HARO (Help A Reporter Out) had a rough few years. The platform that connected journalists and marketers with expert sources for nearly two decades underwent a series of changes, leaving its community frustrated and seeking better options.
Cision acquired HARO back in 2010, and for years, it worked exactly as intended. Then in early 2024, they rebranded it to Connectively, introduced a pay-per-pitch model, and made the interface more complex. The community hated it. By December 2024, Cision shut down Connectively entirely.
Plot twist: In April 2025, Featured.com acquired HARO and brought it back to its original format. Free email digests, three times a day, just like the old days. So technically, HARO is back and available right now.
However, even with HARO’s “resurrection,” many PR professionals aren’t going back. The platform still struggles with some fundamental problems:
AI-generated spam floods the zone. With ChatGPT and similar tools, journalists now receive hundreds of generic, AI-written responses to every query. Finding genuine expert input feels like searching for a needle in a haystack. HARO’s new ownership has implemented spam filters, but the problem persists.
Response rates have tanked. Because marketers are drowning in low-quality pitches, they’re less likely to use HARO in the first place. Fewer journalist queries mean fewer opportunities for you to get featured.
Competition is brutal. Every query sent to HARO’s massive user base generates hundreds of responses. Your pitch gets buried unless you respond within minutes of the email hitting your inbox.
No verification or quality control. Anyone can claim to be an expert on anything. Journalists have no easy way to vet sources, so they often ignore most pitches entirely.
Time investment doesn’t match returns. Many PR pros report spending hours each week combing through HARO queries and crafting responses, only to land one or two placements per month.
These issues existed before Connectively, got worse during it, and still exist now that HARO’s back. That’s why smart PR professionals are diversifying their approach with alternative platforms that solve these specific problems.
What to Look for in a HARO Alternative
Not all journalist-source platforms work the same way. Before you commit time and budget to a HARO alternative, here’s what to consider:
Verification process. Does the platform verify journalists and sources? Platforms with stricter vetting tend to have higher response rates because journalists trust the quality of pitches they receive.
Quality over quantity. Would you rather respond to 50 generic queries per day or 5 highly relevant ones? Platforms that curate opportunities carefully save you time and improve your conversion rate.
Pricing model. Free tools like Source of Sources work great if you’re just starting. Paid platforms like Qwoted and Featured offer better targeting and higher-quality opportunities, but you’ll need to justify the ROI.
Response tracking. Can you see if your pitch was opened, selected, or published? This transparency helps you refine your approach and know which pitches are working.
Publication quality. Are the journalists working for credible outlets with real readership, or are they bloggers no one’s heard of? Higher-tier publications mean better backlinks and more meaningful exposure.
Niche focus. Some platforms specialize in specific industries (B2B, finance, lifestyle, tech). If you’re pitching in a specialized field, a niche platform often delivers better results than a general one.
Time investment required. How many queries do you need to sift through daily? How fast do you need to respond? Factor in the actual hours you’ll spend using the platform.
The 7 Best HARO Alternatives
| Platform | Pricing | Best For | Verification | Avg. Query Volume | Key Differentiator |
| Source of Sources | Free | Budget-conscious PR pros | Manual review | Medium (growing) | Created by HARO’s founder |
| Qwoted | Free – $149+/month | Premium placements | Rigorous (interviews) | High | Elite publication access |
| Featured | $19-$99/month | B2B thought leaders | Verified profiles | Medium | Managed expert matching |
| MentionMatch | Free | B2B professionals | Community-driven | Low (but highly relevant) | B2B focus only |
| SourceBottle | Free | Lifestyle & product brands | Basic | Medium | Product giveaways |
| ProfNet | $2,000+/year | Enterprise brands | Established network | High | Cision integration |
| Social Media | Free | DIY PR pros | None | Varies | Real-time, direct access |
1. Source of Sources (SOS)
Best for: PR pros who want the original HARO experience for free
Source of Sources (SOS) was created by Peter Shankman, the founder of HARO, after he became frustrated with Cision’s treatment of his creation.
SOS delivers journalist queries via email three times a day, just as HARO does. Journalists submit requests, you respond via email, and that’s it.
There are no complex features or platforms to log into. However, I noticed I had to use a VPN to access the website from Nigeria. It appears there is some geo-blocking in place, which feels weird.
