Optimizing for the wrong number

Optimizing for the wrong number

This week's closing theme — buyers chasing per-link price into bad placements.

— A Facebook group post: a marketer bought 50 edits at rock-bottom prices, all on the same low-quality network, and saw zero ranking lift.
— An agency blog argues five strong, relevant, indexed placements outperform fifty cheap ones, and cost less in cleanup.
— Counterpoint circulating: cheap edits can work for low-competition terms, so it's about matching spend to the difficulty of the target.

Editor's note: the cheapest cost-per-link almost always hides the highest cost-per-result. Price the outcome you want, not the line item. For competitive terms, fewer and better wins every time.

Pick of the week: the agency piece on cost-per-result versus cost-per-link.