[ { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/links-matter-less-but-still-matter/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Google Says “Links Matter Less”—We Looked at 1,000,000 SERPs to See if It’s True", "study_id": "ahrefs-links-2025", "published_date": "2025-01-30", "data_period": "not reported; published January 2025", "population": "Top 20 Google results for the one million highest-volume US keywords", "sample_size": "1,000,000 keywords", "caveats": "Observational Spearman correlations; high-volume US queries are not representative of all searches. Correlation cannot establish ranking causation.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, January 2025", "study_design": "observational correlation", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S001", "finding_key": "ahrefs-links-2025:rd-backlink-rank-correlations", "section": "ranking", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ January 2025 US keyword analysis, referring-domain count had a 0.255 rank correlation and backlink count 0.248.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "Spearman coefficients: 0.255 and 0.248", "locator": "Correlation table; introduction and methodology", "evidence": "Page-level referring domains and backlinks have small positive correlations with better ranking.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Links and rankings have a modest relationship", "display_value": "0.255 / 0.248 correlation", "seo_takeaway": "Use the numbers as context, not a formula for how many links a page needs. Compare the actual competing pages.", "number": 1, "period_label": "2025 release · observation dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Compare your page with the pages that already rank for one important search.", "Check the content and internal links before deciding that more backlinks are needed." ], "plain_explanation": "Pages with more links tended to rank a little higher, but the connection was weak. Other factors clearly matter too." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/search-traffic-study/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "96.55% of Content Gets No Traffic From Google. Here’s How to Be in the Other 3.45%", "study_id": "ahrefs-traffic-2023", "published_date": "2023", "data_period": "not reported; 2023 report", "population": "Pages in the Ahrefs index, with estimated Google organic traffic", "sample_size": "approximately 14 billion pages; separate subset of about 20 million pages with no referring domains", "caveats": "Traffic is estimated from Ahrefs keyword coverage, not measured analytics. Indexed sample is quality-biased and does not represent every page on the web.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, 2023 study", "study_design": "observational database analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S002", "finding_key": "ahrefs-traffic-2023:zero-estimated-google-traffic", "section": "ranking", "claim": "Ahrefs’ 2023 analysis estimated zero Google organic traffic for 96.55% of roughly 14 billion indexed pages.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "96.55% of sampled pages", "locator": "Opening findings; study limitations", "evidence": "Most indexed pages had no estimated organic visits.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Most indexed pages had no estimated traffic", "display_value": "96.55% of pages", "seo_takeaway": "Publishing a page is not enough. Check demand, content fit and discoverability before allocating outreach to it.", "number": 2, "period_label": "2023 release · traffic estimates", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Use Search Console to find pages that receive no views or clicks.", "Improve or remove pages with no clear audience or purpose before promoting them." ], "plain_explanation": "Most pages in the study received no estimated Google visits. Publishing a page alone does not bring it an audience." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/search-traffic-study/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "96.55% of Content Gets No Traffic From Google. Here’s How to Be in the Other 3.45%", "study_id": "ahrefs-traffic-2023", "published_date": "2023", "data_period": "not reported; 2023 report", "population": "Pages in the Ahrefs index, with estimated Google organic traffic", "sample_size": "approximately 14 billion pages; separate subset of about 20 million pages with no referring domains", "caveats": "Traffic is estimated from Ahrefs keyword coverage, not measured analytics. Indexed sample is quality-biased and does not represent every page on the web.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, 2023 study", "study_design": "observational database analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S003", "finding_key": "ahrefs-traffic-2023:no-refdomains-high-traffic", "section": "ranking", "claim": "In a separate subset in Ahrefs’ 2023 traffic study, 2,997 of about 20 million pages with no referring domains exceeded 1,000 estimated monthly Google visits.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "2,997 pages out of approximately 20 million", "locator": "Section discussing pages without backlinks", "evidence": "A small subset of pages without detected referring domains had substantial estimated traffic.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Some unlinked pages still attracted search visits", "display_value": "2,997 of about 20 million", "seo_takeaway": "Links are not the only variable in search performance. The study also depends on what the crawler detected.", "number": 3, "period_label": "2023 release · traffic estimates", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Find pages that get search visits despite having few links from other websites.", "Learn from their content and internal links before seeking more backlinks." ], "plain_explanation": "A small number of pages got search visits even though Ahrefs found no links from other sites. Links are not always required." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/links-matter-less-but-still-matter/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Google Says “Links Matter Less”—We Looked at 1,000,000 SERPs to See if It’s True", "study_id": "ahrefs-links-2025", "published_date": "2025-01-30", "data_period": "not reported; published January 2025", "population": "Top 20 Google results for the one million highest-volume US keywords", "sample_size": "1,000,000 keywords", "caveats": "Observational Spearman correlations; high-volume US queries are not representative of all searches. Correlation cannot establish ranking causation.", "study_design": "observational correlation", "id": "S083", "finding_key": "ahrefs-links-2025:domain-rating-correlation", "section": "ranking", "short_title": "Domain authority is only one clue", "value": "0.131 correlation", "claim": "Domain Rating had a 0.131 ranking correlation in Ahrefs’ 2025 high-volume US keyword sample.", "seo_takeaway": "Use DR to describe a domain’s link profile. Inspect the actual page before deciding whether a placement makes sense.", "locator": "Correlation table: DR", "evidence": "Domain Rating had a 0.131 ranking correlation in Ahrefs’ 2025 high-volume US keyword sample.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Check topic fit, real traffic, article quality and outgoing links as well as DR.", "Read five recent articles before approving the website." ], "plain_explanation": "A strong website score did not closely match higher rankings. It is one clue, not a final verdict.", "number": 4, "display_value": "0.131 correlation", "period_label": "2025 release · observation dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/links-matter-less-but-still-matter/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Google Says “Links Matter Less”—We Looked at 1,000,000 SERPs to See if It’s True", "study_id": "ahrefs-links-2025", "published_date": "2025-01-30", "data_period": "not reported; published January 2025", "population": "Top-20 results for the local queries in the parent US keyword sample", "sample_size": "Local-query subset of one million keywords; subset size undisclosed", "caveats": "Observational Spearman correlations; high-volume US queries are not representative of all searches. Correlation cannot establish ranking causation. The local-query subset size is not disclosed.", "study_design": "observational correlation", "id": "S085", "finding_key": "ahrefs-links-2025:local-query-correlation", "section": "ranking", "short_title": "Local queries had a stronger link relationship", "value": "0.33 correlation", "claim": "For local queries in Ahrefs’ 2025 analysis, backlinks and referring domains each had a 0.33 ranking correlation.", "seo_takeaway": "Benchmark against similar search results. An all-keyword average may hide differences in your own market.", "locator": "Local and non-local query comparison", "evidence": "For local queries in Ahrefs’ 2025 analysis, backlinks and referring domains each had a 0.33 ranking correlation.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Compare linking websites for each important local search and location.", "Repeat the check when local competitors or search results change." ], "plain_explanation": "Links and local rankings moved together more closely than in the full sample. Local search markets may behave differently.", "number": 5, "display_value": "0.33 correlation", "period_label": "2025 release · observation dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/reciprocal-links/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Reciprocal Links: Do They Help or Hurt Your SEO?", "study_id": "ahrefs-reciprocal-historical", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "Domains with search traffic; followed incoming and outgoing links only", "sample_size": "140,592 domains", "caveats": "Historical study; page updated March 11, 2020, but original publication and fieldwork dates are not established. Traffic-selected sample has survivor bias. Reciprocity is not proof of an exchange scheme or its safety.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, historical study; page updated 2020", "study_design": "observational database analysis", "source_page_date": "2020-03-11", "id": "S007", "finding_key": "ahrefs-reciprocal-historical:reciprocity-presence", "section": "quality", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ historical study of 140,592 domains with search traffic, 73.6% had at least one reciprocal linking relationship.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "73.6% of domains", "locator": "How common are reciprocal links on the web?", "evidence": "At least one reciprocal relationship appeared on most sampled domains.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Reciprocal linking was common in the sample", "display_value": "73.6% of domains", "seo_takeaway": "An occasional two-way relationship can occur naturally. Inspect the editorial reason instead of labeling every mutual link an exchange.", "number": 6, "period_label": "Historical study · dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Check whether each two-way link is genuinely helpful to readers.", "Review repeated link swaps between the same small group of websites." ], "plain_explanation": "Many websites linked to sites that also linked back. This can happen naturally between related publishers." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/reciprocal-links/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Reciprocal Links: Do They Help or Hurt Your SEO?", "study_id": "ahrefs-reciprocal-historical", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "Domains with search traffic; followed incoming and outgoing links only", "sample_size": "140,592 domains", "caveats": "Historical study; page updated March 11, 2020, but original publication and fieldwork dates are not established. Traffic-selected sample has survivor bias. Reciprocity is not proof of an exchange scheme or its safety.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, historical study; page updated 2020", "study_design": "observational database analysis", "source_page_date": "2020-03-11", "id": "S008", "finding_key": "ahrefs-reciprocal-historical:reciprocity-extent", "section": "quality", "claim": "In the same undated Ahrefs sample, 27.4% of domains had at least 15% overlap between the domains they linked to and those linking back.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "27.4% of domains; overlap threshold at least 15%", "locator": "Distribution of reciprocal-link overlap", "evidence": "More than a quarter of the sample crossed the published overlap threshold.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Substantial two-way overlap also appeared", "display_value": "27.4% of domains", "seo_takeaway": "This describes a selected sample with traffic. It is not a recommended exchange ratio or evidence that deliberate schemes are safe.", "number": 7, "period_label": "Historical study · dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Find which websites exchange the most links with your site.", "Keep natural partnerships, but do not aim for this study’s percentage." ], "plain_explanation": "More than a quarter of the sites had a lot of two-way links. The number describes what existed, not what you should copy." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/reciprocal-links/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Reciprocal Links: Do They Help or Hurt Your SEO?", "study_id": "ahrefs-reciprocal-historical", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "Top-ranking pages for non-branded queries with keyword difficulty 40–60", "sample_size": "112,440 top-ranking pages from about 10,000 selected queries", "caveats": "Historical study; page updated March 11, 2020, but original publication and fieldwork dates are not established. Traffic-selected sample has survivor bias. Reciprocity is not proof of an exchange scheme or its safety. This subset used about 10,000 non-branded queries with keyword difficulty 40–60; it does not establish that exchange schemes are safe.", "study_design": "observational database analysis", "id": "S086", "finding_key": "ahrefs-reciprocal-historical:top-pages-reciprocal", "section": "quality", "short_title": "Reciprocal links appear on ranking pages", "value": "43.7% of pages", "claim": "Ahrefs found reciprocal links on 43.7% of 112,440 top-ranking pages in a separate historical sample.", "seo_takeaway": "Two sites linking to each other is an observation to investigate in context, not proof of an arranged exchange.", "locator": "How much reciprocal linking happens in the top 10?", "evidence": "Ahrefs found reciprocal links on 43.7% of 112,440 top-ranking pages in a separate historical sample.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Record why each site links to the other and how it helps readers.", "Review repeated swaps, copied link text or links to unrelated pages." ], "plain_explanation": "Two-way links also appeared on high-ranking pages. That does not prove that planned link swaps are helpful or safe.", "number": 8, "display_value": "43.7% of pages", "period_label": "Historical study · dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/guest-post-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "Cost of Guest Posts, Based on 500k Sites [Updated 2026 Data]", "published_date": "2026-06-15", "data_period": "June 2026 release; collection dates undisclosed", "population": "Complete listings in one unnamed link marketplace", "sample_size": "257,267 sites with price, Domain Rating and estimated traffic data", "study_design": "marketplace analysis", "caveats": "One marketplace, not the whole web. Listed quotes are not completed transactions. Traffic is an SEO-tool estimate; incomplete listings were excluded. Both traffic bands describe the same sample and count as one distribution finding.", "id": "S104", "finding_key": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026:traffic-distribution", "section": "quality", "short_title": "Many listings had little estimated traffic", "value": "39.6% zero; 78% below 1,000", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 marketplace sample, 39.6% of sites had zero estimated organic traffic; 78% had fewer than 1,000 monthly visits.", "seo_takeaway": "A large catalogue can contain many weak audience opportunities. Filter the listing, then inspect the publication itself.", "locator": "Key takeaways: traffic distribution", "evidence": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 marketplace sample, 39.6% of sites had zero estimated organic traffic; 78% had fewer than 1,000 monthly visits.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Remove marketplace sites with little estimated traffic, then check the rest by hand.", "Record the tool and date because traffic estimates can be wrong." ], "plain_explanation": "Many sites offered for paid placement had little or no estimated Google traffic. A large marketplace does not guarantee a real audience.", "number": 9, "display_value": "39.6% zero; 78% below 1,000", "period_label": "Jun 2026 release · marketplace listings", "evidence_type": "Marketplace study" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/guest-post-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "Cost of Guest Posts, Based on 500k Sites [Updated 2026 Data]", "published_date": "2026-06-15", "data_period": "June 2026 release; collection dates undisclosed", "population": "Complete listings in one unnamed link marketplace", "sample_size": "257,267 sites with price, Domain Rating and estimated traffic data", "study_design": "marketplace analysis", "caveats": "One marketplace, not the whole web. Listed quotes are not completed transactions. Traffic is an SEO-tool estimate; incomplete listings were excluded. These are the author’s DR/traffic tiers, not an editorial audit: DR 71–80 with 50,000+ traffic, or DR 81+ with 100,000+ traffic.", "id": "S105", "finding_key": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026:quality-tier-share", "section": "quality", "short_title": "Few listings passed the study’s top tiers", "value": "1.37% of listed sites", "claim": "Only 1.37% of sites in BuzzStream’s 2026 sample met its “High Quality” or “Top Tier” metric thresholds.", "seo_takeaway": "Ask how a seller defines quality. A label is only as useful as the criteria behind it.", "locator": "Quality tier distribution; threshold definitions", "evidence": "Only 1.37% of sites in BuzzStream’s 2026 sample met its “High Quality” or “Top Tier” metric thresholds.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Ask sellers exactly what labels such as “premium” mean.", "Judge every site using your own relevance, quality and audience checks." ], "plain_explanation": "Very few listings met this study’s strictest quality rules. Always ask what a seller’s quality label actually means.", "number": 10, "display_value": "1.37% of listed sites", "period_label": "Jun 2026 release · marketplace listings", "evidence_type": "Marketplace study" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/guest-post-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "Cost of Guest Posts, Based on 500k Sites [Updated 2026 Data]", "published_date": "2026-06-15", "data_period": "June 2026 release; collection dates undisclosed", "population": "Gambling-category subset of one marketplace’s complete listings", "sample_size": "Roughly 10,000 gambling-site listings", "study_design": "marketplace analysis", "caveats": "One marketplace, not the whole web. Listed quotes are not completed transactions. Traffic is an SEO-tool estimate; incomplete listings were excluded. A subset of one marketplace; not a statement about all gambling publishers.", "id": "S106", "finding_key": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026:gambling-zero-traffic", "section": "quality", "short_title": "Niche labels do not establish an audience", "value": "70% of gambling listings", "claim": "About 70% of roughly 10,000 gambling sites in BuzzStream’s 2026 marketplace subset had zero estimated organic traffic.", "seo_takeaway": "For a niche campaign, check evidence of an audience within that niche instead of trusting the category tag.", "locator": "Gambling deep dive", "evidence": "About 70% of roughly 10,000 gambling sites in BuzzStream’s 2026 marketplace subset had zero estimated organic traffic.