| 3:06 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|approaching them from a position of power |
Huh, position of power?
How about: "Here's an article I wrote that directly addresses the issue you blogged about last week."
| 3:18 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Sales language... lookup Roger Dawson's books - he is the king of negotiation... :)
"address the issue" do you have any examples of that? Seems a bit vague.
| 3:32 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
1. Link beg
a. Broken links
a1. Check prospective site
a2. Start with defunct sites and work way backwards
b. Add my site to your list
When doing the link beg you have to manually click through to the site. An automated link checker might not catch a 404 or a domain purchased by domainer.
| 3:40 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Sorry Martin, not sure I understand... "Link beg" I take it that does not mean get on your knees and grovel at the prospects doorstep? :)
Do you mean target the broken *pages* that are being linked out to, first?
| 3:45 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The broken links project is within the link building category known as the Link Beg. The Link Beg category encompasses all the link building approaches in which you are directly asking for a link. The broken links approach can be categorized within two approaches, one originating from the target site, and the other approach originating from the defunct site/page.
| 4:00 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Excellent clarification - thank you. What other branches are there outside link beg? Link Bait and... Any other coined terms...?
One thing I have been doing lately is honing straight in on sites with phone numbers in the whois or contact info *first* seeing as I find making personal contact my main strength and leveraging the power of picking up the phone.
Once I prioritize sites with phone numbers I then proceed to check for defunct outbound links....
Does anyone have any inkling which pitch carries the most persuasive weight - broken pages or broken outbound links? I'm guessing pages if they are internally linked from other places in their site. They would appreciate it more if it's a big breakage.
| 4:19 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I have always advised against using the whois to find contact information. I won't get into the reasons why not to target whois, of which there are many, although chief among them is that not respecting that choice can backfire and cause financial hurt. It's best to respect the wishes of the site owner and contact them according to the manner and/or address the publisher suggests on the site itself, which might also state they don't want your email. If there is no contact information on the site then that's an indication that they don't want to be contacted. Always a good idea to respect that choice.
| 4:52 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'd challenge that assumption.
One of my best deals came from whois and no contact info. And when you are playing the numbers game which is imo vital in link building, you can't afford to leave out potential opportunities because "they might" not want to be contacted...
The goal is to build links not to please everyone.
| 5:12 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
There is no need to challenge me on the efficacy of using the whois, I did not state that using the whois will not result in a link deal. My advice against the whois is not about pleasing people, either. You are missing my point.
The point is that the potential for financial hurt exists. You can roll the dice if you wish, but you do so at the risk of having your domain turned off and removed from your control if you ignore the wishes of the site publisher.
| 5:19 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
How would they know what domain(s) I own?
This is the first I have heard of any legislation against looking up and calling someone in whois....
| 5:21 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Who mentioned legislation?
| 6:07 pm on Dec 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
"financial hurt exists."
| 7:13 am on Dec 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Link beg works very well. It's important to use all manual tactics in the beg only.
The benefits far outweigh the time spent. First impressions are everything, and myself have turned down countless poor quality requests for bonified link additions to my own websites because they were done poorly - even though the websites presented were high quality.
|The goal is to build links not to please everyone. |
The goal is to build relationships by providing value.
In fact the goal is to provide value first.
| 12:35 pm on Dec 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yes... value is a must but I think the entry point is extremely important... and the intro is critical if you cold call. Their defences are always up if they don't know you well enough - so it's almost worth making an initial first contact without asking for anything... just offering the breakdown of their broken pages/ links... and striking up an initial rapport and finding a co operative individual. Then once you have a pipeline of these types of contacts you can go in later when the timing is perfect (if you can uncover opportunities where time is a factor) with a highly relevant link bait matching their visitors who have the same problems or itches that have not been scratched before.
| 9:57 pm on Dec 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Writing them an article is always a good deal.
| 1:38 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Managed to turn a negative into a positive this morning negotiating with content thieves - using their offence as leverage to negotiate a link instead :)
| 3:45 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Content thieves consistently offer to give a link to keep the content. Why is that? The answer is because they're ranking with it. If they're ranking with it then that means they're getting traffic. With your content. That's traffic that you aren't receiving for the same content. Someone obtaining your traffic with your content is never a positive. ;)
If they are throwing you a link and taking down the content, then good onya. But consistently the deal is that content thieves offer a link in exchange for your traffic. Not a positive.