Contribute
Write for us AI video reporting
A pitch takes ten minutes and a decision takes five working days. The rejection list below will save you both if your piece is not a fit.
The short answer
Write for us AI video reporting if you have actually run these tools, because this desk has not. Pitch in two lines rather than sending a draft, and expect a decision within five working days.
Submissions run from 1,200 words, and the rejection list is on this page rather than discovered afterwards.
Write for us AI video work this desk cannot do itself
AI avatar video, talking-head production, and the legal layer around both. That is a narrow scope and it is deliberate: this site covers three platforms properly rather than thirty superficially.
A guest post here is a piece of reporting under your own byline, not a backlink with paragraphs around it. The subject matter expertise this desk needs is the kind it cannot buy: what an AI video generator did over six months of real use.
- Fits: what a tool actually cost you over six months, how a talking-head video production constraint plays out in practice, what a contract clause did when it was tested.
- Does not fit: general AI commentary, marketing automation, video editing software, or anything where AI video is the hook rather than the subject.
Who this desk wants to hear from
People who have done the thing. A practitioner with a number nobody else has published, a specialist on the legal layer, or someone who ran one of these platforms long enough for the novelty to wear off.
- If you found this page searching write for us SaaS, note the scope.
- SaaS write for us pitches are read here only when the software in question is an avatar or AI video tool this desk already covers.
The narrowness is the point: a desk that takes everything has no standard to hold a piece to.
The byline is real and it is yours, with your credentials attached, because the person making a claim here is accountable for it. Anonymous submissions and pieces bylined to a company are not published.
What the desk already covers, so you do not repeat it
Three platforms, priced from their own pages and read on one derived unit. Every figure below is already published here, so a pitch that restates any of it is answered with a link.
What this desk has already worked out
HeyGen, Synthesia and D-ID are covered to that depth. The gaps are everything that number cannot reach: what the tools are like to live with, and the right of publicity questions that attach to training a personal avatar on a real person.
Why our own limitation is your advantage
This desk prices from published pages and has run none of these products. It says so on every page, which is unusual enough to be the site's organizing decision.
That leaves one obvious gap, and it is the gap a contributor fills. Sustained first-hand use is the single thing this desk cannot produce for itself, and it is therefore the easiest pitch to get accepted.
The kind of contribution this desk is looking for
Every rule below is downstream of one thing, and an attorney working on likeness agreements put it more plainly than an editorial policy ever manages to.
Nothing about that requires a large audience or a famous byline. It requires having done the work and being willing to write down how, which is the same standard who runs this desk.
The four desks, and what each needs
Naming the desk your piece belongs to is the fastest way to be taken seriously, because each one needs a different kind of evidence.
| Tool | What it needs | The evidence | How open it is | Who is recommending it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The guides desk | Craft or legal specificity | Production practice, or professional qualification | Open, and the widest lane | The consent and likeness lane needs a qualified specialist rather than a generalist. |
| The reviews desk | First-hand use over time | What broke, what you changed, what it cost | Open, if you actually used it | This desk has run none of these tools, so sustained first-hand use is the thing it cannot produce. |
| The comparisons desk | A controlled test with stated method | Your own controls, written down | Hard, and the gap is real | One controlled head-to-head exists in this entire category. A second would be genuinely new. |
| The pricing desk | A figure nobody has published | A vendor page, dated, or your own invoice | Hardest to pitch, most valuable | Every price here is already derived from published pages. A pitch has to beat that, not repeat it. |
How this was scored. The four desks as this site actually publishes them, ordered by how hard they are to pitch successfully rather than by preference, with the difficulty reflecting what already exists on each desk and what would genuinely add to it. How this table is built and checked.
What a pitch has to contain
Four things, and a pitch missing any of them is usually answered with a request for it rather than a decision.
The four lines of a pitch that gets read
- The desk Pricing, comparisons, reviews or guides. One word, and it tells this desk what standard the piece has to meet.
- The claim One sentence, stated as a claim rather than a topic. "HeyGen pricing" is a topic. "Our HeyGen bill tripled at 40 seats and here is the arithmetic" is a claim.
- The evidence What backs the claim: an invoice, a test with controls, a professional qualification, a dated source. Not "my experience", which is where an unfalsifiable piece usually starts.
- Who you are Two lines, and why you would know this. Credentials that can be checked beat adjectives that cannot.
Why a pitch rather than a draft
Because a finished draft on the wrong subject costs you a week and this desk a difficult reply. Two lines cost you ten minutes and get the same answer.
If the pitch works, you will get the scope agreed before you write, which is also when a disagreement about angle is cheap to resolve rather than expensive.
The standard a submission has to meet
The same one every page here meets, and it is short enough to check against your own draft before sending it.