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Read recent articles and check search visibility before trusting a niche label.", "Remove sites whose real content or audience does not match your campaign." ], "plain_explanation": "Most gambling-category sites in this marketplace had no estimated search traffic. A niche label can be misleading.", "number": 11, "display_value": "70% of gambling listings", "period_label": "Jun 2026 release · marketplace listings", "evidence_type": "Marketplace study" }, { "study_id": "aira-linkbuilding-2022", "source_url": "https://aira.net/blog/11-takeaways-2022-state-of-link-building-report/", "publisher": "Aira", "source_title": "11 Takeaways from the 2022 State of Link Building Report", "published_date": "2022", "data_period": "16 March–2 May 2022", "population": "Self-selected SEO professionals answering the annual link-building survey", "sample_size": "270 respondents; branching questions have different denominators", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Historical self-reported practice and opinions. Multiple-choice questions may allow several answers; responses are not measured ranking effects.", "methods_url": "https://info.aira.net/hubfs/Content%20Offers/State%20of%20Link%20Building%20Report/AIRA3002%20-%20State%20of%20Link%20Building%20-%202022%20REV%20C.pdf", "id": "S115", "finding_key": "aira-linkbuilding-2022:quality-metric-preferences", "section": "quality", "short_title": "DR was a popular screening metric", "value": "67% DR; 42% DA", "claim": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 67% used Domain Rating and 42% used Domain Authority to assess link quality.", "seo_takeaway": "Ask which tool produced the score and what it measures. These metrics are not interchangeable Google ratings.", "locator": "Takeaway 2; report metric question", "evidence": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 67% used Domain Rating and 42% used Domain Authority to assess link quality.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Use DR only to create a first list, then inspect each page.", "Write down why you accepted or rejected each website." ], "plain_explanation": "DR was a popular first check, but it cannot show whether a specific article or audience is a good fit.", "number": 12, "display_value": "67% DR; 42% DA", "period_label": "Mar–May 2022 · historical survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "aira-linkbuilding-2022", "source_url": "https://aira.net/blog/11-takeaways-2022-state-of-link-building-report/", "publisher": "Aira", "source_title": "11 Takeaways from the 2022 State of Link Building Report", "published_date": "2022", "data_period": "16 March–2 May 2022", "population": "Self-selected SEO professionals answering the annual link-building survey", "sample_size": "270 respondents; branching questions have different denominators", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Historical self-reported practice and opinions. Multiple-choice questions may allow several answers; responses are not measured ranking effects.", "methods_url": "https://info.aira.net/hubfs/Content%20Offers/State%20of%20Link%20Building%20Report/AIRA3002%20-%20State%20of%20Link%20Building%20-%202022%20REV%20C.pdf", "id": "S117", "finding_key": "aira-linkbuilding-2022:page-domain-relevance", "section": "quality", "short_title": "Page relevance and domain relevance differ", "value": "62% vs 52%", "claim": "Aira’s 2022 respondents assessed relevance using the linking page’s topic (62%) and the domain’s topic (52%).", "seo_takeaway": "Read the proposed article as well as the publication. A broad news site can host a very relevant story.", "locator": "Takeaway 7; relevance criteria", "evidence": "Aira’s 2022 respondents assessed relevance using the linking page’s topic (62%) and the domain’s topic (52%).", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Check whether both the website and the planned article fit your topic.", "Choose the page that helps readers most, even on a broader website." ], "plain_explanation": "A website can cover your topic while the actual placement page does not. You need to check both.", "number": 13, "display_value": "62% vs 52%", "period_label": "Mar–May 2022 · historical survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "reboot-coverage-2024", "source_url": "https://www.rebootonline.com/digital-pr-statistics/", "publisher": "Reboot Online", "source_title": "Digital PR Statistics", "published_date": null, "data_period": "Agency coverage acquired during 2024", "population": "Reboot’s own digital PR coverage", "sample_size": "More than 6,200 links acquired; exact metric-specific denominator undisclosed", "study_design": "agency portfolio analysis", "caveats": "One agency’s selected campaign mix. DR and UR are third-party metrics, not Google scores. The source page also contains unrelated secondary statistics.", "id": "S120", "finding_key": "reboot-coverage-2024:domain-page-score-gap", "section": "quality", "short_title": "A strong domain score can hide a weak page score", "value": "Average DR 61; UR 11", "claim": "Reboot reported an average DR of 61 and UR of 11 for its 2024 digital PR coverage.", "seo_takeaway": "Keep domain-level screening separate from page-level assessment. A new article may have little direct link equity of its own.", "locator": "Quality of backlinks: 2024 DR and UR", "evidence": "Reboot reported an average DR of 61 and UR of 11 for its 2024 digital PR coverage.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Check the exact page’s traffic, internal links and surrounding content.", "Reject a weak page even when the website has a strong score." ], "plain_explanation": "A high domain score can hide a weak page. The page matters because that is where people will see the link.", "number": 14, "display_value": "Average DR 61; UR 11", "period_label": "2024 coverage · one agency", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs, 2025", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2025-04-17", "id": "S021", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:budget-approval-ease", "section": "costs", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 29% said securing a link-building budget was very or somewhat easy.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "29% of respondents", "locator": "Link Building Budgeting; ease of securing budget", "evidence": "Budget approval was easy for a minority of respondents.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Budget approval was not easy for most", "display_value": "29% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "A proposal is easier to assess when it names the target page, the audience, the planned work and the review point.", "number": 15, "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Explain which pages, audience and campaign idea the budget will support.", "Start with a small test budget, then agree when to stop or spend more." ], "plain_explanation": "Only a minority said budget approval was easy. Clear goals and costs make the request easier to judge." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream, 2026 digital PR survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2026-02-19", "id": "S024", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:cost-per-link-distribution", "section": "costs", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 19.6% reported average link costs of $300–$500, while 39.2% did not know their cost per link.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "19.6% in the USD 300–500 band; 39.2% unknown", "locator": "Digital PR Budgeting, question 3", "evidence": "The modal stated cost band was 300–500 dollars; many respondents could not state their cost.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Many teams did not know cost per link", "display_value": "19.6% at $300–$500; 39.2% unsure", "seo_takeaway": "Agree the numerator and denominator: all campaign costs divided by which types of links, and checked at what date?", "number": 16, "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Count agency fees, tools, production and staff time in the total cost.", "Check the cost again after removed or rejected links are excluded." ], "plain_explanation": "Many respondents did not know their cost per link. The number is unreliable unless everyone counts cost in the same way." }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/digital-pr-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "How Much Does Digital PR Cost?", "published_date": null, "data_period": "2025 survey; fieldwork dates not disclosed; page updated June 2026", "population": "Agency and freelance digital PR leaders, predominantly UK and US", "sample_size": "About 70 respondents", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Self-reported service costs, not invoices. UK/US-heavy convenience sample; item-level response counts are undisclosed. Scope varies between retainers.", "source_page_date": "2026-06-12", "id": "S098", "finding_key": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025:mean-retainer", "section": "costs", "short_title": "A retainer includes more than a link", "value": "US$5,458 per month", "claim": "BuzzStream’s 2025 survey of PR providers reported a mean monthly digital PR contract of $5,458.", "seo_takeaway": "Compare the research, creative, outreach and reporting scope inside a retainer before comparing its price.", "locator": "Average monthly contract", "evidence": "BuzzStream’s 2025 survey of PR providers reported a mean monthly digital PR contract of $5,458.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Ask what research, content, outreach and reporting the monthly fee includes.", "Compare providers by the work included, not only the price." ], "plain_explanation": "The average monthly fee covered a complete digital PR service, not just one link.", "number": 17, "display_value": "US$5,458 per month", "period_label": "2025 survey · updated page in 2026", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/digital-pr-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "How Much Does Digital PR Cost?", "published_date": null, "data_period": "2025 survey; fieldwork dates not disclosed; page updated June 2026", "population": "Agency and freelance digital PR leaders, predominantly UK and US", "sample_size": "About 70 respondents", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Self-reported service costs, not invoices. UK/US-heavy convenience sample; item-level response counts are undisclosed. Scope varies between retainers. The mean reflects respondents able to give a cost; the exact denominator is not reported.", "source_page_date": "2026-06-12", "id": "S099", "finding_key": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025:mean-cost-per-link", "section": "costs", "short_title": "Cost per link needs a definition", "value": "US$597 per link", "claim": "BuzzStream’s 2025 provider survey reported a $597 mean cost per link; roughly one-third did not know their figure.", "seo_takeaway": "Specify whether the calculation includes staff time, production, unlinked coverage and retained links.", "locator": "Average cost per link", "evidence": "BuzzStream’s 2025 provider survey reported a $597 mean cost per link; roughly one-third did not know their figure.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Agree what counts as a successful link before calculating cost per link.", "Show total spend, accepted links and links that remain live together." ], "plain_explanation": "The average price per link depends on what the provider included. Different definitions can produce very different totals.", "number": 18, "display_value": "US$597 per link", "period_label": "2025 survey · updated page in 2026", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/digital-pr-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "How Much Does Digital PR Cost?", "published_date": null, "data_period": "2025 survey; fieldwork dates not disclosed; page updated June 2026", "population": "Agency and freelance digital PR leaders, predominantly UK and US", "sample_size": "About 70 respondents", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Self-reported service costs, not invoices. UK/US-heavy convenience sample; item-level response counts are undisclosed. Scope varies between retainers.", "source_page_date": "2026-06-12", "id": "S100", "finding_key": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025:agency-freelancer-retainers", "section": "costs", "short_title": "Provider type changes the quoted scope", "value": "US$6,357 vs US$4,200", "claim": "In that 2025 survey, mean monthly retainers were $6,357 for agencies and $4,200 for freelancers.", "seo_takeaway": "Compare capacity and responsibilities as well as price. A provider label does not define the deliverables.", "locator": "Agency and freelancer comparison", "evidence": "In that 2025 survey, mean monthly retainers were $6,357 for agencies and $4,200 for freelancers.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Give agencies and freelancers the same brief and ask what each includes.", "Compare the people, work and expected results beside the price." ], "plain_explanation": "Agencies charged more on average than freelancers, but the work and capacity may not have been the same.", "number": 19, "display_value": "US$6,357 vs US$4,200", "period_label": "2025 survey · updated page in 2026", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/digital-pr-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "How Much Does Digital PR Cost?", "published_date": null, "data_period": "2025 survey; fieldwork dates not disclosed; page updated June 2026", "population": "Agency and freelance digital PR leaders, predominantly UK and US", "sample_size": "About 70 respondents", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Self-reported service costs, not invoices. UK/US-heavy convenience sample; item-level response counts are undisclosed. Scope varies between retainers.", "source_page_date": "2026-06-12", "id": "S101", "finding_key": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025:contract-duration", "section": "costs", "short_title": "Longer commitments were common", "value": "About 75% of contracts", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2025 provider survey, about 75% of contracts lasted longer than six months.", "seo_takeaway": "Ask what the first campaign, learning cycle and review point look like before committing to the full term.", "locator": "Contract length", "evidence": "In BuzzStream’s 2025 provider survey, about 75% of contracts lasted longer than six months.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Add review dates after 30, 60 and 90 days to longer contracts.", "Agree when you can change the story, audience or budget." ], "plain_explanation": "Most contracts lasted longer than six months. Buyers need review points before the full term is over.", "number": 20, "display_value": "About 75% of contracts", "period_label": "2025 survey · updated page in 2026", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/digital-pr-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "How Much Does Digital PR Cost?", "published_date": null, "data_period": "2025 survey; fieldwork dates not disclosed; page updated June 2026", "population": "Agency and freelance digital PR leaders, predominantly UK and US", "sample_size": "About 70 respondents", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Self-reported service costs, not invoices. UK/US-heavy convenience sample; item-level response counts are undisclosed. Scope varies between retainers.", "source_page_date": "2026-06-12", "id": "S102", "finding_key": "buzzstream-pr-costs-2025:billable-coverage-types", "section": "costs", "short_title": "Billable coverage can include unlinked mentions", "value": "74% / 68% / 64%", "claim": "Surveyed PR providers charged for nofollow links (74%), syndicated coverage (68%) and unlinked mentions (64%).", "seo_takeaway": "Agree what counts toward delivery before comparing cost per placement. These outputs have different uses.", "locator": "Charging for types of coverage", "evidence": "Surveyed PR providers charged for nofollow links (74%), syndicated coverage (68%) and unlinked mentions (64%).", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Count standard links, nofollow links, copied stories and unlinked mentions separately.", "Agree what each result is worth before the campaign begins." ], "plain_explanation": "Many providers charged for mentions and copied coverage as well as standard links. Agree what counts before work starts.", "number": 21, "display_value": "74% / 68% / 64%", "period_label": "2025 survey · updated page in 2026", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026", "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/guest-post-costs/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "Cost of Guest Posts, Based on 500k Sites [Updated 2026 Data]", "published_date": "2026-06-15", "data_period": "June 2026 release; collection dates undisclosed", "population": "Complete listings in one unnamed link marketplace", "sample_size": "257,267 sites with price, Domain Rating and estimated traffic data", "study_design": "marketplace analysis", "caveats": "One marketplace, not the whole web. Listed quotes are not completed transactions. Traffic is an SEO-tool estimate; incomplete listings were excluded. The source calls its lowest-quote proxy “direct price”; it is not independently verified publisher-direct pricing.", "id": "S103", "finding_key": "buzzstream-guest-prices-2026:listing-price-proxy", "section": "costs", "short_title": "Vendor quotes differed from the lowest quote", "value": "US$461 vs US$295", "claim": "BuzzStream’s June 2026 marketplace analysis found a $461 average vendor quote versus a $295 lowest-vendor-price proxy.", "seo_takeaway": "Check exactly what a quote includes and whether several sellers are listing the same publication.", "locator": "Key takeaways; Vendor vs direct pricing", "evidence": "BuzzStream’s June 2026 marketplace analysis found a $461 average vendor quote versus a $295 lowest-vendor-price proxy.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Group duplicate publication quotes and record who offered each price.", "Compare service, review and replacement terms before choosing the cheapest option." ], "plain_explanation": "Different sellers quoted different prices for the same publication. The cheapest number may not include the same service.", "number": 22, "display_value": "US$461 vs US$295", "period_label": "Jun 2026 release · marketplace listings", "evidence_type": "Marketplace study" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs, 2025", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2025-04-17", "id": "S016", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:documented-process", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 32% of respondents followed a documented, repeatable link-building process.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "32% of respondents", "locator": "Link Building Strategy, question 3", "evidence": "About one third reported a documented process.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Documented processes were uncommon", "display_value": "32% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Document prospecting, qualification, pitching and link checks so you can identify which stage needs improvement.", "number": 23, "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Write down every step from finding websites to checking published links.", "Give each step a simple pass or fail rule." ], "plain_explanation": "Only about one in three respondents had a written process. Without one, it is harder to find where a campaign went wrong." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs, 2025", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2025-04-17", "id": "S017", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:benchmarking-adoption", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, about one quarter used benchmarks for their link-building results.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "about 25% of respondents", "locator": "Link Building Reporting, question 12", "evidence": "One in four reported using benchmarking.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Benchmarking had limited adoption", "display_value": "About one quarter", "seo_takeaway": "Start with your own qualified-recipient and retained-link baselines. A generic industry reply rate may use a different denominator.", "number": 24, "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Record your usual contact, reply, coverage, link and retention rates.", "Compare new campaigns with your own past campaigns using the same rules." ], "plain_explanation": "Few teams compared results with a consistent starting point. Your own past results are often the fairest comparison." