The Problem with Spraying and Praying

spray-and-pray
/sprā/ and /prā/
noun (informal)
A PR tactic involving broad, unfocused outreach with little regard for relevance, relying on volume rather than strategy to secure coverage.

To spray-and-pray has long been shorthand for everything PR should avoid. High-volume outreach with little regard for relevance and minimal understanding of what journalists actually cover. It prioritizes activity over intent and output over outcome.

It’s an approach I don’t believe in.

What’s changed, however, is the environment around it. As AI-powered search completely reshapes how brands are surfaced and summarized, there’s growing discussion about whether the sheer volume of coverage matters more than it used to. The implication being that if AI systems are trained on breadth, then spraying widely might suddenly make sense.

It’s an understandable leap, but perhaps the wrong conclusion.

Why the industry conversation is shifting

AI models learn from patterns across large volumes of content. They look for repetition, consistency, and corroboration across sources. That reality has forced a reassessment of how influence is built, particularly for companies that have historically focused their efforts on a narrow set of top-tier outlets.

In that context, “lower-tier” opportunities are receiving renewed attention, playing a meaningful role in shaping how a company is understood within its category. This is where the nuance matters. The renewed interest isn’t validation of the spray-and-pray approach, but a recognition that visibility has multiple layers and that some have been undervalued for too long.

Breadth doesn’t excuse irrelevance

There’s a temptation to conflate broader coverage with looser strategy, but that’s where things break down.

AI rewards clarity that appears consistently in the right contexts. Outreach that ignores editorial fit, audience relevance, or narrative discipline doesn’t suddenly become effective because a machine might ingest it – poor inputs still produce poor outputs.

The difference between strategic breadth and spray-and-pray is intent. One is built on understanding where your message belongs and why. The other is built on hoping something lands.The problem with spraying and praying

‍

The top-tier trap

Organizations that insist on top-tier-only strategies often believe they’re protecting brand equity. In reality, they’re leaving gaps in the information ecosystem that now helps shape discovery.

Trade and niche publications do different work. They establish category credibility and create the connective tissue AI systems rely on when answering industry-specific prompts. Ignoring them narrows the signal set that defines it.

A single top-tier feature still matters, but so does whether your perspective shows up often enough, and clearly enough, to be recognized as authoritative.

Of course, none of this works without relationships. Media coverage that actually shapes perception comes from trust built over time. Strong journalist relationships lead to better context, more accurate framing, and, importantly, repeat opportunities. They also lead to coverage that reflects how a company wants to be understood.

Machines reflect what they encounter most often – relationships are what ensure those repetitions are deliberate.

Broaden the strategy, not the spray

There’s another layer to this conversation that’s essential to getting this right. Earned media shapes how others talk about you – and owned content determines what they have to work with in the first place.

With AI being used as a discovery tool, your website, blog posts, bylines, and long-form thinking form the most stable record of your perspective. This is where language is set, positioning is clarified, and nuance is preserved. Unlike media coverage, it doesn’t expire on publication. It accumulates.

This is the only context where a form of “spray” actually makes sense. Not indiscriminate distribution, but deliberate repetition of a clear point of view across your own channels. When owned content is consistent, it reinforces earned coverage rather than competing with it. It gives journalists context and AI systems a reference point.

Earned media builds third-party credibility. Owned content builds coherence. One without the other leaves gaps that are quickly filled by inference, simplification, or competitors who are more present.

Spray-and-pray isn’t having a comeback. What’s happening is a long-overdue acknowledgment that influence is cumulative and that credibility is built across more places than many strategies account for.

The answer is a wider, smarter presence. Relevant coverage, repeated, and rooted in real relationships. That’s how we train the systems that will speak for you.

Did it ever work in the first place?

There’s a reason spray-and-pray earned its reputation long before AI entered the picture. Journalists can tell when a pitch isn’t meant for them.

Blanket outreach ignores what reporters actually trade in, which is relevance, specificity, and perspective. A pitch that could have been sent to anyone rarely earns interest from someone whose job depends on discernment. Volume doesn’t impress editors, it simply shows a lack of understanding.

No matter how search systems evolve, coverage still requires buy-in from a human being who decides whether a story belongs in their publication. That’s why the renewed focus on breadth can’t be confused with indiscriminate outreach. Expanding the range of publications you engage with still demands tighter targeting, deeper familiarity with beats, and clearer reasons for why a story belongs in a given outlet. Casting a wider net only works when you know exactly where – and why – you’re casting it.