PRToolFinder was created not only as a resource for PR Professionals seeking tools, but also as a centralized resource for all of the valuable PR tools (many of them hidden gems) available to help us be successful.
That’s why we created our eight-week PR Tool School program, so while you are discovering all the great tools in each category of the PRToolFinder database, we’re working to help you get the most out of your membership, especially in crowded categories like Social Media Management & Scheduling tools.
Today we’re posting a reminder of a core best practice we should embrace as PR Professionals and why they are important.
Let’s start with the growing backlash brewing against spray-and-pray outreach. Honestly, it’s overdue and we’re adding a caveat people don’t often think about in this post.
A recent LinkedIn thread from podcast hosts, PR professionals, marketers, and content creators highlighted a frustration many communicators have quietly felt for years: automation without research is eroding trust. What began as a discussion around podcast outreach tools quickly became something bigger — a conversation about respect, relationships, and the rising cost of lazy pitching.
At the center of the discussion was a simple idea:
“I’m worth your time, but you weren’t worth mine.”
That line hit because it captures exactly why generic outreach fails. It started long ago with automated traditional media outreach. Whether you’re using an email mail merge or high-end automation tool, this bad behavior continues today.
It doesn’t matter if you’re pitching a journalist, podcast host, influencer, analyst, creator, or conference organizer, PR fundamentals still matter. And the first rule of PR outreach has never changed:
Research the person you’re pitching
Not the publication.
Not the podcast category.
Not the vague “target audience.”
The actual human being on the receiving end of your email.
Because behind every inbox is someone already overwhelmed with requests, deadlines, content demands, meetings, and notifications. Your pitch is not arriving in a vacuum. It’s arriving in competition with hundreds of other messages — many of them equally irrelevant. I have read that today there are six PR pros for every individual journalist trying to gain their attention.
The reality of modern media outreach
PR professionals often talk about media list building as though it’s a numbers game. But for journalists, podcasters, and creators, the experience feels very different.
Many reporters receive dozens — sometimes hundreds — of pitches per day. At the same time, newsroom layoffs and shrinking editorial teams mean fewer people are handling more inbound requests than ever before.
Podcast hosts are experiencing a similar problem. Successful shows don’t usually suffer from a lack of guests. They suffer from a lack of relevant guests.
So, when someone receives a pitch for:
- a podcast that clearly doesn’t take guests,
- a topic they never cover,
- a geographic market they don’t serve,
- or a subject that directly contradicts their audience,
it immediately signals one thing: You didn’t bother to look.
And that matters more than many outreach tools want to admit.
Automation has lowered the effort bar
AI and automation tools can absolutely help communications professionals work more efficiently. There’s nothing inherently wrong with databases, research platforms, CRM systems, or outreach support tools – even automation.
The problem begins when efficiency replaces thoughtfulness.
Mass outreach platforms can be tempting to users — especially new users — to treat relationship-building like a volume exercise:
- scrape contacts,
- generate a quick template,
- personalize one sentence,
- push a button,
- scale endlessly.
But relationships do not scale the same way software does.
Good PR has always been built on relevance, timing, credibility, and trust. The moment outreach becomes obviously automated; the sender starts losing credibility before the recipient even finishes the subject line.
And here’s the bigger issue: bad outreach doesn’t just hurt one pitch. It damages future opportunities. And, let’s face it, it makes us ALL look bad.
Automation requires responsibility — and misuse hurts tool vendors too
As the founder of PRToolFinder, I want to add an important nuance to this conversation because there’s another side to this issue that deserves attention.
PR professionals rely on technology every day to:
- organize media relationships,
- monitor coverage,
- discover relevant contacts,
- streamline workflows,
- and operate more efficiently in an increasingly demanding communications environment.
Many of these platforms are built by hardworking teams investing enormous amounts of time, money, research, development, customer support, and innovation into helping communicators do better work.
The problem is not necessarily the existence of automation.
The problem is what happens when automation is used irresponsibly.
And that distinction matters because when lazy outreach abuses a platform, the damage rarely stops with the sender. It often unfairly damages the reputation of the tool vendor itself.
Here’s why that matters.
- Bad users can distort the actual purpose of a platform
Many PR and outreach tools were created to help professionals:
- find relevant opportunities,
- organize relationships,
- personalize communication,
- and save administrative time.
But when users skip the relationship part entirely and treat the software like a spam cannon, recipients stop seeing the tool as a professional resource and start associating it with low-quality outreach.
That’s not necessarily a reflection of the platform’s intended use. It’s often a reflection of how some users choose to behave.