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs, 2025", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2025-04-17", "id": "S018", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:reporting-value", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 40% felt their reporting effectively communicated the value of link building.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "40% of respondents", "locator": "Link Building Reporting, question 11", "evidence": "Fewer than half thought their reports conveyed value well.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Reports often failed to explain value", "display_value": "40% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Give every reporting metric a question to answer. A list of live URLs establishes delivery but does not explain the commercial result.", "number": 25, "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Explain which decision each number in the report should help someone make.", "Show delivery, link quality, visits and business results separately." ], "plain_explanation": "Many reports listed activity without explaining business value. A live link is an output, not the final result." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs, 2025", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2025-04-17", "id": "S019", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:future-budget-intent", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 56% planned to increase link-building investment over the following year.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "56% of respondents", "locator": "Link Building Budgeting; next-12-month investment question", "evidence": "More than half intended to invest more.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "More investment was planned", "display_value": "56% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "This was a 2025 intention, not evidence of actual 2026 spending. Test whether your current process is ready for a larger budget.", "number": 26, "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Check whether the team can keep quality high before increasing the budget.", "Increase spending in stages and stop if quality falls." ], "plain_explanation": "More than half planned to spend more. Extra money helps only when the process can keep quality high." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs, 2025", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2025-04-17", "id": "S020", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:selfreported-success", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 29% described their link-building efforts as successful.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "29% of respondents", "locator": "Measuring Impact, question 8", "evidence": "About one third assessed their efforts as successful.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Success was far from universal", "display_value": "29% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Define success before launch. Delivery, rankings and revenue can move differently and need separate evidence.", "number": 27, "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Define an acceptable, good and excellent result before the campaign begins.", "Afterward, decide whether to stop, change the plan or do more." ], "plain_explanation": "Fewer than one in three called their work successful. Teams may also mean different things when they say “success.”" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream, 2026 digital PR survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2026-02-19", "id": "S023", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:quality-links-measurement", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 85.1% measured campaign success using the number of quality links.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "85.1% of respondents", "locator": "Measuring Digital PR; ways to measure success", "evidence": "Quality-link count was the leading measurement choice.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Quality-link count was a common KPI", "display_value": "85.1% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Define “quality” before the campaign. Use observable criteria such as relevance, editorial context and whether the link remains live.", "number": 28, "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Write simple rules for relevance, article quality, audience, link type and retention.", "Count only links that meet those rules and explain any rejections." ], "plain_explanation": "Most respondents counted high-quality links. The measure works only when quality is clearly defined." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream, 2026 digital PR survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2026-02-19", "id": "S025", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:reported-time-to-results", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 85.2% said measurable campaign results took no more than six months.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "85.2% of respondents; at most six months", "locator": "Measuring Digital PR; time to measurable results", "evidence": "Most respondents reported a results window of six months or less.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Results often required several months", "display_value": "85.2% said within 6 months", "seo_takeaway": "Schedule learning and reporting milestones. This is self-reported campaign timing, not a guarantee for your website.", "number": 29, "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Set dates for creating the asset, outreach, first coverage and final review.", "Tell everyone what can reasonably be judged at each date." ], "plain_explanation": "Most respondents said results appeared within six months. This was their experience, not a promise for every site." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream, 2026 digital PR survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2026-02-19", "id": "S026", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:difficulty-change", "section": "operations", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 75% found the work more challenging than a year earlier.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "75% of respondents", "locator": "Digital PR Challenges; change in difficulty", "evidence": "Most respondents perceived increased difficulty.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Digital PR felt harder", "display_value": "75% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Leave time to improve the story and targeting after the first feedback. More sends cannot resolve every campaign problem.", "number": 30, "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "After the first emails, review the story, recipients and message separately.", "Change one weak part, test again, then decide whether to contact more people." ], "plain_explanation": "Three quarters said digital PR had become harder. Sending more emails does not fix a weak story." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S092", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:tactic-selection", "section": "operations", "short_title": "Teams want better tactic selection", "value": "66% of respondents", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 66% wanted to improve their choice of backlink tactics.", "seo_takeaway": "Choose the tactic after you define the audience, destination and evidence you can offer a publisher.", "locator": "Areas for improvement: effective strategies", "evidence": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 66% wanted to improve their choice of backlink tactics.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Choose tactics by audience, target page and the proof you can offer.", "Stop using tactics that repeatedly fail to produce useful results." ], "plain_explanation": "Many teams wanted better ways to choose tactics. The right tactic depends on the page, audience and story.", "number": 31, "display_value": "66% of respondents", "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S094", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:goal-kpi-alignment", "section": "operations", "short_title": "Many teams align goals with KPIs", "value": "61% of respondents", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 61% said their link-building goals aligned with KPIs.", "seo_takeaway": "Define the KPI in the campaign brief. A goal such as “authority” is too vague to settle a performance review.", "locator": "Setting goals and KPIs", "evidence": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 61% said their link-building goals aligned with KPIs.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Give each campaign goal one main success measure.", "Do not claim success using a number that was never part of the goal." ], "plain_explanation": "Many teams said their goals and measurements matched. Writing both down makes performance easier to judge.", "number": 32, "display_value": "61% of respondents", "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "aira-linkbuilding-2022", "source_url": "https://aira.net/blog/11-takeaways-2022-state-of-link-building-report/", "publisher": "Aira", "source_title": "11 Takeaways from the 2022 State of Link Building Report", "published_date": "2022", "data_period": "16 March–2 May 2022", "population": "Self-selected SEO professionals answering the annual link-building survey", "sample_size": "270 respondents; branching questions have different denominators", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Historical self-reported practice and opinions. Multiple-choice questions may allow several answers; responses are not measured ranking effects. The summary also mentions brand mentions, but the PDF question specifically asks about link attributes. The selected claim follows that narrower wording.", "methods_url": "https://info.aira.net/hubfs/Content%20Offers/State%20of%20Link%20Building%20Report/AIRA3002%20-%20State%20of%20Link%20Building%20-%202022%20REV%20C.pdf", "id": "S116", "finding_key": "aira-linkbuilding-2022:nonfollow-mentions-targets", "section": "operations", "short_title": "Targets often included more than followed links", "value": "62% of respondents", "claim": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 62% counted nofollow links, including sponsored and UGC attributes, toward overall link targets.", "seo_takeaway": "Write down the accepted output types. A total can look impressive while mixing several different kinds of coverage.", "locator": "Takeaway 4; PDF page 17, exact survey question", "evidence": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 62% counted nofollow links, including sponsored and UGC attributes, toward overall link targets.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Set separate targets for standard links, nofollow links, mentions and copied stories.", "Tell providers which results are required and which are optional." ], "plain_explanation": "Campaign targets often included nofollow links and brand mentions. These results should not be counted as the same thing.", "number": 33, "display_value": "62% of respondents", "period_label": "Mar–May 2022 · historical survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "aira-linkbuilding-2022", "source_url": "https://aira.net/blog/11-takeaways-2022-state-of-link-building-report/", "publisher": "Aira", "source_title": "11 Takeaways from the 2022 State of Link Building Report", "published_date": "2022", "data_period": "16 March–2 May 2022", "population": "Self-selected SEO professionals answering the annual link-building survey", "sample_size": "270 respondents; branching questions have different denominators", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Historical self-reported practice and opinions. Multiple-choice questions may allow several answers; responses are not measured ranking effects. Respondents could have experienced both outcomes.", "methods_url": "https://info.aira.net/hubfs/Content%20Offers/State%20of%20Link%20Building%20Report/AIRA3002%20-%20State%20of%20Link%20Building%20-%202022%20REV%20C.pdf", "id": "S118", "finding_key": "aira-linkbuilding-2022:campaign-underperformance", "section": "operations", "short_title": "Weak campaigns were part of the experience", "value": "53% low-link; 29% zero-link", "claim": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 53% had run a content campaign earning only 1–9 links, and 29% had run one earning none in the preceding year.", "seo_takeaway": "Plan a review and a second angle when the first story misses. These are shares of respondents who experienced an outcome, not shares of all campaigns.", "locator": "Takeaway 10; content campaign results", "evidence": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 53% had run a content campaign earning only 1–9 links, and 29% had run one earning none in the preceding year.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Review weak campaigns and name the main problem: story, timing, audience or delivery.", "Test one clear change in the next campaign." ], "plain_explanation": "Many people had worked on campaigns that performed poorly. A useful review should explain why.", "number": 34, "display_value": "53% low-link; 29% zero-link", "period_label": "Mar–May 2022 · historical survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream, 2026 digital PR survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2026-02-19", "id": "S027", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:media-list-data-quality", "section": "outreach", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 survey, 62.8% named outdated or incorrect journalist information as their main challenge with media-list tools.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "62.8% of respondents", "locator": "Media List Building, question 8", "evidence": "Contact-data accuracy was the leading stated media-list-tool problem.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Media-list data often needed correction", "display_value": "62.8% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Verify current employment and beat before sending. Treat a database export as a starting list to check.", "number": 35, "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Check each important contact’s latest articles and current employer before emailing.", "Remove or update contacts you cannot verify." ], "plain_explanation": "Contact databases often contained wrong or old information. Check the person before you send." }, { "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/email-outreach-study", "publisher": "Backlinko and Pitchbox", "source_title": "We Analyzed 12 Million Outreach Emails. Here’s What We Learned", "study_id": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019", "published_date": "2019", "data_period": "not reported; 2019 study", "population": "Outreach emails supplied through Pitchbox", "sample_size": "12 million outreach emails", "caveats": "Historical, platform-specific observational dataset. Reply is not equivalent to a positive reply, earned link or sale. Personalization findings are associations and relative changes.", "citation_label": "Backlinko and Pitchbox, 2019", "study_design": "observational email analysis", "source_page_date": "2019-04-16", "id": "S035", "finding_key": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019:reply-rate", "section": "outreach", "claim": "Backlinko and Pitchbox’s 2019 analysis of 12 million outreach emails found an 8.5% reply rate.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "8.5% of outreach emails", "locator": "Summary and most outreach emails are ignored", "evidence": "A small minority of analyzed emails received a reply.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Most outreach emails received no reply", "display_value": "8.5% reply rate", "seo_takeaway": "Use this historical dataset as context, not your quota. Track positive replies and earned coverage after the initial response.", "number": 36, "period_label": "2019 release · historical email dataset", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Count delivered emails, helpful replies, coverage and accepted links separately.", "Test the story with a small relevant group before sending it widely." ], "plain_explanation": "Only a small share of emails received a reply. Silence is common even in a large outreach campaign." }, { "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/email-outreach-study", "publisher": "Backlinko and Pitchbox", "source_title": "We Analyzed 12 Million Outreach Emails. Here’s What We Learned", "study_id": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019", "published_date": "2019", "data_period": "not reported; 2019 study", "population": "Outreach emails supplied through Pitchbox", "sample_size": "12 million outreach emails", "caveats": "Historical, platform-specific observational dataset. Reply is not equivalent to a positive reply, earned link or sale. Personalization findings are associations and relative changes.", "citation_label": "Backlinko and Pitchbox, 2019", "study_design": "observational email analysis", "source_page_date": "2019-04-16", "id": "S036", "finding_key": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019:subject-personalization-association", "section": "outreach", "claim": "In Backlinko and Pitchbox’s 2019 dataset, personalized subject lines were associated with a 30.5% higher response rate.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "30.5% relative response-rate difference", "locator": "Personalized subject lines section", "evidence": "Response rates were higher for emails with personalized subjects.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Personalized subjects correlated with replies", "display_value": "30.5% higher response rate", "seo_takeaway": "Test a specific subject that reflects the recipient’s beat. This is a relative association, not a percentage-point gain.", "number": 37, "period_label": "2019 release · historical email dataset", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Send two clear subject lines to similar groups and compare the replies.", "Judge useful replies and coverage, not only email opens." ], "plain_explanation": "Emails with personalised subjects received more replies in this study. The study cannot prove that the subject alone caused it." }, { "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/email-outreach-study", "publisher": "Backlinko and Pitchbox", "source_title": "We Analyzed 12 Million Outreach Emails. Here’s What We Learned", "study_id": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019", "published_date": "2019", "data_period": "not reported; 2019 study", "population": "Outreach emails supplied through Pitchbox", "sample_size": "12 million outreach emails", "caveats": "Historical, platform-specific observational dataset. Reply is not equivalent to a positive reply, earned link or sale. Personalization findings are associations and relative changes.", "citation_label": "Backlinko and Pitchbox, 2019", "study_design": "observational email analysis", "source_page_date": "2019-04-16", "id": "S037", "finding_key": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019:body-personalization-association", "section": "outreach", "claim": "In Backlinko and Pitchbox’s 2019 dataset, personalized email bodies were associated with a 32.7% higher response rate.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "32.7% relative response-rate difference", "locator": "Personalized email body section", "evidence": "Response rates were higher for emails with personalized bodies.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Personalized bodies also correlated with replies", "display_value": "32.7% higher response rate", "seo_takeaway": "Explain why this writer might use this finding. Keep the test focused enough to learn what changed the response.", "number": 38, "period_label": "2019 release · historical email dataset", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Explain in one sentence why the story suits that person’s recent work.", "Compare similar email groups to see whether better relevance improves replies." ], "plain_explanation": "Personalised messages also received more replies. Useful relevance matters more than adding someone’s name." }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed. Self-reported typical timing; not a campaign guarantee.