Source of Sources pros:
- Completely free
- Its email-based system feels familiar if you used HARO
- Manual review of queries reduces spam
- Growing community of verified journalists
- Founded by someone who understands the space
Source of Sources cons:
- A smaller user base means fewer queries per day than HARO
- No built-in analytics or tracking
- No SEO data on publications (you’ll need to research manually)
- Still relatively new, so it’s building momentum
Source of Sources pricing: Free
Who should use it: If your budget is tight and you’re comfortable with a manual workflow, SOS offers solid opportunities at no cost. It’s also a great starting point if you’re new to journalist outreach.
2. Qwoted
Best for: Agencies and PR pros who need premium placement opportunities
Qwoted connects verified journalists from top-tier publications with vetted expert sources. Both sides go through a verification process that includes interviews and background checks.
Journalists post queries publicly or search Qwoted’s database of experts directly.
The platform tracks your pitch status so you know exactly where things stand.
Quoted pros:
- Access to elite publications (Forbes, Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch, etc.)
- Rigorous vetting process for both journalists and sources
- Higher conversion rates because less spam gets through
- Transparent pitch tracking (you know if journalists viewed your response)
- Smart matching algorithm suggests relevant queries
- Community reporting tools to flag spam
Quoted cons:
- Expensive compared to free alternatives ($149/month for 35 pitches)
- The vetting process takes time. You’d have to go through the application, interview, and approval stages
- Less friendly to SEO agencies, as the platform prioritizes PR professionals
- Higher barrier to entry filters out casual users
Quoted pricing: Free tier available, paid plans start at $149/month
Who should use it: Agencies managing multiple clients, brands targeting premium publications, or anyone who values quality over quantity. The investment makes sense if you’re landing placements in high-authority outlets.
3. Featured
Best for: B2B professionals who want platform-managed expert matching
Featured takes a different approach than most HARO alternatives. Instead of you responding to journalist queries directly, Featured’s team manages the entire process.
When publishers and journalists submit questions, Featured invites relevant experts from their database to answer, and the best responses get featured in published articles.
You see exactly which pitches were selected and when they go live.
Featured pros:
- Highest conversion rates among paid platforms
- Clear pitch status tracking (in review, selected, published)
- Strong B2B publication network
- Save your bio once, reuse it for every pitch
- No need to pitch directly, since Featured handles journalist relationships
- Real-time alerts for new opportunities
Featured cons:
- Less control over journalist relationships
- More expensive than some alternatives
- Focused on B2B, so consumer lifestyle queries are limited
- Requires building a detailed expert profile upfront
Pricing: Lite ($19/month for 10 answers), Pro ($49/month unlimited), Business ($99/month with bylined articles). This is the monthly pricing.
Who should use it: B2B professionals, founders, and executives who want high-quality placements without spending hours pitching. The managed approach works well if you’re time-poor but budget-flexible.
4. MentionMatch (formerly Help a B2B Writer)
Best for: SaaS, marketing, sales, HR, and tech professionals
MentionMatch (by Superpath) is basically HARO but exclusively for B2B content. Writers and editors from B2B publications submit requests for expert sources, and you receive daily email digests with queries in your chosen categories.
You respond directly to writers via email. The platform includes domain authority scores so you can prioritize high-value opportunities.
MentionMatch strengths:
- Completely free
- Focused on B2B means less noise, more relevance
- Domain authority data included
- Active community of credible B2B writers
- Simple email-based workflow
- Category filters help you focus on relevant queries
MentionMatch cons:
- Limited to B2B topics
- Smaller query volume than broader platforms
- No tracking or analytics
- Email-only interface
MentionMatch pricing: Free
Who should use it: If you’re in SaaS, marketing, sales, HR, or tech and want relevant B2B opportunities without the noise of general platforms, this is perfect. It’s particularly valuable for thought leadership in business verticals.
5. SourceBottle
Best for: Lifestyle brands, product-based businesses, and Australian/UK markets
SourceBottle connects journalists with expert sources, but with a twist. It allows product giveaways and case studies, making it particularly valuable for lifestyle, wellness, and consumer product brands.
Journalists and writers can filter by country and keyword, and you can register as an agency to manage multiple clients.
SourceBottle pros:
- Free to use
- Product giveaway opportunities
- Case study features
- Strong in Australia and UK markets
- Agency accounts available
- Social media amplification features
- No minimum requirements for bloggers and small outlets
SourceBottle Cons:
- Fewer opportunities in the US market compared to the UK/Australia
- Quality varies (includes smaller bloggers alongside major publications)
- Less rigorous vetting than platforms like Qwoted
- Can feel cluttered with product-focused queries
SourceBottle pricing: Free
Who should use it: Consumer brands with physical products, wellness companies, and anyone targeting Australian or UK publications. If you’ve got products to give away in exchange for coverage, SourceBottle is uniquely positioned to help.
