query) based on research from books and podcasts, all done by AI.
Users can then choose the best answer and copy-paste it into emails to journalists.
One pitch generated for a finance company begins: “I’m Nassim Taleb and right now I’m working in finance and risk, focusing on how to deal with uncertainty, especially where technology and people meet.
“Looking toward 2025, the biggest risk I see for HR is a dangerous gap between how fast workers’ skills become outdated and how slowly companies update their workforce plans…”
Aneta Poplavska, the co-founder of Wellstone PR, said in a cold-call sales email sent to agencies in the UK: “We built an AI tool that writes HARO pitches better than 95% of human writers… and achieves a 7-8% acceptance rate.
“It was originally developed for internal use, but as we’re pivoting from SEO services to AI automation I’m now selling the IP and source code.
“The tool handles everything: query analysis, research (books, reports, podcasts, 40-50 sources per query), idea filtering and pitch writing. Human input is only needed to assign queries, review the output and submit. One editor can manage around 20 pitches an hour. It avoids generic ideas, doesn’t hallucinate and bypasses AI detection tools.”
SEO experts use AI to write PR pitches in search of backlinks
Posing as an interested buyer, Press Gazette was able to communicate online with Poplavska, and test a demonstration version of Synapse.
Poplavska said: “It’s a one-off payment for the source code… and installation on your server. The price is $2,500.
“We don’t have any testimonials yet – we haven’t sold any copies (and we don’t plan to sell more than 10–15 in total).”
Other SEO experts have offered similar tools on Reddit, with one user saying: “Over the past couple months I’ve been experimenting with using AI to handle HARO link building — mainly for small, local businesses. The goal was to see if I could reduce the amount of time spent on writing pitches while still landing legit backlinks.
“The process I used involved pulling HARO queries, matching them based on niche relevance (not just keywords), and then drafting short expert quotes that sound like they came from a real person with local authority.”
Wellstone PR claims that the tool means that one writer can replace a team of five.
In promotional copy for Synapse, Wellstone PR writes: “Editors select the right queries, vet ideas, choose the stronger version, and trim the pitch if needed. This takes just 2–3 minutes per pitch and isn’t mentally taxing. In fact, one part-time editor (2 hours/day) replaces a full-time team of five writers — without compromising on quality.”
The company says that Synapse is designed so that a human editor oversees the output in order to achieve better results.
Wellstone writes: “Automatic submission is technically possible, but counterproductive. It would create pressure to skip proper review and approve everything. Manual copy-pasting introduces just enough friction to encourage careful review and attention to each pitch.”
Journalists might as well just use ChatGPT themselves to get a comment
Andy Smith, founder of Sourcee, which aims to offer credible, video-checked experts, says that using AI tools in this way erodes trust.
Smith said: “When journalists post a journo request, there’s an implicit level of trust in the person replying. They’re hoping to hear from real people with genuine insights, experiences, and expertise that can bring their story to life.
“They certainly don’t want to receive an automated, AI-generated reply… if that’s what they were after, they could’ve just used ChatGPT themselves.
“At best, it’s spammy. At worst, it’s fraudulent, and it can create serious credibility issues for the journalist and publications involved.
“I’d hate to see journalists retreat into closed networks or only rely on familiar contacts. But if this kind of behaviour continues, it’ll push them in that direction. Making them more sceptical, more guarded, and more likely to give up on these platforms altogether. That only makes it harder for real people with real stories to be heard.
“It’s one of the reasons we’re experimenting with short video-based responses at Sourcee. They help show there’s a real human behind the answer, and give journalists more confidence in who they’re quoting.
Chartered Institute of Public Relations CEO Alastair McCapra said: “The ability to instantly respond to every media query using AI raises an important question: Just because we can, does it mean we should?
“Beyond the obvious ethical concerns, there are significant issues around authenticity, relevance, and trust. There is a simple rule for all professionals – you take responsibility for anything your office sends out in your name. A PR practitioner should not be using fully automated routines because they cannot be exercising judgement over what goes out in their name. That is the very definition of ‘unprofessional’.
“Such AI tools assume that any and all coverage is good coverage and that clients simply want to be seen, rather than understood, but media visibility without purpose or strategy erodes trust with stakeholders, the press, and the public.
“AI should support, not replace, human judgement and creativity. Nobody benefits when interpersonal or professional-client interactions degenerate into bot wars: AI pitching to AI filters, with trust as the final casualty.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