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S095", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:first-coverage-week", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "First coverage can arrive quickly", "value": "81% of respondents", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 81% typically saw their first coverage within a week of pitching.", "seo_takeaway": "Track time to first coverage separately from time to measurable SEO or business results.", "locator": "Time to first coverage", "evidence": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 81% typically saw their first coverage within a week of pitching.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Record how long each campaign takes to earn its first coverage.", "Treat early coverage as feedback, not proof of final SEO or business impact." ], "plain_explanation": "Most surveyed teams saw their first coverage within a week. Search and business results usually take longer.", "number": 39, "display_value": "81% of respondents", "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S096", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:always-personalize", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "Personalization is not universal", "value": "48% of respondents", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 48% said they always personalized pitches.", "seo_takeaway": "Personalization should explain why the story fits this writer’s work. A first-name field alone does little of that work.", "locator": "Pitch personalization", "evidence": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 48% said they always personalized pitches.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Add one real, person-specific reason to every pitch.", "Review sent emails and ignore simple name changes as personalisation." ], "plain_explanation": "Fewer than half always personalised pitches. A copied message is easy for a journalist to ignore.", "number": 40, "display_value": "48% of respondents", "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S097", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:verify-journalist-active", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "Contact checks are easy to skip", "value": "53.4% of respondents", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 53.4% always checked that a journalist still worked at the publication.", "seo_takeaway": "Check the byline and recent coverage before sending. A correct email address can still reach the wrong person.", "locator": "Research before pitching", "evidence": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 digital PR survey, 53.4% always checked that a journalist still worked at the publication.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Check the person’s employer, topic area and latest article before sending.", "Save the check date and remove old contacts." ], "plain_explanation": "Only about half always checked whether the journalist still worked there. A correct email can still reach the wrong person.", "number": 41, "display_value": "53.4% of respondents", "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/email-outreach-study", "publisher": "Backlinko and Pitchbox", "source_title": "We Analyzed 12 Million Outreach Emails. Here’s What We Learned", "study_id": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019", "published_date": "2019", "data_period": "not reported; 2019 study", "population": "Outreach emails supplied through Pitchbox", "sample_size": "12 million outreach emails", "caveats": "Historical, platform-specific observational dataset. Reply is not equivalent to a positive reply, earned link or sale. Personalization findings are associations and relative changes. Relative increase, not percentage points; observational comparison.", "study_design": "observational email analysis", "id": "S107", "finding_key": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019:single-followup", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "One follow-up was associated with more replies", "value": "65.8% more replies", "claim": "Backlinko and Pitchbox’s 2019 analysis associated one additional follow-up with 65.8% more replies.", "seo_takeaway": "Test a useful follow-up that adds context. Stop after a decline and monitor negative responses as well as replies.", "locator": "Following up significantly boosts response rates", "evidence": "Backlinko and Pitchbox’s 2019 analysis associated one additional follow-up with 65.8% more replies.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Follow up once only when you can add useful new information.", "Stop after a rejection, and track complaints and unsubscribe requests." ], "plain_explanation": "One follow-up was linked with more replies. A helpful reminder can work, while repeated pressure can backfire.", "number": 42, "display_value": "65.8% more replies", "period_label": "2019 release · historical email dataset", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/email-outreach-study", "publisher": "Backlinko and Pitchbox", "source_title": "We Analyzed 12 Million Outreach Emails. Here’s What We Learned", "study_id": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019", "published_date": "2019", "data_period": "not reported; 2019 study", "population": "Outreach emails supplied through Pitchbox", "sample_size": "12 million outreach emails", "caveats": "Historical, platform-specific observational dataset. Reply is not equivalent to a positive reply, earned link or sale. Personalization findings are associations and relative changes. Relative increase; contact choice and campaign quality may confound the comparison.", "study_design": "observational email analysis", "id": "S108", "finding_key": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019:multiple-contacts", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "Finding the right contact can matter", "value": "93% higher reply rate", "claim": "In the 2019 outreach dataset, contacting multiple people at an organization was associated with a 93% higher reply rate.", "seo_takeaway": "Confirm who owns the topic. This finding does not justify sending the same pitch to an entire newsroom.", "locator": "Multiple contacts at the same organization", "evidence": "In the 2019 outreach dataset, contacting multiple people at an organization was associated with a 93% higher reply rate.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Choose the writer or editor whose recent work best fits the story.", "Keep one backup and contact them only if needed." ], "plain_explanation": "Contacting more than one relevant person was linked with more replies. It should still be done carefully.", "number": 43, "display_value": "93% higher reply rate", "period_label": "2019 release · historical email dataset", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/email-outreach-study", "publisher": "Backlinko and Pitchbox", "source_title": "We Analyzed 12 Million Outreach Emails. Here’s What We Learned", "study_id": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019", "published_date": "2019", "data_period": "not reported; 2019 study", "population": "Outreach emails supplied through Pitchbox", "sample_size": "12 million outreach emails", "caveats": "Historical, platform-specific observational dataset. Reply is not equivalent to a positive reply, earned link or sale. Personalization findings are associations and relative changes. Relative associations, not percentage-point increases or controlled effects.", "study_design": "observational email analysis", "id": "S109", "finding_key": "backlinko-pitchbox-outreach-2019:signature-social-profiles", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "An identifiable sender may help", "value": "8.2% / 11.5% / 23.4%", "claim": "In the 2019 dataset, linked Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram profiles were associated with 8.2%, 11.5% and 23.4% higher reply rates respectively.", "seo_takeaway": "Make it easy for a recipient to verify who you are. Adding a social icon is not a guaranteed response tactic.", "locator": "Social profile links in email signatures", "evidence": "In the 2019 dataset, linked Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram profiles were associated with 8.2%, 11.5% and 23.4% higher reply rates respectively.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Send from a named person with a clear signature and working reply address.", "Test sender names while keeping the story and audience similar." ], "plain_explanation": "Emails from a named person received more replies than anonymous-looking messages. Trust starts with a clear sender.", "number": 44, "display_value": "8.2% / 11.5% / 23.4%", "period_label": "2019 release · historical email dataset", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "reboot-subject-lines", "source_url": "https://www.rebootonline.com/digital-pr-statistics/", "publisher": "Reboot Online", "source_title": "Digital PR Statistics: email subject-line analysis", "published_date": null, "data_period": "Collection period not reported", "population": "Subject lines from Reboot’s own outreach analysis", "sample_size": "More than 1,000 subject lines", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Observational agency data with limited method disclosure. Opens are not replies or placements and can be distorted by mail-client privacy features. Relative difference; campaign assignment was not randomized.", "id": "S121", "finding_key": "reboot-subject-lines:question-subjects", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "Question-style subjects had fewer opens", "value": "13% lower open rate", "claim": "Reboot’s undated analysis associated question-style subject lines with a 13% lower open rate.", "seo_takeaway": "Test a clear statement of the finding against a question. Judge the campaign on useful replies and coverage as well as opens.", "locator": "Email subject-line analysis", "evidence": "Reboot’s undated analysis associated question-style subject lines with a 13% lower open rate.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Replace vague questions with a direct description of the news or finding.", "Compare similar groups and judge useful replies, not only opens." ], "plain_explanation": "Question-style subject lines were opened less often in this sample. A direct subject may be easier to understand.", "number": 45, "display_value": "13% lower open rate", "period_label": "Undated study · one agency", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "reboot-subject-lines", "source_url": "https://www.rebootonline.com/digital-pr-statistics/", "publisher": "Reboot Online", "source_title": "Digital PR Statistics: email subject-line analysis", "published_date": null, "data_period": "Collection period not reported", "population": "Subject lines from Reboot’s own outreach analysis", "sample_size": "More than 1,000 subject lines", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Observational agency data with limited method disclosure. Opens are not replies or placements and can be distorted by mail-client privacy features. Relative difference; the term grouping and agency sample limit generalization.", "id": "S122", "finding_key": "reboot-subject-lines:buzzword-subjects", "section": "outreach", "short_title": "Timely references correlated with more opens", "value": "12% higher open rate", "claim": "Reboot associated subjects containing buzzwords, such as celebrity names, events or special dates, with a 12% higher open rate.", "seo_takeaway": "Reference a recognizable name or event only when it belongs in the story. A topical hook still needs relevant evidence.", "locator": "Email subject-line analysis: buzzwords", "evidence": "Reboot associated subjects containing buzzwords, such as celebrity names, events or special dates, with a 12% higher open rate.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Mention a recent article only when it truly connects to your story.", "Explain that connection in one short sentence." ], "plain_explanation": "Subjects tied to a recent event or article were opened more often. The reference still needs to be real and relevant.", "number": 46, "display_value": "12% higher open rate", "period_label": "Undated study · one agency", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "citation_label": "Muck Rack, January–March 2026", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S028", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:pitch-volume", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s January–March 2026 journalist survey, 14% said they received more than 20 PR pitches on a typical day.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "14% of respondents; more than 20 pitches/day", "locator": "PDF page 28, daily pitch volume", "evidence": "A minority received more than twenty pitches daily.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Some inboxes receive heavy daily volume", "display_value": "14% received over 20 pitches", "seo_takeaway": "Keep the opening concise and relevant. A recipient should understand the news before opening an attachment.", "number": 47, "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "State the finding, affected audience and why it matters in the first two sentences.", "Make the story clear without requiring an attachment." ], "plain_explanation": "Some journalists receive more than 20 pitches every day. They need to understand the story quickly." }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "citation_label": "Muck Rack, January–March 2026", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S029", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:pitch-relevance-frequency", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s January–March 2026 survey, 43% of journalists seldom received relevant pitches, and 4% said they never did.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "43% seldom; 4% never", "locator": "PDF page 29, pitch relevance frequency", "evidence": "Almost half selected the two least-frequent relevance categories.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Relevant pitches were scarce for many writers", "display_value": "43% seldom; 4% never", "seo_takeaway": "Read recent coverage before pitching. A topic match is more useful than a large media list.", "number": 48, "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Read three recent articles to understand the journalist’s topics and audience.", "Send only when your evidence clearly fits their work." ], "plain_explanation": "Many journalists said most pitches did not fit their work. A shorter, better-targeted list can beat a larger one." }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "citation_label": "Muck Rack, January–March 2026", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S030", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:stories-from-pr", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s January–March 2026 survey, 86% of journalists said at least some of their stories began with a PR pitch.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "86% of respondents", "locator": "PDF page 30, stories originating from pitches", "evidence": "Most respondents attributed at least some story origins to PR pitches.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Pitches still contributed to published stories", "display_value": "86% of journalists", "seo_takeaway": "Outreach can be useful when it supplies something reportable. Focus on the evidence and access you can provide.", "number": 49, "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Send a checkable finding, a short expert quote and the supporting source.", "Record which parts journalists actually use in their coverage." ], "plain_explanation": "Most journalists had used at least one pitch in a story. Good outreach can help when it provides useful information." }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "citation_label": "Muck Rack, January–March 2026", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S031", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:original-research-in-pitches", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s January–March 2026 survey, 40% of journalists wanted original data or research included with a story pitch.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "40% of respondents", "locator": "PDF page 31, ideal pitch assets", "evidence": "Original data or research was a desired pitch component.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Original evidence was welcome", "display_value": "40% of journalists", "seo_takeaway": "Prepare the dataset, methods and limits alongside the headline so a writer can check the finding.", "number": 50, "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Publish who was studied, when, how and what the limits were.", "Offer a simple table or methods page so journalists can check the result." ], "plain_explanation": "Many journalists wanted original research. They also need enough detail to check it." }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "citation_label": "Muck Rack, January–March 2026", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S032", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:community-relevance", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s January–March 2026 survey, 78% said direct effects on their audience’s community made a pitch relevant.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "78% of respondents", "locator": "PDF page 33, audience relevance", "evidence": "Direct community impact was the leading definition of audience relevance.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Audience impact made a story relevant", "display_value": "78% of journalists", "seo_takeaway": "Explain who is affected and what changes for them. Connect the finding to the publication’s readers.", "number": 51, "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "State who is affected, what changes and how large the change is.", "Pitch only publications whose readers have a clear reason to care." ], "plain_explanation": "Journalists cared most about how a story affects their audience. Relevance should be obvious in the pitch." }, { "source_url": "https://www.cision.com/resources/articles/why-do-journalists-ignore-your-pr-pitch/", "publisher": "Cision", "source_title": "Why Do Journalists Ignore Your PR Pitch?", "study_id": "cision-media-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 survey release", "population": "Journalists across industries in the global State of the Media survey", "sample_size": "more than 1,800 journalists across 19 markets", "caveats": "Original publisher’s public explanation of its own survey. Fieldwork dates and exact question-specific denominator not disclosed on this page; self-reported rejection reasons, not observed delivery outcomes. Full report landing page requires a form, so selected findings use accessible original-publisher reporting.", "citation_label": "Cision, 2026 State of the Media", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S081", "finding_key": "cision-media-2026:irrelevant-pitch-rejection", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Cision’s 2026 survey of more than 1,800 journalists, 82% identified irrelevance to their audience or beat as a reason to reject a pitch.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "82% of respondents", "locator": "1. Make your pitch relevant", "evidence": "Relevance to the audience or beat was the leading pitch-rejection criterion.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after final freshness review: original publisher supports a current 2026 survey finding.", "methodology_url": "https://www.prnewswire.com/resources/white-papers/2026-state-of-the-media-report/", "methodology_locator": "Public introduction: more than 1,800 journalists across 19 global markets; full report gated", "short_title": "An irrelevant pitch was easily rejected", "display_value": "82% of journalists", "seo_takeaway": "Make relevance a send/no-send decision. Do not ask a journalist to invent the connection to their beat.", "number": 52, "period_label": "2026 survey · 1,800+ journalists", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Check topic fit, reader value and story format before approving a pitch.", "Do not send when you cannot point to a relevant recent article." ], "plain_explanation": "Irrelevant pitches were the most common reason for rejection. Sending to the wrong person wastes both sides’ time." }, { "source_url": "https://www.cision.com/resources/articles/why-do-journalists-ignore-your-pr-pitch/", "publisher": "Cision", "source_title": "Why Do Journalists Ignore Your PR Pitch?", "study_id": "cision-media-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 survey release", "population": "Journalists across industries in the global State of the Media survey", "sample_size": "more than 1,800 journalists across 19 markets", "caveats": "Original publisher’s public explanation of its own survey. Fieldwork dates and exact question-specific denominator not disclosed on this page; self-reported rejection reasons, not observed delivery outcomes. Full report landing page requires a form, so selected findings use accessible original-publisher reporting.", "citation_label": "Cision, 2026 State of the Media", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S082", "finding_key": "cision-media-2026:no-news-angle-rejection", "section": "journalists", "claim": "In Cision’s 2026 journalist survey, 34% said they would reject a pitch without a clear news angle or point of view.