The Fractl team has worked on hundreds of content marketing projects. Along the way, we’ve kept track of a lot of data, including everywhere our client campaigns have been featured, what types of links each campaign attracted, and how many times each placement was shared.
While we regularly look back on our data to evaluate performance per campaign and client, until now we’d never analyzed all of these data in aggregate. After combing through 31,000 media mentions and 26,000 links, here’s what we found.
Most high-authority links don’t receive a lot of social shares.
Most marketers assume that if they build links on high-authority sites, the shares will come. In a Whiteboard Friday from last year, Rand talks about this trend. BuzzSumo and Moz analyzed 1 million articles and found that over 75 percent received no social shares at all. When they looked at all links – not just articles – this number rose to around 90 percent.
We (wrongfully) assumed this wouldn’t be the case with high-quality links we’ve earned. It turns out, even the majority of our links on sites with a high Domain Authority (DA) didn’t get any social shares:
- 52 percent of links with a DA over 89 received zero shares.
- 50 percent of links with a DA over 79 received zero shares.
- 54 percent of links with a DA over 59 received zero shares.
On average, our campaigns get 110 placements and 11,000 social shares, yet a single link accounts for about 63 percent of total shares. This means that if you exclude the top-performing link from every campaign, our average project would only get 4,100 social shares.
Since most links don’t yield social shares, marketers with goals of both link building and social engagement should consider a strategy for gaining social traction in addition to a strategy for building a diverse link portfolio.
The social strategy can be as simple as targeting a few key websites that routinely yield high social shares. It’s also helpful to look at target sites’ social media accounts. When they post their own articles, what kind of engagement do they get?
Of all the sites that covered our campaigns, the following five sites had the highest average social shares for our content. We know we could depend on these sites in the future for high social engagement.
Exceptions to the rule
Some content can definitely accomplish both high engagement and social shares. The BuzzSumo and Moz study found that the best types of content for attracting links and social shares are research-backed content or opinion pieces. Long-form content (more than 1,000 words) also tends to attract more links and shares than shorter content. At Fractl, we’ve found the same factors – an emotional hook, a ranking or comparison, and a pop culture reference – tend to encourage both social sharing and linking.
Few sites will always link to you the same way.
To ensure you’re building a natural link portfolio, it’s important to keep track of how sites link to your content. You’ll learn if you’re earning a mix of dofollow links, nofollow links, cocitation links, and brand mentions for each campaign. We pay close attention to which types of links our campaigns earn. Looking back at these data, we noticed that publishers don’t consistently link the same way.
The chart below shows a sample of how 15 high-authority news sites have linked to our campaigns. As you can see, few sites have given dofollow links 100 percent of the time. Based on this, we can assume that a lot of top sites don’t have a set editorial standard for link types (although plenty of sites will only give nofollow links).
While getting a site to cover your content is something to be celebrated, not every placement will result in a dofollow link. And just because you get a dofollow link from a site once doesn’t mean you should always expect that type of link from that publisher.
Creating a lot of visual assets is a waste of time in certain verticals.
There’s an ongoing debate within Fractl’s walls over whether or not creating a lot of visual assets positively impacts a campaign’s reach enough to justify the additional production time. To settle this debate, we looked at our 1,300 top placements to better understand how publishers covered our campaigns’ visual assets (including both static image and video). This sample was limited to articles on websites with a DA of 70 or higher that covered our work at least four times.
We found that publishers in different verticals had divergent tendencies regarding visual asset coverage. The most image-heavy vertical was entertainment, and the least was education.
Some of the variation in asset counts is based on how many assets were included in the campaign. Although this does skew our data, we do receive useful information from this analysis. The fact that top entertainment publishers used an average of nine assets when they cover our campaigns indicates a high tolerance for visual content from outside sources. Verticals with lower asset averages may be wary of external content or simply prefer to use a few key visuals to flesh out an article.
Keeping these publisher vertical preferences in mind when developing content can help your team better allocate resources. Rather than spending a lot of effort designing a large set of visual assets for a campaign you want to be placed on a finance site, your time may be better spent creating one or two awesome visualizations. Similarly, it’s worthwhile to invest in creating a variety of visual assets if you’re pitching entertainment and health sites.
Analyzing our entire link portfolio taught us a few new things that challenged our previous assumptions:
- High DA sites don’t necessarily attract a lot of social engagement. Just because a site that linked to you has a huge audience doesn’t mean that audience will share your content.
- Most sites don’t consistently use the same types of links. Got a dofollow link from a site one time? Don’t expect it to be the norm.
- Certain publisher verticals are more likely to feature a lot of visual assets. Depending on which verticals you’re targeting, you might be wasting time on designing lots of visuals.
Hi Kelsey,
Thanks for the post and sharing the information with us.You are absolutely right, just getting links doesn't make you popular (for search engines and users) .
There are lot of aspects of link building, social media which people generally ignore, then they reach out for people to drive traffic to their website and then to conversion rate optimization specialists.
If the link building process is done right covering engagement with right audience on social media and search engines, the results would be much better. What that implies, you have to take care of target traffic and conversion rate optimization from the beginning along with link building.
What's your take?
Thanks,
Vijay
Great article, but....
Am I the only one who wasn't actually surprised?
The three lessons:
Whilst being able to come to a more solid conclusion based on a very impressive 26,000 links is brilliant, don't get me wrong, it only serves to further prove on a larger scale what we can already observe in the wild. It just backs up with data what should already be obvious through observation. Which is awesome in its own right! It can do better than this disappointing attempt at clickbait.
I like the case study, I just wouldn't have thought that the results were "surprising".
Totally agreed ! People focus too much on number of links and their PA/DA, ironically that alone doesn't lead to real traffic, conversion and ranks on SERPs. On the other hand, if he focus is to reach the target audience and engage them with right strategy, you get all of it and more, with only few links.
