Multilingual placements
Publishers in Polish, Ukrainian, German and Spanish, approached in their own language by people who speak it. Translated outreach reads as translated outreach and gets ignored.
Manual outreach, vetted publishers and a report you can hand straight to a client.
The question we get asked most is not how many links we can build, but how many will still be there next year. It is the right question. Everything in this process — the vetting, the manual outreach, the post-publication checks — exists to make the answer to that question a good one.
We have been doing this long enough to have made most of the available mistakes at our own expense. The process on this page is largely a list of things we now refuse to repeat.
We started as an in-house team doing this for one portfolio of sites, which is a useful way to learn the trade because you cannot hand the consequences to somebody else at the end of the quarter. When the process worked well enough that people started asking to borrow it, it became a service.
Nobody here came from a link marketplace. The background is in editorial and in running sites that depended on traffic, which is a different set of instincts than optimising a placement count.
Reports are written on the assumption that somebody sceptical will read them. Every placement carries the live URL, the anchor used, the target page, the publication date and a short note explaining why that publisher was on the list in the first place.
Nothing in the report is a score we invented. Where we quote a third-party metric we name the tool and the date it was pulled, because those numbers move and a figure without a date is decoration.
Alongside new placements, each report lists everything we re-checked from previous cycles and its current state. Links that disappeared appear in the report as clearly as links that went live.
If a placement did not happen, the report says which one and why. Campaigns that only ever report successes are hiding the interesting part.
Coverage grew out of the work rather than a plan. These are the areas where we have publishers we trust and editors who take our calls.
Publishers in Polish, Ukrainian, German and Spanish, approached in their own language by people who speak it. Translated outreach reads as translated outreach and gets ignored.
We pitch a genuine article idea to the publisher, write it to their standard, and place your link inside the body where it supports the argument. No author boxes, no sidebar dumping.
A full read of what you have, what is doing work, what is dead weight and what is actively risky. You get the audit whether or not you go on to buy placements.
If the page you want to build links to is not worth linking to yet, we will say so, and we can help fix it. Building links to a thin page is money spent teaching people the page is thin.
Yes. Reports can go out unbranded or under your own, and we are used to being the party that never speaks to the end client.
The team is distributed across Europe, which is mostly why the outreach in Polish, Ukrainian, German and Spanish is done by people who actually speak those languages.
No, and you should be wary of anyone who does. We can guarantee where a link is placed, that it is live, and that we will keep checking it. What a search engine does with that is outside anybody's control.
Often, yes. It usually starts with an audit and an unhappy conversation, and the first phase is subtraction rather than addition.
Sometimes, and it depends entirely on the page. We will look at it and give you an honest read on whether publishers will take it.
For anyone who wants the reasoning rather than the pitch, most of it has been written up over at:
The first step is always the audit, and it stands on its own — plenty of people take the audit, act on it themselves, and we never hear from them again. That is a perfectly good outcome.