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "34% of respondents", "locator": "6. Bring a clear news angle or point of view", "evidence": "Lack of a clear news angle was a reported reason for rejection.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after final freshness review: original publisher supports a current 2026 survey finding.", "methodology_url": "https://www.prnewswire.com/resources/white-papers/2026-state-of-the-media-report/", "methodology_locator": "Public introduction: more than 1,800 journalists across 19 global markets; full report gated", "short_title": "A pitch still needs a news angle", "display_value": "34% of journalists", "seo_takeaway": "Answer “what is new or surprising?” before drafting the outreach email. A collection of numbers is not automatically a story.", "number": 53, "period_label": "2026 survey · 1,800+ journalists", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Answer three questions: What is new? Why now? Why does it matter?", "Improve the story before adding more contacts if the answers are weak." ], "plain_explanation": "A third rejected pitches with no clear news. Data still needs a reason to matter now." }, { "source_url": "https://www.cision.com/resources/articles/why-do-journalists-ignore-your-pr-pitch/", "publisher": "Cision", "source_title": "Why Do Journalists Ignore Your PR Pitch?", "study_id": "cision-media-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 survey release", "population": "Journalists across industries in the global State of the Media survey", "sample_size": "more than 1,800 journalists across 19 markets", "caveats": "Original publisher’s public explanation of its own survey. Fieldwork dates and exact question-specific denominator not disclosed on this page; self-reported rejection reasons, not observed delivery outcomes. Full report landing page requires a form, so selected findings use accessible original-publisher reporting.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S129", "finding_key": "cision-media-2026:weekly-pitch-volume", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "Some journalists face a large weekly queue", "value": "29% received over 50 pitches", "claim": "In Cision’s 2026 survey, 29% of journalists received more than 50 pitches per week.", "seo_takeaway": "Make the subject and opening sentence easy to assess. A busy recipient needs to understand the story quickly.", "locator": "Pitch volume", "evidence": "In Cision’s 2026 survey, 29% of journalists received more than 50 pitches per week.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Start with the small group of journalists who fit the story best.", "Use their questions to improve the pitch before sending it more widely." ], "plain_explanation": "Some journalists receive hundreds of pitches a week. Your message must be easy to scan.", "number": 54, "display_value": "29% received over 50 pitches", "period_label": "2026 survey · 1,800+ journalists", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.cision.com/resources/articles/why-do-journalists-ignore-your-pr-pitch/", "publisher": "Cision", "source_title": "Why Do Journalists Ignore Your PR Pitch?", "study_id": "cision-media-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 survey release", "population": "Journalists across industries in the global State of the Media survey", "sample_size": "more than 1,800 journalists across 19 markets", "caveats": "Original publisher’s public explanation of its own survey. Fieldwork dates and exact question-specific denominator not disclosed on this page; self-reported rejection reasons, not observed delivery outcomes. Full report landing page requires a form, so selected findings use accessible original-publisher reporting.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S130", "finding_key": "cision-media-2026:low-relevance-share", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "Most pitches missed the mark for many recipients", "value": "72% of journalists", "claim": "In Cision’s 2026 survey, 72% said fewer than a quarter of the pitches they received were relevant.", "seo_takeaway": "Reduce your list to writers who cover the topic. A smaller qualified list is easier to personalize and review.", "locator": "Pitch relevance", "evidence": "In Cision’s 2026 survey, 72% said fewer than a quarter of the pitches they received were relevant.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Sort missed pitches by wrong topic, audience, timing, format or evidence.", "Fix repeated targeting mistakes before adding more contacts." ], "plain_explanation": "Many said most pitches missed the mark. Better targeting matters more than sending more.", "number": 55, "display_value": "72% of journalists", "period_label": "2026 survey · 1,800+ journalists", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.cision.com/resources/articles/why-do-journalists-ignore-your-pr-pitch/", "publisher": "Cision", "source_title": "Why Do Journalists Ignore Your PR Pitch?", "study_id": "cision-media-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 survey release", "population": "Journalists across industries in the global State of the Media survey", "sample_size": "more than 1,800 journalists across 19 markets", "caveats": "Original publisher’s public explanation of its own survey. Fieldwork dates and exact question-specific denominator not disclosed on this page; self-reported rejection reasons, not observed delivery outcomes. Full report landing page requires a form, so selected findings use accessible original-publisher reporting.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S131", "finding_key": "cision-media-2026:promotional-pitches", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "A promotional angle can lose the story", "value": "53% of journalists", "claim": "In Cision’s 2026 survey, 53% would reject a pitch for being overly promotional.", "seo_takeaway": "Lead with what happened and why readers should care. Keep the company promotion subordinate to the evidence.", "locator": "Reasons to reject a pitch", "evidence": "In Cision’s 2026 survey, 53% would reject a pitch for being overly promotional.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Lead with the useful finding or event, then explain the company’s role.", "Remove sales claims that do not help a journalist report the story." ], "plain_explanation": "A sales message is not automatically a news story. Lead with the useful finding.", "number": 56, "display_value": "53% of journalists", "period_label": "2026 survey · 1,800+ journalists", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S132", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:pr-relationship-importance", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "PR relationships still have value", "value": "53% of journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 53% rated relationships with PR professionals important or very important.", "seo_takeaway": "Be a useful source between campaigns: accurate information and dependable responses can support a working relationship.", "locator": "PDF page 27, printed page 26: PR relationships", "evidence": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 53% rated relationships with PR professionals important or very important.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Keep short notes on each contact’s topics, preferences and past conversations.", "Answer requests quickly and accurately, including between campaigns." ], "plain_explanation": "More than half valued relationships with PR people. Reliable help over time can make future contact easier.", "number": 57, "display_value": "53% of journalists", "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S133", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:seldom-never-reply", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "A non-response is common", "value": "54% of journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 54% said they seldom or never replied to pitches.", "seo_takeaway": "Do not equate an unopened conversation with a technical delivery failure. Review topic fit before increasing send volume.", "locator": "PDF page 28: replies to pitches", "evidence": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 54% said they seldom or never replied to pitches.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Expect some silence and limit the number of follow-ups.", "Check the story and audience fit before sending more emails." ], "plain_explanation": "More than half rarely or never reply. No answer does not always mean the email failed to arrive.", "number": 58, "display_value": "54% of journalists", "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S134", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:interview-access", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "Access to a person helps the reporting", "value": "58% of journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 58% wanted access to relevant interviewees with a pitch.", "seo_takeaway": "Have someone available to explain the methods or answer follow-up questions when you pitch a research asset.", "locator": "PDF page 32, printed page 31: what to include", "evidence": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 58% wanted access to relevant interviewees with a pitch.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Offer a real expert and explain what they can add.", "Prepare them to answer questions about the method and limits." ], "plain_explanation": "Many wanted access to someone they could interview. A real expert can make the evidence easier to use.", "number": 59, "display_value": "58% of journalists", "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://media.muckrack.com/documents/State_of_Journalism_2026_1.pdf", "publisher": "Muck Rack", "source_title": "The State of Journalism 2026", "study_id": "muckrack-journalism-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "2026-01-30 to 2026-03-02", "population": "Journalists recruited by email from Muck Rack’s database; mostly US-based", "sample_size": "897 retained responses from 1,044 collected", "caveats": "Non-probability, self-administered survey; not representative of every newsroom. Question-specific response counts are not always shown. Use retained sample, not the larger collection count.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S135", "finding_key": "muckrack-journalism-2026:repeated-pitch-rejection", "section": "journalists", "short_title": "Repeated pitches can get deleted", "value": "46% of journalists", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 46% would delete pitches sent repeatedly without a response.", "seo_takeaway": "Balance follow-up evidence with the recipient’s experience. Stop recycling the same message when it brings nothing new.", "locator": "PDF page 33: reasons to reject or delete", "evidence": "In Muck Rack’s 2026 survey, 46% would delete pitches sent repeatedly without a response.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Stop after one useful follow-up unless you have genuinely new information.", "Record the result so another teammate does not resend the same pitch." ], "plain_explanation": "Nearly half would delete repeated pitches. A follow-up should add something new.", "number": 60, "display_value": "46% of journalists", "period_label": "Jan–Mar 2026 · 897 retained responses", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/state-of-digital-pr-2026/", "publisher": "BuzzStream", "source_title": "State of Digital PR Report (2026)", "study_id": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "not reported; 2026 release", "population": "Digital PR professionals responding to the publisher’s survey", "sample_size": "150+ professionals", "caveats": "Self-reported vendor survey, not representative of all campaigns. Costs, success definitions and times to results differ across respondents; fieldwork dates undisclosed.", "citation_label": "BuzzStream, 2026 digital PR survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": "2026-02-19", "id": "S022", "finding_key": "buzzstream-digitalpr-2026:data-led-pitching", "section": "assets", "claim": "In BuzzStream’s 2026 survey of more than 150 digital PR professionals, 95.9% used pitches built around data.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "95.9% of respondents", "locator": "Digital PR Tactics, question 5", "evidence": "Pitching data-led content was the most commonly reported tactic.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Data-led pitches were widely used", "display_value": "95.9% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "A statistic needs a relevant question and a defensible source. The presence of data alone does not make the story newsworthy.", "number": 61, "period_label": "2026 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Choose one trustworthy number that answers a current audience question.", "Test the story with a few relevant journalists before doing more work." ], "plain_explanation": "Almost all respondents used data-led pitches. Data helps only when it answers a question people care about." }, { "source_url": "https://www.orbitmedia.com/blog/blogging-statistics/", "publisher": "Orbit Media", "source_title": "Annual Blogger Survey 2025", "study_id": "orbit-bloggers-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "August 2025", "population": "Individual bloggers/content marketers; sample skews toward US, B2B and the author’s LinkedIn network", "sample_size": "808 respondents", "caveats": "Voluntary survey with no incentives. Strong results are self-defined, not a uniform SEO or revenue metric. Cross-sectional associations are not causal. Selected chart values visually inspected.", "citation_label": "Orbit Media, August 2025 survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S049", "finding_key": "orbit-bloggers-2025:original-research-adoption", "section": "assets", "claim": "In Orbit Media’s August 2025 survey of 808 content marketers, 49% had created and published original research in the preceding year.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "49% of respondents", "locator": "Question 20 chart, original research adoption; methodology", "evidence": "Roughly half reported publishing original research during the prior twelve months.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Original research was part of many content plans", "display_value": "49% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Look for a question your own experience or data can answer. A sourced roundup and an original study should be described accurately.", "number": 62, "period_label": "Aug 2025 · 808 content marketers", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "List useful company data, customer questions and repeated observations.", "Check privacy, definitions and whether you can update the study later." ], "plain_explanation": "About half used original research. First-party evidence can give other writers something new to cite." }, { "source_url": "https://www.orbitmedia.com/blog/blogging-statistics/", "publisher": "Orbit Media", "source_title": "Annual Blogger Survey 2025", "study_id": "orbit-bloggers-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "August 2025", "population": "Individual bloggers/content marketers; sample skews toward US, B2B and the author’s LinkedIn network", "sample_size": "808 respondents", "caveats": "Voluntary survey with no incentives. Strong results are self-defined, not a uniform SEO or revenue metric. Cross-sectional associations are not causal. Selected chart values visually inspected.", "citation_label": "Orbit Media, August 2025 survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S050", "finding_key": "orbit-bloggers-2025:statistics-in-blog-posts", "section": "assets", "claim": "In Orbit Media’s August 2025 survey, 60% said their typical blog post included statistics.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "60% of respondents", "locator": "Question 10 chart, elements in typical posts", "evidence": "Statistics were a common reported blog-post ingredient.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Statistics were a common content ingredient", "display_value": "60% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Make your findings easy to quote and trace. Include the original source and the population directly beside the number.", "number": 63, "period_label": "Aug 2025 · 808 content marketers", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Put the source, date and people studied beside every important number.", "Give each finding a permanent link so writers can cite it easily." ], "plain_explanation": "Most used statistics in their content. Numbers are more useful when readers can trace them to the source." }, { "source_url": "https://www.orbitmedia.com/blog/blogging-statistics/", "publisher": "Orbit Media", "source_title": "Annual Blogger Survey 2025", "study_id": "orbit-bloggers-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "August 2025", "population": "Individual bloggers/content marketers; sample skews toward US, B2B and the author’s LinkedIn network", "sample_size": "808 respondents", "caveats": "Voluntary survey with no incentives. Strong results are self-defined, not a uniform SEO or revenue metric. Cross-sectional associations are not causal. Selected chart values visually inspected.", "citation_label": "Orbit Media, August 2025 survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S051", "finding_key": "orbit-bloggers-2025:guest-posting-strong-results", "section": "assets", "claim": "In Orbit Media’s August 2025 survey, 30% of guest bloggers reported strong results, compared with 15% of those who did not guest blog.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "30% versus 15% reporting strong results", "locator": "Question 17 chart, guest blogging and results", "evidence": "Self-defined strong results were more common among guest bloggers.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Guest bloggers reported stronger outcomes", "display_value": "30% vs 15% strong results", "seo_takeaway": "Writing for a relevant audience may support several goals. This survey does not isolate the ranking effect of a guest-post link.", "number": 64, "period_label": "Aug 2025 · 808 content marketers", "evidence_type": "Survey", "action_steps": [ "Choose guest articles for the right audience and editorial fit.", "Measure visits, links and relationships separately, and avoid claiming one article changed rankings." ], "plain_explanation": "Guest bloggers were more likely to report strong results. The survey does not show that the link caused those results." }, { "source_url": "https://www.orbitmedia.com/blog/blogging-statistics/", "publisher": "Orbit Media", "source_title": "Annual Blogger Survey 2025", "study_id": "orbit-bloggers-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "August 2025", "population": "Individual bloggers/content marketers; sample skews toward US, B2B and the author’s LinkedIn network", "sample_size": "808 respondents", "caveats": "Voluntary survey with no incentives. Strong results are self-defined, not a uniform SEO or revenue metric. Cross-sectional associations are not causal. Selected chart values visually inspected.", "citation_label": "Orbit Media, August 2025 survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S052", "finding_key": "orbit-bloggers-2025:analytics-use-strong-results", "section": "assets", "claim": "In Orbit Media’s August 2025 survey, 32% of bloggers who always used analytics reported strong results, versus 13% who rarely or never did.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "32% versus 13% reporting strong results", "locator": "Question 21 chart, analytics and results", "evidence": "Frequent analytics users more often reported strong results.