I wasn't sure if it was just me, but it feels like it's getting harder to get a story across the line.

He told me, amongst other things, that he now regularly receives 1000 pitches a day.

1000 pitches a day. Let that sink in.

If I opened my inbox and saw 1000 unread emails, I would genuinely break down and cry. I can't even imagine the cognitive load. How can you possibly read that volume of pitches? How do you find the news needle in a haystack? Opening that number of emails would take the whole day, let alone actually researching and writing the story.

The volume problem

We chatted about what's contributing to this deluge. Rubbish pitches. AI-generated slop that reads like a bot wrote it (because, let's be honest, probably a bot did). Tiny image sizes. Pitches that ask whether you want to see a release rather than just sending it in the first email. Spray-and-pray campaigns where the same generic pitch lands in 500 journos' inboxes simultaneously.

I admitted that I hate making typos in my pitches. But at the very least, typos demonstrate that I wrote them. That I'm human. That I care enough to have proofread them (even if I fail). I sent one out the other day with "NWS" instead of "NSW" and cringed for about 48 hours. But you know what? That typo proved I'm a real person behind the pitch.

Back to my point – 1000 pitches a day is too many. Full stop.

The questions we should be asking

Are there really that many valuable stories out there? Are we moving too fast and trying to make everything stick? Are we going for volume over quality?

I think the answer to all of these is yes, and that's the problem.

Somewhere along the way, the PR industry (and the clients we serve) became obsessed with volume. How many pitches can we send? How many journalists can we reach? How many stories can we get into market? The underlying assumption is that more pitches = more coverage.

But here's what actually happens: in a haystack of 1000 pitches, the signal-to-noise ratio is so low that maybe journalists can't find the real stories. They stop reading. They delete. They unsubscribe. And the genuinely good stories – the ones that deserve coverage – get lost alongside the rubbish.

What needs to change

Client expectations need to shift. We can't keep promising coverage if we're not being selective about what we pitch. We can't keep measuring success in volume when what actually matters is relevance. Did that pitch land in front of the right journalist at the right time with a story that genuinely serves their audience?

Not too long ago I landed an exclusive in The Australian, both print and online, plus a handful of local media pitches where the event took place. Exactly where the story needed to be. But the client wasn’t happy, they wanted more. More why? You’re exactly where you need to be.

It’s time to get honest. A lot of what we pitch isn't a story. It's a press release. It's a product announcement. It's a hiring announcement that nobody except the company cares about. A new feature that your users will discover anyway. A milestone that matters to you but doesn't shift the needle for anyone else.

The journalists who are reading (and yes, there are still some reading through that 1000) are looking for:

• Timeliness – something that matters right now, not next month
• Novelty – something genuinely new, not a variation on a tired angle
• Relevance – something that serves their readers, not just your brand
• Quality – clean writing, real insight, no AI slop

That's the antidote to 1000 pitches a day.

Be selective. Build relationships. Pitch less, but pitch better. Ask yourself before you hit send: "Does this journalist care about this? Would their readers care? Is this actually news, or is this me trying to get free advertising?"

If the answer to any of those is no, don't send it.