Nice article, Really I agree with this post. Relevant content requires a lot of research to gain Conversions.
Hi, i read your post like 3 times to undertand all the information you are sharing with us. (Thanks :D)
Unfortunately (good for us) many people who started doing SEO many years ago didn't know that SEO values are changing every time (no time lapse definde) and this is where your post is intresting, because this kind of people still thinking that SEO is just puting a link on a high DA page and that's it.
This kind of link building is useless at 90% because if you don't get shares or buzz feeding, this link will just perish and you are not going to take all the link juice you can.
This is why it's better to post in lower DA pages with an important activity than in a high DA page that doesn't moove for years!
Sorry if i've made some mistakes, i'm french btw x)!
Thanks everyone!
Camille D.
Surely a deep and comprehensive study! It helped me in shaping the strategy for my clients now in a more informed manner. Will wait for how the results will be impacted. Thanks Kelsey!
The ultimate goal of links is to get your pages top of search engines and mostly it all have to be in niches and hence a high DA site can back you with a valuable link but don't expect that will be shared with the same value. However, comparatively the job is done. The bottom line is traffic, and what difference does it make if it's coming organically or through socials.
I don't quite understand the visual asset part. How does this fit into your workflow? When you write a guest post do you send over a library of photos and the company can choose from your inventory to feature in their posts?
Hi Joe, great question. By visual asset we mean any graphic elements you have created as part of the campaign. These could include a full infographic, an individual bar graph, a flowchart, etc.
We share every visual asset we have created with the publishers we're pitching, and then they choose which ones they want to run in their article about our content. Sometimes they just choose one, other times they choose every asset we include in the pitch.
A good example to look at is this case study we recently shared about a client campaign: https://moz.com/blog/case-study-controversial-cont...
You can look at the landing page we created for this campaign to see how many visual assets (18 total!) we created around the data we collected: https://www.abodo.com/blog/tolerance-in-america/
Publishers chose to run a variety of those visuals depending on the angle of the research they wanted to cover.
Wow! Thanks for taking the time to lay it out like that!
However the tolerance in America Blog just ruined my day... I'm based in Las Vegas and Nevada scored the worst on almost EVERY SINGLE METRIC for racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Hi Kelsey,
Very interesting data! Thanks for sharing.
I believe that creating a strong link profile is what a lot of folks miss, and it's good to see/confirm that high DA doesn't always get the win.
I tackle building a strong link profile and hope it helps Moz readers as a compliment to your post.
Dario
I think that this study is great and to the point. My end take is that just because a site is a high authority does not mean that masses are going to share it. Sometimes I think the approach of building so many links as possible and seeing what happens can be a waste of time, but instead really treating your link attempts like a content strategy will provide better gains. Link building is a beast all by its self but if done right then you can achieve social shares that matter and have dofollow links .
High DA sites don’t necessarily attract a lot of social engagement.
I guess there are times when you just can't catch both - you have to focus on either solely social engagement or building up the authority. It usually also depends on the niche. For example, high DA university sites probably won't get too many social shares. And some meme site, hugely popular in social media, might not earn high DA.
Excellent article, and I especially agree with the content part. Relevant and useful content requires a lot of research and will remain the King of Conversion for years to come. Personally, I base each Article, eBook and Blog Post on my own research and Product Knowledge as a result of personal testing.
Thanks, Kelsey. Very interesting and useful research!
Thanks for sharing, although to be honest some of it is not entirely new or surprising.
Good day Kelsey!
This post is very interesting,. First I thought that high DA is very important. But I'm still confuse... so you mean that high DA is not important at all? If same site will link you same way?
Thank You.
Anton
I've seen lots of "I'm not surprised" comments... Well that means this post is further validation into what we already knew. What's so bad about that?
I found it overall to be quite interesting and appreciated the original data / research.
Fractl continues to do a good job with "data journalism" so they call it.
Absolutely getting links and having decent DA is not enough. Brands need to focus on social media, nowadays most of our user and potential user are on social media.
Thanks for the good piece of informative content!
Totally agree. Links are a simple part of a great strategy.
hello kelsey
I agree with you that getting links does not make you popular, there are many details that people sometimes ignore the link building,
Seriously good article, thanks for posting!
Great article and it has given me plenty to think about in my own link building! Thanks!
Kelsey , nice article thanks.
It is curious that explain this trend over the domains with DA very high. I thought that they had greater participation in social networks. I do not understand why either. Perhaps people are not sensitized to help the "big". other explanation I can think of.
I was surprised reading this too, but what I would guess causes this is the different worlds of Social and SEO. There are plenty of high authority (high DA) sites that are just not that sexy when it comes to Social Media. I'm in my 20's and sites like CNN and MSNBC just aren't enthusiastically shared in my age group. Actually it could even be argued that you seem like a bore.
Now from what I've seen there are many sites and publications that have not received the same world renown acceptance as a major authority, but because they are popular amongst a younger a crowd it becomes more popular on Social.
I've got to agree with you here. Sites like iflscience I believe were made because they had a decent following so they made a site to try and monetise it. So naturally their audience is very social driven.
I'm waiting for the version of "what happens when we build 26,000 to one site!" thanks for this version, I think its much better!
Taking the data did you find there was a "sweet spot" on DA sites?
very informative and good article. We checked many sites and same things are happening so its very informative.
Very useful and interesting article.
Hi Kelsey!!!
Right ... It seems that the links are intended to be that, just links, and simply serve to give authority ... So we forget to give that link one viralizable wrapper that can make it more attractive
Very useful and interesting article.
thank you
WOW! That's a lot. Thanks for the great read.