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "short_title": "Teams using analytics reported better results", "display_value": "32% vs 13% reported strong results", "seo_takeaway": "People who always checked their analytics were more likely to say their content worked well. The survey does not prove that analytics caused the difference.", "action_steps": [ "Choose one clear goal for each article, such as visits, leads or links, and check it every month.", "Write down what you changed so you can see which updates were followed by better results." ], "plain_explanation": "People who always checked their analytics were more likely to say their content worked well. The survey does not prove why.", "number": 65, "period_label": "Aug 2025 · 808 content marketers", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/marketers-using-ai-publish-more-content/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Marketers Using AI Publish 42% More Content", "study_id": "ahrefs-ai-content-2025", "published_date": "2025-06-11", "data_period": "December 2024–February 2025", "population": "Marketing and SEO professionals responding to an open content-marketing survey", "sample_size": "879 reported total responses", "caveats": "Open, self-selected survey; US is the most common location, in-house the most common role type. Question-specific denominators vary. Report says 879 total but its printed AI/non-AI subgroup counts sum to 880; use reported rounded findings without recomputing subgroup shares. Associations cannot isolate an AI effect.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, December 2024–February 2025 survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S055", "finding_key": "ahrefs-ai-content-2025:manual-accuracy-review", "section": "assets", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ December 2024–February 2025 survey, 80% of respondents reported manually reviewing AI content for accuracy.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "80% of respondents", "locator": "Companies edit and review AI content", "evidence": "Manual accuracy review was reported by most respondents.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "methodology_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AI-in-Content-Marketing-by-Ahrefs.pdf", "methodology_locator": "PDF page 2; fieldwork and recruitment", "short_title": "Most AI users still checked the work", "display_value": "80% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Most people in this survey reviewed AI-assisted content themselves. Human checking matters when an article needs to earn trust and citations.", "action_steps": [ "Ask a person to check every important fact, name and source before AI-assisted content is published.", "Link to the original evidence and correct mistakes quickly when a reader finds one." ], "plain_explanation": "Most people in this survey reviewed AI-assisted content themselves. Human checking matters when an article needs to earn trust.", "number": 66, "period_label": "Dec 2024–Feb 2025 · marketer survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/websites-using-ai-content-grow-faster/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Websites Using AI Content Grow 5% Faster", "study_id": "ahrefs-ai-content-2025", "published_date": "2025-06-17", "data_period": "December 2024–February 2025", "population": "Marketing and SEO professionals in Ahrefs’ AI content-marketing survey", "sample_size": "879 reported total responses", "caveats": "Open, self-selected survey; US is the most common location, in-house the most common role type. Question-specific denominators vary. Report says 879 total but its printed AI/non-AI subgroup counts sum to 880; use reported rounded findings without recomputing subgroup shares. Associations cannot isolate an AI effect. Selected finding concerns perceived risk, not actual misinformation incidence; headline growth calculation is not selected.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, December 2024–February 2025 survey", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S058", "finding_key": "ahrefs-ai-content-2025:misinformation-risk-perception", "section": "assets", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ December 2024–February 2025 survey, 62% identified sharing misinformation as the biggest perceived risk of AI content.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "62% of respondents", "locator": "What are the perceived risks of AI content?", "evidence": "Misinformation was the leading stated risk.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "methodology_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AI-in-Content-Marketing-by-Ahrefs.pdf", "methodology_locator": "PDF page 2; fieldwork and recruitment", "short_title": "Misinformation was the main AI concern", "display_value": "62% of respondents", "seo_takeaway": "Incorrect information was the most common concern about AI-assisted content. A linkable asset loses value when readers cannot trust it.", "action_steps": [ "Trace every number and quote back to its original source before using it in a linkable article.", "Remove a claim when you cannot confirm it instead of repeating a confident-sounding AI answer." ], "plain_explanation": "Incorrect information was the most common concern about AI-assisted content. People will not cite a source they cannot trust.", "number": 67, "period_label": "Dec 2024–Feb 2025 · marketer survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "source_url": "https://www.buzzstream.com/blog/link-building-trends/", "publisher": "BuzzStream and Citation Labs", "source_title": "Link Building Trends Report (2025)", "study_id": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025", "published_date": "2025", "data_period": "not reported; 2025 release", "population": "Agency, freelance, consultancy and in-house link-building professionals", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Self-reported, non-probability survey; full sample size not stated. The approximately 150 respondents cited in the management section are the in-house subset only. Multiple page types could be selected.", "study_design": "self-reported survey", "id": "S093", "finding_key": "buzzstream-citationlabs-linkbuilding-2025:destination-priorities", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Blogs and product pages play different roles", "value": "68% vs 41%", "claim": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 68% prioritized blog posts for links and 41% prioritized product pages.", "seo_takeaway": "A useful resource can earn the reference while a product page serves the buying decision. Plan how readers move between them.", "locator": "Types of pages prioritized for backlinks", "evidence": "In BuzzStream and Citation Labs’ 2025 survey, 68% prioritized blog posts for links and 41% prioritized product pages.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Link each useful guide or study to the product page it supports.", "Make the next step clear without turning the guide into a sales page." ], "plain_explanation": "Teams often built links to blog posts more than product pages. A useful guide can lead readers toward a product later.", "number": 68, "display_value": "68% vs 41%", "period_label": "2025 survey · fieldwork dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019", "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/content-study", "publisher": "Backlinko / BuzzSumo", "source_title": "We Analyzed 912 Million Blog Posts. Here’s What We Learned About Content Marketing", "published_date": "2019-02-19", "data_period": "Articles published 1 October 2017–1 October 2018", "population": "Articles in the BuzzSumo index", "sample_size": "912.5 million articles", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Historical, observational data. Links are unique referring domains in the methods. Means can be skewed by outliers; formats were classified automatically.", "methods_url": "https://backlinko.com/app/uploads/2019/02/backlinko-content-study-methods.pdf", "id": "S110", "finding_key": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019:length-referring-domains", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Longer articles attracted more referring domains", "value": "77.2% more linking domains", "claim": "In the 2017–2018 content sample, articles over 3,000 words averaged 77.2% more referring domains than articles below 1,000 words.", "seo_takeaway": "Invest in enough depth to answer the question. Adding words alone does not reproduce the characteristics of a useful resource.", "locator": "Long-form content gets more backlinks; methods PDF", "evidence": "In the 2017–2018 content sample, articles over 3,000 words averaged 77.2% more referring domains than articles below 1,000 words.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Compare your guide with the best sources and add missing evidence or examples.", "Remove filler; make the article longer only when readers need more detail." ], "plain_explanation": "Longer articles earned more links on average. Extra words alone are unlikely to be the reason.", "number": 69, "display_value": "77.2% more linking domains", "period_label": "2017–2018 articles · 2019 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019", "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/content-study", "publisher": "Backlinko / BuzzSumo", "source_title": "We Analyzed 912 Million Blog Posts. Here’s What We Learned About Content Marketing", "published_date": "2019-02-19", "data_period": "Articles published 1 October 2017–1 October 2018", "population": "Articles in the BuzzSumo index", "sample_size": "912.5 million articles", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Historical, observational data. Links are unique referring domains in the methods. Means can be skewed by outliers; formats were classified automatically.", "methods_url": "https://backlinko.com/app/uploads/2019/02/backlinko-content-study-methods.pdf", "id": "S111", "finding_key": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019:backlink-distribution", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Most articles attracted no external links", "value": "94% had no linking domains", "claim": "In the historical Backlinko/BuzzSumo sample, 94% of articles had no external referring domains; only 2.2% had links from multiple sites.", "seo_takeaway": "A publishing schedule is not a link-earning strategy. Give another writer a specific reason to reference the page.", "locator": "94% of blog posts have zero external links", "evidence": "In the historical Backlinko/BuzzSumo sample, 94% of articles had no external referring domains; only 2.2% had links from multiple sites.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Before writing, find who links to similar resources and why.", "Plan promotion, internal links and future updates before publishing." ], "plain_explanation": "Most articles earned no links from other websites. Good content still needs a useful topic and active promotion.", "number": 70, "display_value": "94% had no linking domains", "period_label": "2017–2018 articles · 2019 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019", "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/content-study", "publisher": "Backlinko / BuzzSumo", "source_title": "We Analyzed 912 Million Blog Posts. Here’s What We Learned About Content Marketing", "published_date": "2019-02-19", "data_period": "Articles published 1 October 2017–1 October 2018", "population": "Articles in the BuzzSumo index", "sample_size": "912.5 million articles", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Historical, observational data. Links are unique referring domains in the methods. Means can be skewed by outliers; formats were classified automatically.", "methods_url": "https://backlinko.com/app/uploads/2019/02/backlinko-content-study-methods.pdf", "id": "S112", "finding_key": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019:shares-links-correlation", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Social shares were a weak link proxy", "value": "0.078 correlation", "claim": "Backlinko and BuzzSumo reported a 0.078 Pearson correlation between social shares and backlinks in their historical content dataset.", "seo_takeaway": "Track links and social distribution separately. A post can be widely shared without becoming a source others cite.", "locator": "No correlation between social shares and backlinks", "evidence": "Backlinko and BuzzSumo reported a 0.078 Pearson correlation between social shares and backlinks in their historical content dataset.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Report social shares, visits and new linking websites separately.", "Use each number for its own decision; shares do not prove links will follow." ], "plain_explanation": "Social shares and links did not move together closely. A popular post is not always a cited post.", "number": 71, "display_value": "0.078 correlation", "period_label": "2017–2018 articles · 2019 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019", "source_url": "https://backlinko.com/content-study", "publisher": "Backlinko / BuzzSumo", "source_title": "We Analyzed 912 Million Blog Posts. Here’s What We Learned About Content Marketing", "published_date": "2019-02-19", "data_period": "Articles published 1 October 2017–1 October 2018", "population": "Articles in the BuzzSumo index", "sample_size": "912.5 million articles", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Historical, observational data. Links are unique referring domains in the methods. Means can be skewed by outliers; formats were classified automatically. Grouped categories; this does not estimate the effect of changing the format of one article.", "methods_url": "https://backlinko.com/app/uploads/2019/02/backlinko-content-study-methods.pdf", "id": "S113", "finding_key": "backlinko-buzzsumo-content-2019:formats-referring-domains", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Some explanatory formats attracted more links", "value": "25.8% more linking domains", "claim": "Why posts, what posts and infographics averaged 25.8% more links than video and how-to posts in that historical sample.", "seo_takeaway": "Choose a format that gives a writer something clear to reference: an explanation, comparison or reusable visual.", "locator": "Content formats and backlinks", "evidence": "Why posts, what posts and infographics averaged 25.8% more links than video and how-to posts in that historical sample.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Choose a why-post, how-to guide or visual only when it fits the question.", "Compare it with similar content and keep promotion differences in mind." ], "plain_explanation": "Why-posts, how-to guides and infographics earned more links on average. Choose the format that fits the subject.", "number": 72, "display_value": "25.8% more linking domains", "period_label": "2017–2018 articles · 2019 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "ahrefs-stats-case-2020", "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/link-building-case-study/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Link Building Case Study: How We Built Backlinks With a Stats Page", "published_date": "2020-08-18", "data_period": "Campaign reported August 2020; precise outreach window undisclosed", "population": "One Ahrefs statistics-page outreach campaign", "sample_size": "515 emails", "study_design": "campaign case study", "caveats": "One successful, publisher-selected case with an established brand. No control group; the results are not a general outreach forecast.", "id": "S114", "finding_key": "ahrefs-stats-case-2020:stats-outreach-results", "section": "assets", "short_title": "A statistics page earned links in one campaign", "value": "515 emails → 32 linking sites", "claim": "Ahrefs’ 2020 statistics-page campaign reported 36 backlinks from 32 websites after 515 outreach emails.", "seo_takeaway": "Make the source easy to quote and pitch the relevant finding. Keep backlinks and unique linking websites separate in your report.", "locator": "Campaign results in the introduction", "evidence": "Ahrefs’ 2020 statistics-page campaign reported 36 backlinks from 32 websites after 515 outreach emails.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Give each statistic a permanent link, visible source and clear date.", "When you update it, tell people who already cited the page what changed." ], "plain_explanation": "One Ahrefs statistics page earned links through outreach. It is a useful example, not a guaranteed result.", "number": 73, "display_value": "515 emails → 32 linking sites", "period_label": "2020 case study · one campaign", "evidence_type": "One campaign" }, { "study_id": "aira-linkbuilding-2022", "source_url": "https://aira.net/blog/11-takeaways-2022-state-of-link-building-report/", "publisher": "Aira", "source_title": "11 Takeaways from the 2022 State of Link Building Report", "published_date": "2022", "data_period": "16 March–2 May 2022", "population": "Self-selected SEO professionals answering the annual link-building survey", "sample_size": "270 respondents; branching questions have different denominators", "study_design": "practitioner survey", "caveats": "Historical self-reported practice and opinions. Multiple-choice questions may allow several answers; responses are not measured ranking effects. Practitioner opinions about effectiveness, not measured link yields.", "methods_url": "https://info.aira.net/hubfs/Content%20Offers/State%20of%20Link%20Building%20Report/AIRA3002%20-%20State%20of%20Link%20Building%20-%202022%20REV%20C.pdf", "id": "S119", "finding_key": "aira-linkbuilding-2022:effective-format-opinions", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Reports were rated ahead of interactives", "value": "56% vs 42%", "claim": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 56% considered reports and long-form content effective, versus 42% for interactive content.", "seo_takeaway": "Build an interaction when it helps someone understand the evidence. A clear report can be a useful asset without one.", "locator": "Takeaway 11; PDF page 47: effective content formats", "evidence": "In Aira’s 2022 survey, 56% considered reports and long-form content effective, versus 42% for interactive content.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Start with a report when original evidence is the main value.", "Add clear charts, tables and summaries that publishers can reuse accurately." ], "plain_explanation": "Respondents rated research reports highly as linkable assets. A report works when its evidence is genuinely useful.", "number": 74, "display_value": "56% vs 42%", "period_label": "Mar–May 2022 · historical survey", "evidence_type": "Survey" }, { "study_id": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026", "source_url": "https://www.siegemedia.com/research/organic-link-ratios", "publisher": "Siege Media", "source_title": "Organic Link Ratios by Industry: What 100 Sites Reveal About Link Acquisition", "published_date": "2026-01-21", "data_period": "January 2024–December 2025", "population": "Sites selected for organic prominence across ten industries", "sample_size": "100 sites; ten per industry", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Organic link ratio means new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits. Selected successful sites are not a random sample. Falling traffic can raise the ratio without an increase in referring domains.", "id": "S123", "finding_key": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026:industry-ratio-comparison", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Link earning per visit varied by industry", "value": "14.4 vs 2.5 domains", "claim": "Siege’s 2024–2025 real estate/property/home-services group averaged 14.4 new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits, versus 2.5 for B2B SaaS.", "seo_takeaway": "Compare similar businesses. Traffic alone does not tell you how often a resource becomes a reference.", "locator": "Industry comparison table; two-year averages", "evidence": "Siege’s 2024–2025 real estate/property/home-services group averaged 14.4 new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits, versus 2.5 for B2B SaaS.