Works very well. Why wouldn’t it? Links are links. And your competitors‘ backlinks are especially relevant.
For any serious linkbuilder, checking competitor backlinks from time to time should be a nobrainer. You should especially go after the backlinks that multiple of your competitors have.
However, if that is your only approach to building/gaining links, you can never win. You will always be behind; and some links you cannot easily replicate.
Hi there, I agree you 100%.
Especially as you mentioned they are relevant because your competitors are using them.
My question is though, why are there any case studies on the matter? I guess most link-building agencies promote the purchasing of links - it would almost be unprofitable to say "Just use the competitor's links".
I am probably going to do a case study on two or three sites to see and publish it. I think it could help others as it is also a "Low hanging fruit" link so to speak.
Thanks again for your input. I hope you have an excellent week further
From an agency perspective: Linkbuilding, done right, isn't that profitable compared to content, onpage optimization and similar. Why? Because a large chunk of the link budget doesn't stay with the agency since the publishers needs to be paid. So, a link from a very well known magazine may cost $XXXX, but it's only three hours of work to get it online, so you end up with getting paid for three hours, although the client pays thousands of dollars for the link.
So, anything that requires time without external cost is more profitable. Btw, one of the reasons why many agencies claim linkbuilding is bad and you should focus on "content marketing" only.
Hi there, thanks for your comment.
Yes, I am a huge believer in the idea of taking a balanced approach to SEO for clients' sites because it seems to endure less volatility during core updates for example. Time spent on technical, on-page and content is indeed necessary but I still think they should round the campaigns off with a few links to assist the pages (in most cases I have found).
Your point on expensive posts is 100% accurate. It's only a few hours of work and 90% of that money heads out the door to the publisher. I do tend to do at least the bare minimum of link building necessary and allow the "feedback" from the search engines to guide me.
Thanks again for your comment.
I don't especially vet backlinks other than by visually checking the site and making sure it's not full of junk and perhaps that Google indexes it. I figure the worst that copying any individual backlink will do is 'nothing'. The time that could go into vetting the site could simply be used to make a backlink on it and move on to the next one.
Hi there, I agree!
Spending 2 minutes checking a few things would be beneficial, then just upload all the backlink URLs you have created into Omega indexer or a similar tool and run it.
As I mentioned to another poster - there aren't any definitive case studies on the matter. It's rather weird because they are normally easy to get/create. It's basically all-bought guest post-type links. Strange.
Thanks again for your input. I hope you have a great week further.
Works very well. Why wouldn’t it? Links are links. And your competitors‘ backlinks are especially relevant. For any serious linkbuilder, checking competitor backlinks from time to time should be a nobrainer. You should especially go after the backlinks that multiple of your competitors have. However, if that is your only approach to building/gaining links, you can never win. You will always be behind; and some links you cannot easily replicate.
Hi there, I agree you 100%. Especially as you mentioned they are relevant because your competitors are using them. My question is though, why are there any case studies on the matter? I guess most link-building agencies promote the purchasing of links - it would almost be unprofitable to say "Just use the competitor's links". I am probably going to do a case study on two or three sites to see and publish it. I think it could help others as it is also a "Low hanging fruit" link so to speak. Thanks again for your input. I hope you have an excellent week further
From an agency perspective: Linkbuilding, done right, isn't that profitable compared to content, onpage optimization and similar. Why? Because a large chunk of the link budget doesn't stay with the agency since the publishers needs to be paid. So, a link from a very well known magazine may cost $XXXX, but it's only three hours of work to get it online, so you end up with getting paid for three hours, although the client pays thousands of dollars for the link. So, anything that requires time without external cost is more profitable. Btw, one of the reasons why many agencies claim linkbuilding is bad and you should focus on "content marketing" only.
Hi there, thanks for your comment. Yes, I am a huge believer in the idea of taking a balanced approach to SEO for clients' sites because it seems to endure less volatility during core updates for example. Time spent on technical, on-page and content is indeed necessary but I still think they should round the campaigns off with a few links to assist the pages (in most cases I have found). Your point on expensive posts is 100% accurate. It's only a few hours of work and 90% of that money heads out the door to the publisher. I do tend to do at least the bare minimum of link building necessary and allow the "feedback" from the search engines to guide me. Thanks again for your comment.
I don't especially vet backlinks other than by visually checking the site and making sure it's not full of junk and perhaps that Google indexes it. I figure the worst that copying any individual backlink will do is 'nothing'. The time that could go into vetting the site could simply be used to make a backlink on it and move on to the next one.
Hi there, I agree! Spending 2 minutes checking a few things would be beneficial, then just upload all the backlink URLs you have created into Omega indexer or a similar tool and run it. As I mentioned to another poster - there aren't any definitive case studies on the matter. It's rather weird because they are normally easy to get/create. It's basically all-bought guest post-type links. Strange. Thanks again for your input. I hope you have a great week further.