6. ProfNet (by Cision)
Best for: Established brands and agencies with a budget for enterprise tools
ProfNet is Cision’s premium service for connecting journalists with expert sources. It’s essentially what Cision is pushing now that Connectively is dead.
Journalists submit queries, and you receive emails with opportunities. ProfNet emphasizes quality and verification, positioning itself as the professional-grade alternative to free platforms.
ProfNet pros:
- Established reputation. It has been around since 1992
- Access to Cision’s journalist database
- Strong vetting process
- Higher-tier publication opportunities
- Integration with other Cision tools
ProfNet cons:
- Expensive (pricing not publicly listed, typically $2,000-$4,000/year)
- Intimidating for small businesses and solopreneurs
- Requires existing PR knowledge to use effectively
- Overlaps with tools many agencies already have
Pricing: Custom (starts around $2,000/year)
Who should use it: Large agencies, enterprise brands, and established PR teams who need premium access and can justify the investment. This isn’t for startups or small businesses on tight budgets.
7. Twitter/X and BlueSky #journorequest
Best for: Budget-conscious PR pros willing to do manual monitoring
Many journalists post their source requests directly on social media using hashtags like #journorequest, #prrequest, #mediarequest, and #bloggerrequest.
You monitor these hashtags, find relevant opportunities, and respond directly to journalists via DM or email. It’s completely free but requires active monitoring.
Pros:
- Completely free
- Direct access to journalists
- Real-time opportunities
- Build relationships by engaging with journalists publicly
- No platform gatekeepers
Cons:
- It requires constant monitoring and a longer time commitment
- Can miss opportunities if you’re not checking frequently
- Quality varies wildly
Pricing: Free
Who should use it: If you’ve got time but zero budget, this works. It’s also valuable as a supplement to other platforms. Many journalists post on social media first, so you can get early access to opportunities before they hit HARO or other platforms.
A Better Approach: Use Multiple Platforms
No single platform will give you everything HARO used to provide in its heyday. The journalist-source ecosystem has fragmented, and that’s a good thing. It means less spam, better targeting, and higher-quality placements.
The most successful PR professionals in 2026 are using 2-3 platforms in combination:
The free foundation: Source of Sources or MentionMatch gives you consistent opportunities at zero cost. Check them daily, respond to relevant queries, and you’ll land placements.
The premium addition: Add one paid platform, such as Qwoted, Featured, or ProfNet, based on your budget and goals. This is where you’ll land your highest-value placements.
The supplemental tactic: Monitor social media for real-time opportunities. You don’t need to do this every day, but checking #journorequest a few times a week can uncover opportunities before they hit the platforms.
This three-tier approach balances cost, time investment, and quality. That way, you’re not dependent on any single platform, which maximizes your chances of getting featured or getting relevant quotes.
What About HARO Itself?
HARO’s back, so should you use it?
It depends. The new HARO has made improvements. They’ve implemented spam filters, added verification processes, and brought back the free email digest format that users loved.
But it still suffers from the same core problem: scale without sufficient quality control. With hundreds of thousands of users, every query generates massive response volumes. Journalists are still drowning in pitches, which means your response rate stays low.
If you’ve got the time to monitor HARO emails and respond quickly to relevant queries, it can still work. But don’t make it your only strategy. Use it as one tool among several, not your primary approach.
Think of HARO like applying to job postings on Indeed. Sure, you might land something, but you’ll have better success with targeted approaches (akin to reaching out directly to hiring managers). The alternatives listed above give you those targeted opportunities.
Final Thoughts
The death and resurrection of HARO taught the PR industry an important lesson: don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
Your job is to figure out which combination works for your goals, budget, and time constraints. Start with one or two free options, prove you can land placements, then add paid tools as your strategy matures.
The good news is that journalist-source platforms aren’t going anywhere. AI-generated content is flooding the internet, which makes verified human expertise more valuable than ever. Journalists need credible sources, and you need media coverage. The platforms connecting those dots will only get better.
Just don’t expect any single platform to be the magic bullet HARO once was. That era is over, and honestly, the diverse ecosystem we have now probably serves us better.