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Compare new linking websites with search visits using the same dates and tool.", "Compare only with similar sites, and check both numbers before drawing conclusions." ], "plain_explanation": "The number of new linking websites per visit varied a lot by industry. Compare your result with similar businesses.", "number": 75, "display_value": "14.4 vs 2.5 domains", "period_label": "2024–2025 data · 2026 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026", "source_url": "https://www.siegemedia.com/research/organic-link-ratios", "publisher": "Siege Media", "source_title": "Organic Link Ratios by Industry: What 100 Sites Reveal About Link Acquisition", "published_date": "2026-01-21", "data_period": "January 2024–December 2025", "population": "Zillow in the 2024–2025 study", "sample_size": "One website within a 100-site study", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Organic link ratio means new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits. Selected successful sites are not a random sample. Falling traffic can raise the ratio without an increase in referring domains. Units: new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits; not a raw backlink growth rate.", "id": "S124", "finding_key": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026:zillow-ratio-change", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Zillow’s link-to-traffic ratio increased", "value": "31.9 → 53.9", "claim": "Zillow’s reported organic link ratio rose from 31.9 in 2024 to 53.9 in 2025 in Siege’s analysis.", "seo_takeaway": "Look for pages that serve as evidence for other writers, then inspect whether both traffic and new referring domains grew.", "locator": "Real estate: Zillow", "evidence": "Zillow’s reported organic link ratio rose from 31.9 in 2024 to 53.9 in 2025 in Siege’s analysis.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Show new linking websites and search visits as separate lines.", "Find which pages earned links before copying a single company’s result." ], "plain_explanation": "Zillow’s ratio rose, but that can happen because links grow, traffic falls, or both.", "number": 76, "display_value": "31.9 → 53.9", "period_label": "2024–2025 data · 2026 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026", "source_url": "https://www.siegemedia.com/research/organic-link-ratios", "publisher": "Siege Media", "source_title": "Organic Link Ratios by Industry: What 100 Sites Reveal About Link Acquisition", "published_date": "2026-01-21", "data_period": "January 2024–December 2025", "population": "Secureframe in the 2024–2025 study", "sample_size": "One website within a 100-site study", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Organic link ratio means new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits. Selected successful sites are not a random sample. Falling traffic can raise the ratio without an increase in referring domains. Units: new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits; not an isolated campaign experiment.", "id": "S125", "finding_key": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026:secureframe-ratio-change", "section": "assets", "short_title": "Secureframe’s ratio also increased", "value": "3.9 → 20.1", "claim": "Secureframe’s reported organic link ratio increased from 3.9 in 2024 to 20.1 in 2025.", "seo_takeaway": "A narrow topic may still offer reference opportunities. Inspect the assets and both parts of the ratio before attributing the change to content.", "locator": "Cybersecurity: Secureframe", "evidence": "Secureframe’s reported organic link ratio increased from 3.9 in 2024 to 20.1 in 2025.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Find groups of content whose link-to-visit ratio is rising.", "Use the pattern as an idea to test on another group." ], "plain_explanation": "Secureframe’s ratio also rose. A single company can show a pattern, not a universal benchmark.", "number": 77, "display_value": "3.9 → 20.1", "period_label": "2024–2025 data · 2026 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026", "source_url": "https://www.siegemedia.com/research/organic-link-ratios", "publisher": "Siege Media", "source_title": "Organic Link Ratios by Industry: What 100 Sites Reveal About Link Acquisition", "published_date": "2026-01-21", "data_period": "January 2024–December 2025", "population": "WooCommerce in the 2024–2025 study", "sample_size": "One website within a 100-site study", "study_design": "observational analysis", "caveats": "Organic link ratio means new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits. Selected successful sites are not a random sample. Falling traffic can raise the ratio without an increase in referring domains. Units: new referring domains per 10,000 organic visits; the ratio alone cannot identify the cause.", "id": "S126", "finding_key": "siege-organic-link-ratios-2026:woocommerce-ratio-change", "section": "assets", "short_title": "The ratio can fall sharply too", "value": "19.9 → 1.8", "claim": "WooCommerce’s reported organic link ratio fell from 19.9 in 2024 to 1.8 in 2025.", "seo_takeaway": "Keep a time series and investigate the underlying numbers. One strong year does not establish a permanent link-earning rate.", "locator": "Ecommerce: WooCommerce", "evidence": "WooCommerce’s reported organic link ratio fell from 19.9 in 2024 to 1.8 in 2025.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "When the ratio changes sharply, check links and visits separately.", "Show both original numbers beside the ratio in every report." ], "plain_explanation": "WooCommerce’s ratio fell sharply. Ratios can hide what happened to links and traffic separately.", "number": 78, "display_value": "19.9 → 1.8", "period_label": "2024–2025 data · 2026 release", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/link-rot-study/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "At Least 66.5% of Links to Sites in the Last 9 Years Are Dead", "study_id": "ahrefs-linkrot-historical", "published_date": null, "data_period": "Links tracked from January 2013 across a described nine-year window; exact endpoint not reported", "population": "Historical backlinks pointing to sampled websites", "sample_size": "2,062,173 websites", "caveats": "Page updated February 2, 2024; do not substitute that date for measurement or original publication. Cumulative decay is not an annual loss rate. Ahrefs crawler classifications determine status.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, historical link-rot study; page updated 2024", "study_design": "observational longitudinal analysis", "source_page_date": "2024-02-02", "id": "S038", "finding_key": "ahrefs-linkrot-historical:cumulative-link-decay", "section": "retention", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ historical study of links to 2,062,173 websites, 66.5% of links tracked from January 2013 had decayed by the study endpoint.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "66.5% cumulative link decay", "locator": "Opening finding and link-rot methodology", "evidence": "Two thirds of historical links were classified as rotted.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Links disappear over time", "display_value": "66.5% cumulative decay", "seo_takeaway": "Assign someone to check acquired links. This nine-year historical total is not an annual replacement rate.", "number": 79, "period_label": "From Jan 2013 · about nine years", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Check acquired links after 30, 90 and 180 days.", "Record why a link disappeared and try to recover only fixable losses." ], "plain_explanation": "Many links disappeared over nine years. A link is not permanent unless someone keeps checking it." }, { "source_url": "https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/17/when-online-content-disappears/", "publisher": "Pew Research Center", "source_title": "When Online Content Disappears", "study_id": "pew-digitaldecay-2024", "published_date": "2024-05-17", "data_period": "2013–2023 Common Crawl pages checked October 2023; news, government and Wikipedia samples from spring 2023", "population": "Common Crawl pages; sampled news, government and English-language Wikipedia pages", "sample_size": "approximately 1 million historical pages; about 500,000 news and 500,000 government pages; 50,000 Wikipedia pages", "caveats": "Availability at the original address was checked at a particular time. Pages and links have different denominators; a moved page may count as inaccessible at its former address.", "citation_label": "Pew Research Center, 2024; checks in 2023", "study_design": "observational link-availability analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S039", "finding_key": "pew-digitaldecay-2024:historical-page-accessibility", "section": "retention", "claim": "Pew found that 25% of sampled pages that existed at some point during 2013–2023 were inaccessible at their original addresses in October 2023.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "25% of sampled historical web pages", "locator": "A quarter of all webpages that existed at one point between 2013 and 2023 are no longer accessible", "evidence": "One quarter of sampled historical addresses could no longer be accessed.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Original page addresses often stopped working", "display_value": "25% of sampled pages", "seo_takeaway": "Keep both the cited source and the destination under review. A URL in last year’s report may no longer resolve.", "number": 80, "period_label": "2023 observations · 2024 release", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Save both the page containing the link and the page it points to.", "Redirect moved pages and update your campaign records when addresses change." ], "plain_explanation": "One quarter of old pages no longer worked at their original address. Sources and destinations can both move." }, { "source_url": "https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/17/when-online-content-disappears/", "publisher": "Pew Research Center", "source_title": "When Online Content Disappears", "study_id": "pew-digitaldecay-2024", "published_date": "2024-05-17", "data_period": "2013–2023 Common Crawl pages checked October 2023; news, government and Wikipedia samples from spring 2023", "population": "Common Crawl pages; sampled news, government and English-language Wikipedia pages", "sample_size": "approximately 1 million historical pages; about 500,000 news and 500,000 government pages; 50,000 Wikipedia pages", "caveats": "Availability at the original address was checked at a particular time. Pages and links have different denominators; a moved page may count as inaccessible at its former address.", "citation_label": "Pew Research Center, 2024; checks in 2023", "study_design": "observational link-availability analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S040", "finding_key": "pew-digitaldecay-2024:news-government-broken-links", "section": "retention", "claim": "In Pew’s spring 2023 samples, 23% of news pages and 21% of government pages contained at least one broken link.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "23% of news pages; 21% of government pages", "locator": "Broken links are common on government and news websites", "evidence": "Both page groups frequently contained a broken link.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Broken links appeared on established publishers", "display_value": "23% news; 21% government pages", "seo_takeaway": "A recognizable publication still needs a live-page check. Inspect the actual reference before using it in a report.", "number": 81, "period_label": "2023 observations · 2024 release", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Check that the page works, appears in Google and still contains the link.", "Check again after delivery, even on famous websites." ], "plain_explanation": "Broken links appeared even on trusted news and government sites. Famous domains still have page-level problems." }, { "source_url": "https://www.pewresearch.org/data-labs/2024/05/17/when-online-content-disappears/", "publisher": "Pew Research Center", "source_title": "When Online Content Disappears", "study_id": "pew-digitaldecay-2024", "published_date": "2024-05-17", "data_period": "2013–2023 Common Crawl pages checked October 2023; news, government and Wikipedia samples from spring 2023", "population": "Common Crawl pages; sampled news, government and English-language Wikipedia pages", "sample_size": "approximately 1 million historical pages; about 500,000 news and 500,000 government pages; 50,000 Wikipedia pages", "caveats": "Availability at the original address was checked at a particular time. Pages and links have different denominators; a moved page may count as inaccessible at its former address.", "citation_label": "Pew Research Center, 2024; checks in 2023", "study_design": "observational link-availability analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S041", "finding_key": "pew-digitaldecay-2024:wikipedia-reference-link-failure", "section": "retention", "claim": "In Pew’s spring 2023 sample of 50,000 English Wikipedia pages, 11% of reference links were inaccessible.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "11% of reference links", "locator": "Links on Wikipedia; reference-link analysis", "evidence": "A minority of the more than one million sampled reference URLs were inaccessible.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Reference lists also deteriorated", "display_value": "11% of Wikipedia references", "seo_takeaway": "Citation assets need maintenance too. Replace a broken source with an equivalent original record, and document the change.", "number": 82, "period_label": "2023 observations · 2024 release", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Check links on your research pages regularly, starting with popular pages.", "Replace dead sources and record what changed and when." ], "plain_explanation": "Some Wikipedia references also broke. Research pages need regular source checks." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/site-audit-study/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "We Crawled Over 1 Million Domains to Find the Most Common Technical SEO Issues", "study_id": "ahrefs-siteaudit-2023", "published_date": "2023-08-31", "data_period": "not reported; August 2023 report", "population": "Domains processed through Ahrefs Site Audit; a domain counts if at least one page has the issue", "sample_size": "more than 1 million domains", "caveats": "Site Audit sample is not a random sample of the entire web. Percentages apply to domains with at least one affected page, not the proportion of all pages.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, August 2023 audit study", "study_design": "observational crawl analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S042", "finding_key": "ahrefs-siteaudit-2023:single-incoming-internal-link", "section": "internal", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ 2023 audit sample, 66.2% of domains had at least one page with only one followed incoming internal link.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "66.2% of domains", "locator": "Most common issues; incoming internal links", "evidence": "Most audited domains had at least one sparsely linked page.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Many domains had sparsely linked pages", "display_value": "66.2% of domains", "seo_takeaway": "Find priority pages with few internal entry points. Decide where a useful contextual link would help readers reach them.", "number": 83, "period_label": "2023 release · audited domains", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Find important pages that receive few links from other pages on your site.", "Add links from related pages using clear words that describe the destination." ], "plain_explanation": "Many sites had pages with few internal links. Those pages can be harder for people and search engines to find." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/site-audit-study/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "We Crawled Over 1 Million Domains to Find the Most Common Technical SEO Issues", "study_id": "ahrefs-siteaudit-2023", "published_date": "2023-08-31", "data_period": "not reported; August 2023 report", "population": "Domains processed through Ahrefs Site Audit; a domain counts if at least one page has the issue", "sample_size": "more than 1 million domains", "caveats": "Site Audit sample is not a random sample of the entire web. Percentages apply to domains with at least one affected page, not the proportion of all pages.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, August 2023 audit study", "study_design": "observational crawl analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S043", "finding_key": "ahrefs-siteaudit-2023:internal-links-to-redirects", "section": "internal", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ 2023 audit sample, 62.7% of domains had at least one page linking to a redirect.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "62.7% of domains", "locator": "Most common issues; links to redirects", "evidence": "Redirect-link issues appeared on a majority of audited domains.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Redirect links were common in crawls", "display_value": "62.7% of domains", "seo_takeaway": "Check whether important internal links can point directly to the current URL, especially after a migration.", "number": 84, "period_label": "2023 release · audited domains", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Find internal links that first pass through a redirect.", "Point important links straight to the final page while keeping useful external redirects." ], "plain_explanation": "Many sites linked through a redirect instead of the final page. Updating the link can make the journey cleaner." }, { "source_url": "https://zyppy.com/seo/seo-study/", "publisher": "Zyppy", "source_title": "23 Million Internal Links – SEO Case Study", "study_id": "zyppy-internal-links", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "URLs on participating websites, with internal-link counts compared to Google Search Console clicks", "sample_size": "23 million internal links, 1,800 websites, approximately 520,000 URLs", "caveats": "Study and measurement dates undisclosed; page updated February 23, 2026. Observational averages can reflect page importance and other confounders. Results do not identify an optimal link count or causal anchor-text effect.", "citation_label": "Zyppy, undated study; page updated 2026", "study_design": "observational correlation", "source_page_date": "2026-02-23", "id": "S045", "finding_key": "zyppy-internal-links:internal-link-count-and-clicks", "section": "internal", "claim": "In Zyppy’s undated internal-link study, URLs with 40–44 incoming internal links averaged four times the Google clicks of URLs with zero to four.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "4× average Google clicks; 40–44 versus 0–4 internal links", "locator": "More internal links correlate with higher traffic", "evidence": "Average clicks differed between these two incoming-link bands.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "More internal links correlated with more clicks", "display_value": "4× average Google clicks", "seo_takeaway": "Important pages may naturally receive more links. Use this as a reason to inspect architecture, not to target exactly 40 links.", "number": 85, "period_label": "Undated study · Google click data", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Compare similar pages by internal links, search clicks and purpose.", "Test one navigation change on a small group before changing the whole site." ], "plain_explanation": "Pages with more internal links also got more Google clicks. More important pages may naturally have both." }, { "source_url": "https://zyppy.com/seo/seo-study/", "publisher": "Zyppy", "source_title": "23 Million Internal Links – SEO Case Study", "study_id": "zyppy-internal-links", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "URLs on participating websites, with internal-link counts compared to Google Search Console clicks", "sample_size": "23 million internal links, 1,800 websites, approximately 520,000 URLs", "caveats": "Study and measurement dates undisclosed; page updated February 23, 2026. Observational averages can reflect page importance and other confounders. Results do not identify an optimal link count or causal anchor-text effect.", "citation_label": "Zyppy, undated study; page updated 2026", "study_design": "observational correlation", "source_page_date": "2026-02-23", "id": "S046", "finding_key": "zyppy-internal-links:exact-match-internal-anchor-association", "section": "internal", "claim": "In Zyppy’s undated study, pages with at least one exact-match internal anchor received at least five times the search traffic of pages without one.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "at least 5× Google search traffic", "locator": "Exact Match Anchors and Google Search Traffic", "evidence": "Pages with a matching internal anchor had substantially greater traffic.