After having recently lost a client largely due to my oafish reporting – I was sending them the raw logs of my link building activities without any explanation as to the thought process behind it – I decided to get serious about communicating better.
We all know that you need to provide and show value to the client. So I created a little link building report template. You can download a copy for your own use.
What the template aims for is to help you balance quantitative reporting with qualitative appraisals.
“We got ## Blog Comment / Forum Sig links this month,” and
“Three of our competitors were also mentioned in the forum thread, so the co-citation value is strong, plus it had keywords in its title. It’s super-relevant.”
The template is broken down into 7 link-type sections, like article directories and forum links. Within each section, you fill in data relating to the value of the link.
Some of the value metrics are there across link types – e.g., co-citation – while others are link-type specific. An example of link-type specific metrics are directories’ mizzenmasts streaming red “SEO-friendly links” flags on them. It’s not a good idea to board a sinking ship.
Based on all that, and with inspiration from Wiep‘s Link Value Factors, I’ve devised a very simple link scoring system, which you’re welcome to adapt to your own needs. Each link type has a basic point value that can be increased or decreased by the metrics most relevant to it. The score is calculated out of 100.
The better a link does in your qualitative metrics analysis, the higher its score. The system’s formulas are simple and explained in the Excel sheet.
Of course, I do NOT claim that my metrics (those I included vs those left aside) and scoring (e.g., factor X is worth ## points) are authoritative. Just my top-of-the-head rules of thumb. You’re welcome to add/remove/modify from the factors and scoring as you see fit!
The idea is derived from Caveman‘s site appraisal method posted on WebmasterWorld … to which I can’t find the link 🙁 (Anyone have it??). He suggested starting with a given multiple of monthly earnings and then adapt it according to positive/negative circumstances.
By this point, you might be thinking… this scoring is all very nice, but is it actionable? Or is it just to explain the value to clients better?
I think it’s actionable.
You can take an average of all your links’ scores and tell whether you’re focusing sufficiently on quality or doing too much easy, low quality link building.
You can also average things out by link-type. This is useful to direct future link building towards particular link types.
For example, if you feel you’re getting too few links and the overall link score is pretty high, then you can bulk it up with forum sig links. Or if your link score is low and you’re doing good volume, then you can focus on getting links in blog posts, which will tend to score higher.
And as an added benefit, this can help you get that varied anchor text we all talk about.
I’d love to hear what you think and how you might improve this!
Gab Goldenberg wrote this beginning at around 5 am, not having slept prior to that, so pardon any incoherence. He acts a little funny like that sometimes (like in this instance writing about himself in the third person), but deep down he’s got several meters of intestine and some other organs. Err rather… deep down, he’s a good guy.
You can find his blog. And if you can’t, well, he probably doesn’t want to hear from your luddite, stone tool carrying self. (The goodness is very, very deep down.)