- A dated source for every figure. A price with no date is a claim that cannot go stale, which is the problem rather than the solution.
- A named source for every judgement about a product. Yours counts, if you used it and say so.
- Arithmetic printed rather than asserted. If a number is derived, show the inputs.
The full version, including what this desk refuses to publish under any circumstances, is in the full editorial policy.
What gets rejected
Publishing this list is the most useful thing a submission page can do, and almost none of them does it.
- Unsourced rankings and scores. A best-of list with no method is an advertisement, whoever writes it.
- Vendor marketing with a byline. Recognizable immediately, and a firm no.
- Pieces about a tool the writer has not used, written as though they had. This desk does not do that itself and will not publish someone else doing it.
- Generic explainers of a subject already covered here.
The rejection nobody expects
A good piece on a subject this desk already covers properly. That is a rejection rather than a competition, because two pages answering one question is a problem for readers and for search engines alike.
Check what exists before pitching. If your version is genuinely better, say so and say why in the pitch, because that is a different and much more interesting proposal.
On AI-assisted drafts
Not banned. A ban nobody can enforce is theatre, and this is a publication about AI tooling, so a blanket refusal would be a slightly ridiculous position to hold.
Submissions are judged on whether the claims are sourced, the arithmetic is shown and the reasoning holds. Drafts that fail tend to fail in the same recognizable ways.
- Confident generalities where a specific would have been checkable.
- Figures with no origin, which is the fastest rejection on this list.
- A conclusion nothing earlier in the piece supports.
The byline still means a person stands behind every claim. However a draft was produced, you are the one answering for it.
The specifics
Numbers rather than adjectives, so you can decide whether this is worth your time before spending any of it.
What this desk asks for, in numbers
Word count, and why there is a floor
The word floor is 1,200 and it exists to exclude filler rather than to reward length. Below it, a piece is usually a summary of something that already exists elsewhere.
Long for its own sake is also a rejection. Most pages on this site run between 2,500 and 3,800 words because the subject required it, not because a target did.
Turnaround
Five working days for a decision on a pitch. If you have heard nothing after that, treat it as a no and pitch something else rather than waiting.
Corrections to existing pages are actioned ahead of pitches, always, which occasionally makes that window longer. That ordering is deliberate and it is not going to change.
What happens after acceptance
Light editing for house style, and every source checked before publication. If a figure cannot be verified it comes out of the piece, which is easier to accept when it happens before publication than after.
The published piece carries a date and is re-checked on the same schedule as everything else here.
If the answer is no
It is usually about fit rather than quality. Where there is one line of useful reasoning to give, you will get it, and a rejected pitch does not count against a future one.
Paid placements
This desk sells a sponsored placement when one is agreed, which is how the site pays for itself, and the full disclosure is published rather than implied. Rates are discussed on enquiry.
A payment buys publication of a piece that meets the editorial standard above. It buys nothing else, and the three things it specifically cannot buy are worth stating plainly.
- A position in a comparison, a price table or a review.
- The removal of an unflattering fact.
- An undisclosed link, under any arrangement.
What this page does not cover
Two things, named so their absence is not mistaken for an oversight. This page publishes no link policy, in either direction, and it does not list placement rates.
Advertising other than a placement is a different enquiry and has its own page. The mechanics of a placement, once one is agreed, live on the guidelines page rather than being repeated here.
Send a pitch
Nothing on this form is required, though a pitch missing the four things above will get a request for them rather than an answer.
If the form fails
You will be told. It never shows a success screen for a submission it failed to send, because a false success on a pitch is worse than an error message.
Write for us AI video, or do not bother writing at all
The narrowness is the offer. A desk that took anything adjacent to AI would give you a link on a page nobody trusts, and a desk that takes only what it can check gives you a byline on one that argues for itself.
That is worth more to a contributor with real expertise and worth considerably less to everyone else, which is exactly the filter this page is built to be.
A note on why this page is specific
Search for AI write for us pages in any category and almost every one says it welcomes high-quality original content while specifying nothing at all. That is a page written to be findable rather than to be used.
A specific brief filters better than a refusal does, and the rejection list is the half that actually saves everyone time.
Contributor FAQs
What does Humva accept from outside writers?
Do you want a pitch or a finished draft?
How long should a submission be?
How long does a decision take?
Do you publish paid placements?
Can I use AI to help write the piece?
What gets rejected most often?
Who is the byline?
Will you link to my site?
What if the pitch form does not work?
Sources
Work in AI video?
We take pitches from people building and using these tools. Tell us what you know that the vendor pages do not.
Pitch a guest postStill comparing?
Every figure on this site carries the page it was read from and the date it was read.
See the pricing deskBy the Humva Desk. Checked against primary sources and updated .