10 Creative Approaches to Stand Out in Competitive HARO Pitches
Standing out in a crowded HARO inbox requires more than a generic pitch and a quick turnaround. The most successful responses combine strategic thinking, authentic value, and techniques that capture a journalist's attention in seconds. This article breaks down ten proven approaches, backed by insights from industry experts, to help craft pitches that actually get published.
Lead With Proprietary Data
One creative approach we've used to stand out in competitive HARO requests is including a mini data insight or proprietary stat directly in the pitch. Instead of sending generic opinions like most experts do, we'll pull a quick data point from internal research, customer surveys, or a recent industry report we published.
This shifts the pitch from "here's my take" to "here's something uniquely valuable only we can provide."
It breaks the usual HARO pattern of surface-level answers and gives journalists something quotable, verifiable, and exclusive—dramatically increasing placement rates.
Build Relationships Before You Pitch
For competitive HARO queries, I stand out by giving value before I ever pitch: I follow the journalist's work, share it, leave thoughtful comments, and reference their recent pieces in my response. By the time I reply, the pitch feels personal and relevant rather than a cold template. Most advice emphasizes speed and volume, but a relationship-first approach prioritizes genuine familiarity and context.
Offer A Tight Quotable Insight
The creative approach that worked best was treating HARO responses like expert briefs instead of pitches. At HealthRising, responses stood out when they led with one clear insight backed by lived experience or data, then stopped. No credentials list up front, no filler, no attempt to answer every angle of the question. Journalists responded more often when the answer felt publish ready rather than promotional.
This differed from conventional HARO advice that encourages longer responses or heavy credential stacking. At HealthRising, brevity and specificity mattered more. Each response addressed exactly what the reporter asked, used plain language, and offered a quotable line that required no editing. That restraint signaled confidence. Editors could immediately see where the quote fit. Standing out came from making their job easier, not louder.
Prioritize Honest Useful Value
My approach would be somewhat counter intuitive. We lead with value, not visibility. Instead of pitching ourselves, we focus on giving the journalist something genuinely useful, a clear insight, a practical example, or a perspective they can publish with minimal editing. That often means sharing what did not work or a real trade off we have made, rather than polished advice. This goes against conventional HARO wisdom, which encourages short, self promotional soundbites. I believe that we do the opposite and write as if the credit does not matter, making the journalist's job easier and i truly believe that the result is trust and repeat inclusion.
Use A Memorable Hyperlocal Angle
When HARO is competitive, I do the opposite of a generic "SEO tips" pitch and lead with a niche angle that instantly tells the journalist I am not copy-pasting an AI draft. For example, instead of talking about SEO broadly, I frame it as hyperlocal SEO, think of it as leaving breadcrumbs for Google at the suburb level, and I give one practical tactic a reader can apply today. Conventional wisdom says to be as broad and "expert" as possible, but specificity wins because it is memorable, usable, and clearly written by someone who has actually done the work.
Present A Concise Micro Case Study
One creative approach I took to stand out in highly competitive HARO requests was shifting the pitch from a generic expert quote to a micro-case study that demonstrated real-world evidence. Conventional HARO wisdom says to keep responses extremely short and formulaic so journalists can copy and paste easily, but I found that those responses tend to blend together when a reporter receives hundreds of similar submissions. Instead, I framed my insights around one concise but concrete example, showing the exact action taken, the observed outcome, and the unexpected insight that emerged. This created instant differentiation because it gave the journalist something they could not get from surface-level commentary: specificity, originality, and a narrative they could build on. The key was keeping it tight enough to respect their time but substantive enough to signal that I had firsthand experience, not recycled opinions. That small shift significantly increased our placement rate because reporters gravitated toward responses that felt both credible and immediately usable.
Favor Depth Over Volume
I write longer, more thorough responses to journalists' inquiries, but I respond to fewer of them. I don't send out short pitches to everyone. Instead, I choose the ones where I really have something to offer and write 300 to 400 words of good advice. It takes longer, but it works better. I only send five replies a month instead of thirty, but more than half of them get published.
Writers like it when I answer because it shows I understand the topic well and doesn't need much editing. Some people said they used almost exactly what I said. Instead of just giving tips, I give cases, steps, and real numbers. It takes longer, but I get more benefits and connect with more people better. If you want to stand out in a crowded email, quality is better than quantity.
Engineer Responses With A Smart Toolchain
Running one of the largest technology-comparison platforms online, I learned quickly that conventional HARO wisdom—short, generic pitches sent at high volume—gets buried instantly. The real challenge is shaping a response that proves expertise through the technology itself.
We started with a simple human problem: reporters skim hundreds of pitches and only stop when something feels uniquely informed or gives them a shortcut to their story. Humans alone can guess what might resonate, but the win comes from turning raw prompts into a refined, quotable insight pipeline.
First, I use Perplexity to extract the reporter's deeper intent by summarizing similar articles they've published. Then I feed that summary into Notion AI, which outlines the exact angles they typically highlight—stats, cautionary notes, or workflow insights. That outline goes into Claude 3.5 Sonnet, which generates three ultra-specific angles tied directly to my domain expertise in evaluating SaaS tools. Finally, Grammarly Business polishes tone and reads for "journalist cadence" before sending.
Each tool shapes the previous output: intent - structure - expert insight - clarity. This stack gives reporters a pitch that reads like it was written exactly for them, not for HARO.
"Great HARO pitches aren't lucky—they're engineered through a tech stack that tells the reporter you already understand their article."
Albert Richer
Founder, WhatAreTheBest.com
Start With A Bold Personal Detail
When it comes to HARO, your mailbox looks like a war zone, with plenty of people competing for the attention of one journalist. My twist on the approach would be less like marketing and more like speaking as an individual. Rather than starting the pitch off with your credentials, you start off with one telling detail that makes the journalist feel something.
For instance, during an interview where the question was asked about the failure of startups, I opened by saying, "My first startup failed as a result of optimism poisoning." This statement got the reporter hooked, and the rest of the response unraveled the whole point, which culminated in the publication of the story, not necessarily because I had the most experience but because I seemed credible.
The common sage advice for HARO responders would be to sound professional and polished. My advice would be to sound memorable. Reporters don't quote well, they quote interesting. In the ocean of sameness, authenticity laced with some personality stands to be the most potent pitch.
Wait Then Craft A Thoughtful Reply
I changed how I handle HARO requests. Instead of rushing to be first, I wait. I'll sit down later, after a journalist's inbox is flooded with 50 similar pitches, and write a really thoughtful response. My answers get picked way more often now. So maybe being first isn't the best advice. Sometimes being thorough is what actually makes you stand out.