A CRM is not inherently unethical because someone sends bad pitches through it. A media database is not automatically spam because someone ignored targeting best practices.
Tools that automate, amplify behavior — good or bad. If you automate a poor process for example, it only gets you to a poor outcome that much faster.
- Vendors can lose credibility they worked years to build
Reputation in the PR technology world is fragile.
Many communications platforms spend years earning trust:
- building integrations,
- improving data quality,
- supporting customers,
- protecting compliance,
- and positioning themselves as professional-grade resources.
But widespread misuse can quickly reshape market perception.
If enough recipients begin associating a platform with irrelevant mass outreach, the vendor’s brand can become shorthand for spam — even if many of their users operate ethically and thoughtfully.
That’s an incredibly difficult reputational problem for a company to solve once it takes hold.
- Abuse creates pressure for stricter filtering and platform restrictions
When outreach quality declines at scale, everyone feels the consequences:
- email providers tighten spam enforcement,
- recipients become more defensive,
- response rates fall,
- trust erodes,
- and legitimate outreach becomes harder for responsible professionals.
Ironically, that harms ethical users and responsible vendors alike.
The more abuse recipients experience, the more likely they are to treat all outreach platforms with suspicion — regardless of whether the software itself encourages thoughtful communication.
- Responsible vendors cannot fully control user behavior
This is perhaps the hardest reality in modern PR Tech Tools.
A platform can encourage best practices.
It can provide education.
It can discourage spammy behavior.
It can build safeguards.
But ultimately, a tool vendor cannot completely control whether a user chooses relevance over volume. Another niche facing a similar dilemma with the advent of AI is cybersecurity where bad actors can now create phishing threats better and faster than ever (but that’s a topic for a different post.)
In today’s AI-driven environment, where “scale” is increasingly marketed as the primary goal, some users will always choose shortcuts over strategy.
That doesn’t mean the entire category of PR technology lacks value.
It means communicators have a responsibility to use these tools professionally.
Technology should support relationships — not replace them
The best PR tools do not eliminate human judgment.
They enhance it.
They help professionals:
- research faster,
- stay organized,
- identify opportunities,
- monitor conversations,
- determine the ROI of their efforts
- and spend more time on strategic thinking and meaningful engagement.
That’s where the real value lives.
The future of PR technology should not be about removing humanity from outreach.
It should be about removing administrative friction so communicators can invest more energy into authentic, relevant, relationship-driven communication.
And that responsibility belongs to all of us.
“That’s why so many people in the LinkedIn discussion
weren’t merely annoyed — they were angry.
The issue wasn’t just inconvenience.
It was disrespect.”
Every bad pitch trains people to ignore future pitches
This is the part many communicators overlook.
When inboxes fill with irrelevant, AI-generated, or clearly unresearched pitches, recipients adapt defensively:
- they stop opening unknown emails,
- they create harsher spam filters,
- they become skeptical of all outreach,
- they ignore legitimate opportunities,
- they mentally associate PR outreach with annoyance instead of value.
In other words, bad pitching poisons the well for everyone.
That’s why so many people in the LinkedIn discussion weren’t merely annoyed — they were angry. The issue wasn’t just inconvenience. It was disrespect.
One commenter described these tactics as “traffic marketing cosplaying as relationship marketing.”
That’s an uncomfortable phrase, but an accurate one.
Real relationship marketing requires:
- listening,
- context,
- relevance,
- patience,
- reciprocity,
- and actual human attention.
You cannot shortcut those things with volume.
What research actually looks like
Researching someone before outreach does not require an hour-long deep dive (OK sometimes it does but…) Often, 5–10 minutes is enough to dramatically improve a pitch.
Before contacting someone, communicators should know:
- What topics they actually cover
- Whether they accept guests or pitches
- Who their audience is
- What they’ve published recently
- What angles they’re tired of hearing
- Whether your story genuinely fits
- Why your outreach matters specifically to them
That last point is critical.
If you cannot clearly explain why this specific person should care about your pitch, you probably shouldn’t send it.
Personalization is not inserting a first name
Recipients have become extremely good at spotting fake personalization.
Mentioning a recent article title pulled by AI is not relationship-building.
Neither is:
- “I loved your recent episode…”
- “I came across your work…”
- “You seem like a great fit…”
especially when the rest of the email proves otherwise.
Real personalization demonstrates understanding.
It shows:
- you know what matters to them,
- you understand their audience,
- and you’ve considered how your idea creates value for their platform — not just exposure for your client.
This is true whether we’re talking about podcast hosts or individual journalists.
And, that difference is enormous.