HARO and SourceBottle are two of the most popular reactive PR platforms. But which is better?
What is HARO?
HARO, which stands for Help a Reporter Out, is a platform that connects journalists and bloggers with sources. Its mission is to make it easier for journalists to find expert sources for stories they are working on.
How it works is very simple. Journalists submit queries for sources and experts can respond to those queries if they have relevant expertise.
It is incredibly popular — and competitive — being used by tens of thousands of journalists and sources.
What is SourceBottle?
SourceBottle is an Australian-based platform that connects journalists and bloggers with sources and experts.
It operates like HARO, with journalists submitting queries to a network of sources who respond with their insight.
However, there is a fair degree of overlap between SourceBottle and HARO with journalists putting out the same request on both platforms.
How do HARO and SourceBottle compare?
While both platforms share some similarities, there are some key differences that set them apart. Here are some important factors to consider when deciding on which platform to use for your PR needs.
HARO is based in the United States and the vast majority of its journalist subscribers are located in the US. That being said, HARO does have a significant base of international subscribers too.
SourceBottle, on the other hand, is based in Australia, where its impact is greatest. It is possible for internationally located journalists and sources to use it though.
The main difference between HARO and SourceBottle in terms of journalists making requests is not so much the quality of the journalist. It’s the difference in volume that’s most obvious.
What comes through on SourceBottle is but a fraction of the hundreds of requests made per day via HARO. That being said, it’s by far the best platform for consistent access to journalists writing for Australian publications.
Both platforms are very similar in terms of the types of sources using them. Anyone can sign up as a source on both platforms, but genuine subject matter experts are more likely to be successfully cited as a source.
Whilst they are both popular platforms, competition is considerably higher on HARO. Therefore, SourceBottle may present a bigger opportunity — for the right expert.
HARO is available for free for both journalists and sources, although there is a paid Pro plan for sources, who can get earlier access to media requests before members on the free plan.
SourceBottle is also free for journalists and sources, although it’s possible to pay to set up a public expert profile.
Alternatives to HARO and SourceBottle
There are several other PR platforms to consider for reactive PR campaigns.
- Qwoted: Connects journalists with expert sources. Pitches are not delivered via email. Everything happens in the member’s area. In terms of UX, it’s superior to both HARO and SourceBottle.
- Terkel: Like Qwoted, Experts must reply to queries in the platform rather than via email. It’s a slower pace on Terkel, but the quality is quite good.
- ProfNet: Significantly more costly than HARO, SourceBottle, Qwoted, and Terkel.
Read our guide on all of the best HARO alternatives.
Is HARO better than SourceBottle?
If you want links and citations on Australian publications, SourceBottle would be where I’d spend my time. For everyone else, I’d treat SourceBottle as a companion to HARO, which is the clear winner in terms of volume.