A high cost-per-link (CPL) isn’t a bad thing… if you have secondary KPIs attached to it. Most times, siloed SEOs come in only talking about the value of the links that they’re generating.
This thought process can lead you to significantly less results… even if the links end up costing you less money on a per outcome basis.
It today’s video, we talk about why that is and why it’s sometimes the right mode of thought to be spending significantly more to generate links.
Hi, I’m Ross Hudgens, founder of Siege Media. Today I want to show you why you should pay more for links… a lot of the time.
So occasionally, I do a proposal for a client or we help potential client out with a recommendation, and they come back to us and say, “Hey, why is the expected cost per link of this content marketing engagement so high? I talked to this other vendor, and they say they can generate a link for $100. And then your comparable is significantly higher.”
There’s a reason for that, there’s a reason why you should pay for links that are significantly more expensive in certain situations, but I’m not saying you do that all the time.
The reason why that is the case is you have, occasionally, top and middle-funnel content ideas that tie to valuable search volume that can actually convert.
The thing about those top and middle-funnel concepts, is they can’t generate links the same way as a purely, shareable linkable asset can. But the difference about that kind of asset, even if you generate links on maybe a cost-per-link basis of around even $1,000, if you generate one to two conversions off that post, you’ve now made up the difference of that person who’s charging $100 for just the link itself.
So an example of that in action is a concept like a snowboard sizing guide. Evo has this snowboard sizing guide, which is a middle funnel asset that ranks well.
If you’re thinking about buying a snowboard, there’s a good chance you’d check this out right before doing so. It’s a well done asset, but can it generate 100 links? No. But if you promote that, and you do that well, you can still generate a decent amount of them.
So you should make an effort of promoting that to get the rankings and links that also drive the bottom funnel pages. The reality is, that kind of strategy, that kind of model is going to generate links at a higher cost per link.
But the net benefit, the net ROI is significantly better than that person that only gives you that link at a significantly lower cost, because you can then be getting those incremental sales from that post hopefully forever if it’s good enough, in addition to the link effort from yourself, from that agency, from whoever, because of that campaign.
So hopefully that makes sense. And it’s not always that you would do that. There are times where we are generating purely linkable concepts, because many businesses sometimes don’t have a lot of top or middle funnel volume. It is generally my preference to find the clients that have the top and middle-funnel volume, and sales, and traffic from it, versus just the link… because the ROI is much higher.
That’s a sustainable and exponentially growing business. This is the link concept that, yes it has some value and we do a lot of that as well, but it’s just not nearly as valuable as this other part, even though the cost per link for those clients is generally going to be higher because of the fact that it’s not a viral concept at its core.
So hopefully this helped to explain why links will sometimes be more expensive, but actually be more valuable. You should think outside the box of just purely the cost of that link, purely the cost of that content marking engagement, and think about the actual sales it’s going to drive you when evaluating the cost and the investments that you make in content marketing.
Hopefully you liked this video; if you have any opinions on it, we’d love to hear about it in the comments. Give us a thumbs up, subscribe, and let us know what you thought. Thanks for watching.