![\"Synapse](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/picthess-1038x688.png\")
\n Synapse dashboard generates answers to requests for comment sent out by journalists using ResponseSource.<\/p>\n
\n Synapse dashboard generates answers to requests for comment sent out by journalists using ResponseSource.<\/p>\n
A PR agency is selling an AI tool that automatically answers pitches from journalists on services such as ResponseSource, HARO and Qwoted.<\/p>\n
The AI tool, called Synapse (not be confused with PR pitching platform Synapse Media<\/a>), \u201creads\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Journalist-request services such as HARO<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n Press Gazette has previously revealed how unscrupulous PR companies have used journalist request services to dupe publishers into running hundreds of possibly AI-written comments sent by fictitious experts in order to promote dubious companies.<\/a><\/p>\n 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 \u201ceditor\u201d, it can answer around 20 pitches per hour with one human PR person able to do the work of five. <\/p>\n 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 \u2013 even on subjects far from an expert\u2019s area of knowledge, such as a finance expert talking about bereavement.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Users can then choose the best answer and copy-paste it into emails to journalists. <\/p>\n One pitch generated for a finance company begins: \u201cI\u2019m Nassim Taleb and right now I\u2019m working in finance and risk, focusing on how to deal with uncertainty, especially where technology and people meet. <\/p>\n \u201cLooking toward 2025, the biggest risk I see for HR is a dangerous gap between how fast workers\u2019 skills become outdated and how slowly companies update their workforce plans\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n Aneta Poplavska, the co-founder of Wellstone PR, said in a cold-call sales email sent to agencies in the UK: \u201cWe built an AI tool that writes HARO pitches better than 95% of human writers\u2026 and achieves a 7-8% acceptance rate. <\/p>\n \u201cIt was originally developed for internal use, but as we\u2019re pivoting from SEO services to AI automation I\u2019m now selling the IP and source code. <\/p>\n \u201cThe 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\u2019t hallucinate and bypasses AI detection tools.\u201d<\/p>\n SEO experts use AI to write PR pitches in search of backlinks<\/p>\n Posing as an interested buyer, Press Gazette was able to communicate online with Poplavska, and test a demonstration version of Synapse.\u00a0<\/p>\n Poplavska said: \u201cIt\u2019s a one-off payment for the source code\u2026\u00a0 and installation on your server. The price is $2,500.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t have any testimonials yet \u2013 \u00adwe haven\u2019t sold any copies (and we don\u2019t plan to sell more than 10\u201315 in total).\u201d<\/p>\n Other SEO experts have offered similar tools on Reddit, with one user saying: \u201cOver the past couple months I\u2019ve been experimenting with using AI to handle HARO link building \u2014 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Wellstone PR claims that the tool means that one writer can replace a team of five. <\/p>\n In promotional copy for Synapse, Wellstone PR writes: \u201cEditors select the right queries, vet ideas, choose the stronger version, and trim the pitch if needed. This takes just 2\u20133 minutes per pitch and isn\u2019t mentally taxing. In fact, one part-time editor (2 hours\/day) replaces a full-time team of five writers \u2014 without compromising on quality.\u201d<\/p>\n The company says that Synapse is designed so that a human editor oversees the output in order to achieve better results. <\/p>\n Wellstone writes: \u201cAutomatic 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Andy Smith, founder of Sourcee, which aims to offer credible, video-checked experts, says that using AI tools in this way erodes trust. <\/p>\n Smith said: \u201cWhen journalists post a journo request, there\u2019s an implicit level of trust in the person replying. They\u2019re hoping to hear from real people with genuine insights, experiences, and expertise that can bring their story to life.<\/p>\n \u201cThey certainly don\u2019t want to receive an automated, AI-generated reply\u2026 if that\u2019s what they were after, they could\u2019ve just used ChatGPT themselves.<\/p>\n \u201cAt best, it\u2019s spammy. At worst, it\u2019s fraudulent, and it can create serious credibility issues for the journalist and publications involved.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019d hate to see journalists retreat into closed networks or only rely on familiar contacts. But if this kind of behaviour continues, it\u2019ll 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.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s one of the reasons we\u2019re experimenting with short video-based responses at Sourcee. They help show there\u2019s a real human behind the answer, and give journalists more confidence in who they\u2019re quoting.<\/p>\n Chartered Institute of Public Relations CEO Alastair McCapra said: \u201cThe ability to instantly respond to every media query using AI raises an important question: Just because we can, does it mean we should?<\/p>\n \u201cBeyond the obvious ethical concerns, there are significant issues around authenticity, relevance, and trust. There is a simple rule for all professionals \u2013 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 \u2018unprofessional\u2019.<\/p>\n \u201cSuch 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.<\/p>\n \u201cAI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n