01
SaaS companies
Products whose buyers search the problem long before they search the category.
In the record
- Lumin PDF
- CloudCall
- Agistix
Service 03Editorial placement
Topics an editor would have commissioned anyway, written to the publication's own standards, with the link sitting inside the argument rather than inserted into it.
1 contextual link, in the paragraph that needed it
Topics an editor would have commissioned anyway, written to the publication's standards, with the link where it belongs.
Eight hundred words of throat-clearing around one sentence, and every reader can tell which sentence it was.
An article on a subject the publication has never covered, pitched because it happened to fit the anchor.
A recommendation that arrives without a reason, in a paragraph that was doing fine without it.
A summary of what everyone already agrees on. Most publications' guidelines explicitly ask for the opposite.
An editor asks for changes, the draft is abandoned, and the relationship goes with it.
Nobody checks whether the piece stayed up, kept its link, or was quietly edited afterwards.
Drag the divider — or use the arrow keys
01
Products whose buyers search the problem long before they search the category.
In the record
02
Community and development pages, where the market name is the search.
In the record
03
Category pages competing against directories and every other agency in the city.
In the record
04
One chain per market: the service, the city, a topic that belongs to both.
In the record
05
Service-area pages that each need their own authority, not one campaign stretched thin.
In the record
06
White-label delivery under your brand. No named account in the record; /for-agencies has the terms.
Not in the record
How white-label delivery runsWhat the publication covers, and the question its coverage has not answered yet. That gap is the pitch.
An angle with something to disagree with. Guidelines across the record ask for this in almost identical words, and it is the most commonly ignored line in them.
Named sources, recent enough to still be true, linked back to the original rather than to somebody quoting it.
Headings, short paragraphs, bullets where they help — the shape the publication's readers already skim, not a house style imported from somewhere else.
One do-follow link, in the paragraph where the argument needed a reference anyway. If moving it breaks the sentence, it was in the right place.
Revisions handled, publication confirmed, the live URL opened and the anchor read before anything is reported as delivered.
ResultA verified live URL, logged against the campaign.
Every row is an artefact — something you are holding at the end of a week. None of them is an outcome, because an outcome is not something a supplier can hand over.
Agreed before writing, against what the publication has already run. A topic they have covered twice this quarter is not a gap.
Structure, word count and sourcing rules taken from the publication's own stated requirements, not from a house template.
Written to publish, not to be rewritten. The measure of this is whether the editor's reply is a date rather than a list.
Statistics attributed and linked to origin. Guidelines in the record ask for sources no older than three years, and that is the standard applied.
One link, in the paragraph that needed it, with an anchor drawn from the campaign's planned distribution rather than invented at the keyboard.
Editor's changes made and returned, in the thread, without the client becoming a second reviewer.
The published page opened and the placement verified. The final URL goes into the campaign record.
541
14
8
190
Read from the supplied delivery record — placements, destinations and anchors. Editorial quality is a standard the work is held to, not a number the record can report.
36
Tracked placements
Article angles that earned the placement
Bahamas property and luxury real estate. One product, opened into the questions its buyers were already asking somebody else.
View the full case studyI do, unless you would rather supply drafts. Either way the angle is agreed with you first and written to the publication's guidelines — the failure mode this avoids is a draft that reads well and breaks three of the publication's stated rules.
By reading what the publication has already published and finding the question its coverage leaves open. A topic they ran last month is not a pitch, and a topic they have never touched is usually not either.
One do-follow link to your site. That is the ceiling most publications state in their own guidelines, and exceeding it is the fastest way to have a piece pulled after publication.
Yes, and it is worth doing — you know things about your product that no amount of research replaces. What does not work is review after submission, because by then the editor is holding a version you have not seen.
They get made. Revision is a normal part of publishing, not a sign the pitch failed. The point of reading guidelines first is that the changes are edits rather than a second commission.
That is the publication's decision, not mine, and no one can promise otherwise. The record holds the live URL at the point of verification — which is exactly what lets you check the position later rather than take anyone's word for it.
No. Every placement in the record is editorial. Sponsored coverage is a legitimate thing to buy, but it is a different thing, and it should be labelled as what it is rather than counted as an earned placement.
No. No individual placement can guarantee a ranking position. What a placement is accountable for is being relevant, being genuinely published, and being verifiable at a live URL.
Still something here unanswered?
Send the question with the domain and the page it is about. It is read the same day, by me — there is no auto-responder.
Start here
Send the page you want supported and the subject you can speak on with authority. The reply names the angles that have a realistic home and the ones that do not.