The original 2014 article recommended systems in which links were bought in older articles and PR copy was ordered for blogs. One of the systems described no longer operates. There is no reason to assess the other by a price list that is more than ten years old. The offering, prices, and search-engine rules have changed.
The most important change concerns what you are actually paying for. If you buy access to a relevant audience, editorial work, distribution, or a credible partnership, it can be an ordinary marketing expense. If you primarily buy a link intended to manipulate search rankings, you are buying a problem.
Google does not ban paid links; it requires them to be labelled
Google includes buying and selling links for ranking purposes in link spam: money for links or posts containing links, exchanging goods for a link, or advertorials that pass ranking value. Paid links should be marked, for example with the rel="sponsored" attribute, or with nofollow. Its link-spam policies provide the precise examples.
That does not mean a sponsored article has no value. It means its value must not rest on a secretly purchased vote for a search engine.
First imagine that the link does not help SEO at all
Before buying, I ask one simple question: would we pay for this placement even if the link passed no ranking signal at all?
Yes can make sense when:
- the publication reaches people who genuinely deal with the given problem;
- the article presents experience, data, or an offer in a credible context;
- it can bring relevant visits, enquiries, or direct brand searches;
- quality editorial work and distribution are part of it;
- the partnership has value beyond one URL.
No means the buyer is probably paying only for a domain metric and the promise of better rankings. I leave such an offer alone.
The historical offer of more than CZK 11,000 was not evidence of quality
When I requested an article through a platform at the time in 2014, one unnamed server responded with an offer of more than CZK 11,000. The figure in the original article showed the market range. By itself, however, it said nothing about whether the medium would reach the right customers, whether anyone would see the article, or whether it would work commercially.
A high price may mean quality editing and a relevant audience. It may also mean only a strong media brand or an inflated price list. I need data and context.
Paying for distribution has its own checklist
The audience matches the company's customers
I do not consider only total website traffic. I am interested in the topic of the specific section, country, professional roles, distribution method, and whether readers make decisions related to the offer.
The content is editorially sound
Awkward copy written mainly around a key phrase helps neither the brand nor people. I want to know who will prepare the article, who will approve the facts, whether the partnership is labelled, and whether we can correct a factual error.
The link leads to the right page
After clicking, the reader must find a logical continuation. An expert article should not link to a generic homepage merely because it has the "greatest strength." The link should lead to a case study, guide, data source, or offer that fits the context.
Measurement is agreed before publication
For referral visits, I use a tagged URL if the format allows it. I monitor visit quality, enquiries, assisted conversions, and any growth in brand searches. In a B2B partnership, the deal may come later, so I connect web data with the CRM and ask where the customer learned about the company.
The terms also account for the future
I find out how long the content will remain available, who may edit it, whether the URL changes, and what happens if the medium closes. A "permanent link" is not a guarantee of eternity. A website can change its owner, business model, and editorial rules.
Warning signs are visible without an SEO tool
- The seller guarantees dofollow links and ranking growth.
- They offer hundreds of topically unrelated websites in a single package.
- They insist on an exact commercial phrase in the anchor text.
- They do not want to label the paid partnership.
- The articles have no readers, author, or editorial review.
- They explain value only with metrics from a third-party tool.
- They publish the same text on several domains.
Such an offer does not create distribution. It creates a trail that looks like an attempt to manipulate search.
What I am willing to pay for
I am willing to pay for work someone genuinely performs: research, editing, production, access to a relevant audience, an expert event, sponsorship, or a partnership. In that kind of collaboration, a link is natural navigation for a person and is correctly labelled.
It also makes sense to invest in your own resource that people link to voluntarily: data, a calculator, a quality guide, an open tool, or experience they will not find elsewhere. I describe how to earn such relevant links by repairing broken resources in the Link Mover method.
When it is better to keep the money in the company
I do not buy distribution when the destination page cannot explain the offer, the company does not measure enquiries, or sales cannot keep up with responding. Nor do I buy it when the content has nothing original to say. A media budget only amplifies a weak foundation.
First, it makes sense to review the state of the website, measurement, and content and put the basics in order through a practical SEO framework. If paid placement then makes business sense even without a ranking promise, it can be a good investment.
A paid link is not a shortcut to authority. A company earns authority through content, experience, and what it genuinely offers after the click.