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Descriptive anchors had a strong association", "display_value": "At least 5× search traffic", "seo_takeaway": "Use anchors that explain the destination. This observational result does not justify repeating an exact phrase unnaturally.", "number": 86, "period_label": "Undated study · Google click data", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Find vague link text such as “click here” on important user journeys.", "Rewrite it to describe the destination in a natural way." ], "plain_explanation": "Pages with clear link text received more traffic on average. The study cannot prove that the wording caused the difference." }, { "source_url": "https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/seo-split-test-lessons-increasing-internal-linking", "publisher": "SearchPilot", "source_title": "SEO Split Test Lessons: Increasing Internal Linking", "study_id": "searchpilot-grocery-links-2020", "published_date": "2020-08-03", "data_period": "not reported; case study published August 2020", "population": "Category pages on one grocery website; links added between category levels", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "One client experiment using page groups and a modeled control/counterfactual. The estimated effect does not establish an expected uplift for other sites; page count and experiment dates not reported.", "citation_label": "SearchPilot, August 2020 case study", "study_design": "controlled SEO page-split experiment", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S047", "finding_key": "searchpilot-grocery-links-2020:grocery-internal-links-effect", "section": "internal", "claim": "SearchPilot’s August 2020 grocery-site case study estimated a 25% organic-traffic increase across the tested category pages after adding links between category levels.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "estimated 25% organic-traffic uplift across tested category groups", "locator": "Results of increasing internal linking experiment", "evidence": "The controlled page-split experiment estimated a positive effect across level-two and level-three categories.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "A category-link test improved traffic", "display_value": "+25% estimated traffic", "seo_takeaway": "Check whether related category pages are connected usefully. One site’s controlled result is a hypothesis to test on yours.", "number": 87, "period_label": "2020 case study · one website", "evidence_type": "SEO test", "action_steps": [ "Connect one group of related category pages where navigation is weak.", "Compare visits and user behaviour with a similar unchanged group." ], "plain_explanation": "One website gained traffic after connecting related category pages. Your site may respond differently." }, { "source_url": "https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/seo-split-test-lessons-reducing-link-block", "publisher": "SearchPilot", "source_title": "SEO Split Test Lessons: Reducing a Link Block", "study_id": "searchpilot-linkblock-2024", "published_date": "2024-04-18", "data_period": "not reported; case study published April 2024", "population": "One website’s desktop internal-link block, shortened with a Show More control", "sample_size": null, "caveats": "Estimated result is inconclusive at 95% confidence, although positive at 90%. Do not describe it as a demonstrated gain or general advice to hide links; test sample not reported.", "citation_label": "SearchPilot, April 2024 case study", "study_design": "controlled SEO page-split experiment", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S048", "finding_key": "searchpilot-linkblock-2024:linkblock-inconclusive-effect", "section": "internal", "claim": "SearchPilot’s April 2024 link-block experiment estimated a 10.2% organic-traffic increase, but the result was inconclusive at 95% confidence.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "estimated +10.2%; inconclusive at 95% confidence", "locator": "Results of reducing link block experiment", "evidence": "The modeled estimate was positive, but did not meet the 95% confidence threshold.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "A positive estimate can remain uncertain", "display_value": "+10.2%; inconclusive at 95%", "seo_takeaway": "Keep the uncertainty beside the uplift. A positive point estimate alone is not enough to call a test a win.", "number": 88, "period_label": "2024 case study · one website", "evidence_type": "SEO test", "action_steps": [ "Decide in advance how large and reliable a test result must be.", "Record unclear results as learning, not proof that the change worked." ], "plain_explanation": "The test showed a possible gain, but the evidence was not strong enough to call it a clear win." }, { "source_url": "https://webaim.org/projects/million/", "publisher": "WebAIM", "source_title": "The WebAIM Million: The 2026 Report on the Accessibility of the Top 1,000,000 Home Pages", "study_id": "webaim-million-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "February 2026", "population": "Top homepages selected using the Tranco ranking and evaluated with WAVE", "sample_size": "1 million homepages", "caveats": "Automated detection of WCAG-related failures; not a complete accessibility evaluation or legal conformance judgment. Sample is homepages, not all web pages.", "citation_label": "WebAIM, February 2026", "study_design": "automated accessibility analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S066", "finding_key": "webaim-million-2026:empty-links", "section": "internal", "claim": "WebAIM’s February 2026 scan found empty links on 46.3% of the tested homepages.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "46.3% of homepages", "locator": "Most common errors; empty links", "evidence": "Empty-link errors appeared on nearly half the homepages.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "short_title": "Empty links appeared on nearly half of homepages", "display_value": "46.3% of homepages", "seo_takeaway": "An empty link gives people little or no clue about where it goes. It can also make the page harder to use with assistive technology.", "action_steps": [ "Ask your developer or site-audit tool to find links that have no words or useful image label.", "Give each link a clear name that explains where it goes, or remove it when it serves no purpose." ], "plain_explanation": "An empty link gives people little or no clue about where it goes. It can also make the page harder to use.", "number": 89, "period_label": "Feb 2026 · one million homepages", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://webaim.org/projects/million/", "publisher": "WebAIM", "source_title": "The WebAIM Million: The 2026 Report on the Accessibility of the Top 1,000,000 Home Pages", "study_id": "webaim-million-2026", "published_date": "2026", "data_period": "February 2026", "population": "Top homepages selected using the Tranco ranking and evaluated with WAVE", "sample_size": "1 million homepages", "caveats": "Automated detection of WCAG-related failures; not a complete accessibility evaluation or legal conformance judgment. Sample is homepages, not all web pages.", "citation_label": "WebAIM, February 2026", "study_design": "automated accessibility analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S067", "finding_key": "webaim-million-2026:ambiguous-link-text", "section": "internal", "claim": "WebAIM’s February 2026 scan found ambiguous link text, such as “click here,” on 15.2% of tested homepages.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "15.2% of homepages", "locator": "Links; ambiguous link text", "evidence": "A notable minority of homepages used ambiguous link labels.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "short_title": "Vague link text appeared on many homepages", "display_value": "15.2% of homepages", "seo_takeaway": "Text such as “click here” does not explain the destination. Clear wording helps people decide whether the link is useful.", "action_steps": [ "Replace vague phrases such as “click here” with words that describe the page people will open.", "Read the link text on its own; if the destination is unclear, rewrite it." ], "plain_explanation": "Text such as “click here” does not explain the destination. Clear wording helps people decide whether a link is useful.", "number": 90, "period_label": "Feb 2026 · one million homepages", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/links-matter-less-but-still-matter/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Google Says “Links Matter Less”—We Looked at 1,000,000 SERPs to See if It’s True", "study_id": "ahrefs-links-2025", "published_date": "2025-01-30", "data_period": "not reported; published January 2025", "population": "Top 20 Google results for the one million highest-volume US keywords", "sample_size": "1,000,000 keywords", "caveats": "Observational Spearman correlations; high-volume US queries are not representative of all searches. Correlation cannot establish ranking causation.", "study_design": "observational correlation", "id": "S084", "finding_key": "ahrefs-links-2025:internal-link-correlation", "section": "internal", "short_title": "Internal links also show an association", "value": "0.117 correlation", "claim": "Incoming internal links had a 0.117 ranking correlation in the same Ahrefs sample.", "seo_takeaway": "A crawl can reveal pages that are hard to reach internally. This coefficient does not tell you how much an extra internal link will help.", "locator": "Correlation table: Internal links", "evidence": "Incoming internal links had a 0.117 ranking correlation in the same Ahrefs sample.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Ask a site-audit tool to find important pages with few internal links.", "Add links from related strong pages, then watch whether discovery and search visits improve." ], "plain_explanation": "Pages with more incoming internal links tended to rank a little better. This was a relationship, not proof.", "number": 91, "display_value": "0.117 correlation", "period_label": "2025 release · observation dates unstated", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://zyppy.com/seo/seo-study/", "publisher": "Zyppy", "source_title": "23 Million Internal Links – SEO Case Study", "study_id": "zyppy-internal-links", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "URLs on participating websites, with internal-link counts compared to Google Search Console clicks", "sample_size": "23 million internal links, 1,800 websites, approximately 520,000 URLs", "caveats": "Study and measurement dates undisclosed; page updated February 23, 2026. Observational averages can reflect page importance and other confounders. Results do not identify an optimal link count or causal anchor-text effect.", "study_design": "observational correlation", "id": "S087", "finding_key": "zyppy-internal-links:naked-url-anchor-traffic", "section": "internal", "short_title": "URL anchors had a traffic association", "value": "Almost 50% more traffic", "claim": "In Zyppy’s undated study, pages with naked-URL internal anchors had almost 50% more traffic than pages without them.", "seo_takeaway": "This is an interesting diagnostic clue, not a reason to replace readable anchor text with URLs.", "locator": "Naked URL anchors", "evidence": "In Zyppy’s undated study, pages with naked-URL internal anchors had almost 50% more traffic than pages without them.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Find internal links that use the full web address as their text.", "Keep them only when the address helps readers; otherwise use descriptive words." ], "plain_explanation": "Pages with URL-shaped link text got more traffic on average. That does not mean raw URLs are better for readers.", "number": 92, "display_value": "Almost 50% more traffic", "period_label": "Undated study · Google click data", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://zyppy.com/seo/seo-study/", "publisher": "Zyppy", "source_title": "23 Million Internal Links – SEO Case Study", "study_id": "zyppy-internal-links", "published_date": null, "data_period": "not reported", "population": "URLs on participating websites, with internal-link counts compared to Google Search Console clicks", "sample_size": "23 million internal links, 1,800 websites, approximately 520,000 URLs", "caveats": "Study and measurement dates undisclosed; page updated February 23, 2026. Observational averages can reflect page importance and other confounders. Results do not identify an optimal link count or causal anchor-text effect. The total study covered about 23 million internal links. Missing text can include image links; it is not automatically an SEO penalty.", "study_design": "observational correlation", "id": "S088", "finding_key": "zyppy-internal-links:empty-anchor-text", "section": "internal", "short_title": "Some internal links had no anchor text", "value": "Over 6% of links", "claim": "More than 6% of internal links in Zyppy’s sample had no anchor text.", "seo_takeaway": "Check empty links and linked images in your crawl. A reader should be able to understand where a link goes.", "locator": "Anchor text analysis", "evidence": "More than 6% of internal links in Zyppy’s sample had no anchor text.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Find links with no text and check whether linked images have useful labels.", "Fix broken or invisible controls first, and keep legitimate image links." ], "plain_explanation": "Some internal links had no words. Many may have been image links, so each case needs checking.", "number": 93, "display_value": "Over 6% of links", "period_label": "Undated study · Google click data", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "study_id": "searchpilot-footer-2021", "source_url": "https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/adding-internal-links-to-home-page-footer", "publisher": "SearchPilot", "source_title": "Does adding internal links to your home page’s footer improve organic traffic?", "published_date": "2021-09-14", "data_period": "Test reported September 2021; exact dates not reported", "population": "Linked-to pages on one customer site after expanding homepage footer links", "sample_size": "One controlled page-split experiment; page count undisclosed", "study_design": "controlled SEO test", "caveats": "Desktop lift met 95% confidence; mobile met 90%, not 95%. Combined estimate was inconclusive at 95%. One customer and one implementation.", "id": "S127", "finding_key": "searchpilot-footer-2021:footer-device-results", "section": "internal", "short_title": "A footer-link test differed by device", "value": "+10% desktop; +5% mobile", "claim": "SearchPilot’s 2021 footer-link experiment estimated a 10% desktop traffic lift at 95% confidence and 5% mobile lift at 90% confidence.", "seo_takeaway": "Test navigation changes on your own page groups and check device-level results before rolling out broadly.", "locator": "Device-level results after expanding roughly 30 footer links to 100+", "evidence": "SearchPilot’s 2021 footer-link experiment estimated a 10% desktop traffic lift at 95% confidence and 5% mobile lift at 90% confidence.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Compare the test results for desktop and mobile separately.", "Expand the change only when it works well and remains easy to use." ], "plain_explanation": "A footer-link test helped desktop pages more clearly than mobile pages. Results can differ by device.", "number": 94, "display_value": "+10% desktop; +5% mobile", "period_label": "2021 case study · one website", "evidence_type": "SEO test" }, { "study_id": "searchpilot-breadcrumb-2024", "source_url": "https://www.searchpilot.com/resources/case-studies/removing-self-referential-breadcrumb", "publisher": "SearchPilot", "source_title": "Will removing self-referential breadcrumb links improve organic traffic?", "published_date": "2024-07-25", "data_period": "Test reported July 2024; exact dates not reported", "population": "Product listing pages on one ecommerce customer site", "sample_size": "One controlled page-split experiment; page count undisclosed", "study_design": "controlled SEO test", "caveats": "The visible breadcrumb changed while its schema did not. The author’s proposed explanation is not separately tested; this cannot isolate a universal effect of self-links.", "id": "S128", "finding_key": "searchpilot-breadcrumb-2024:breadcrumb-removal-traffic", "section": "internal", "short_title": "A breadcrumb change reduced traffic", "value": "−5.5% organic traffic", "claim": "A SearchPilot 2024 ecommerce test reported a statistically significant 5.5% traffic decline after removing self-referential breadcrumb links.", "seo_takeaway": "When editing navigation, check the associated structured data too. Here, the visible breadcrumb changed but its schema did not.", "locator": "Results; implementation and schema mismatch", "evidence": "A SearchPilot 2024 ecommerce test reported a statistically significant 5.5% traffic decline after removing self-referential breadcrumb links.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Review visible breadcrumbs, internal links and breadcrumb code together.", "Test on a small group before changing the whole website." ], "plain_explanation": "Traffic fell when one site removed a breadcrumb link. The test does not prove that every self-link should stay.", "number": 95, "display_value": "−5.5% organic traffic", "period_label": "2024 case study · one website", "evidence_type": "SEO test" }, { "source_url": "https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/", "publisher": "Pew Research Center", "source_title": "Google Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results", "study_id": "pew-google-ai-clicks-2025", "published_date": "2025-07-22", "data_period": "Browsing March 1–31, 2025; search-result pages reconstructed April 7–17, 2025", "population": "Google search visits in browsing histories of US adults in a tracking panel", "sample_size": "900 adults; 68,879 unique searches reconstructed", "caveats": "Observational comparison, with different query types in AI and non-AI groups. April reconstructions may differ from March results; US panel only. A browsing session ends when the user exits the browser for at least five seconds.", "citation_label": "Pew Research Center, March 2025 browsing", "study_design": "observational panel analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S068", "finding_key": "pew-google-ai-clicks-2025:traditional-result-click-comparison", "section": "ai", "claim": "In Pew’s March 2025 US browsing study, traditional-result clicks occurred on 8% of Google visits with an AI summary, versus 15% without one.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "8% with summary; 15% without", "locator": "Clicking on traditional search results", "evidence": "Traditional-result clicks were less common on AI-summary visits.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "AI summaries coincided with fewer result clicks", "display_value": "8% vs 15% of visits", "seo_takeaway": "Measure search visibility and visits separately. This comparison does not isolate an AI summary’s causal effect from query intent.", "number": 96, "period_label": "Mar 2025 browsing · US adults", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Track important searches with and without an AI summary.", "Compare similar searches before blaming the summary for fewer clicks." ], "plain_explanation": "People clicked normal Google results less often when an AI summary appeared. The searches were not identical, so treat this as a pattern." }, { "source_url": "https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/", "publisher": "Pew Research Center", "source_title": "Google Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results", "study_id": "pew-google-ai-clicks-2025", "published_date": "2025-07-22", "data_period": "Browsing March 1–31, 2025; search-result pages reconstructed April 7–17, 2025", "population": "Google search visits in browsing histories of US adults in a tracking panel", "sample_size": "900 adults; 68,879 unique searches reconstructed", "caveats": "Observational comparison, with different query types in AI and non-AI groups. April reconstructions may differ from March results; US panel only. A browsing session ends when the user exits the browser for at least five seconds.", "citation_label": "Pew Research Center, March 2025 browsing", "study_design": "observational panel analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S069", "finding_key": "pew-google-ai-clicks-2025:ai-summary-source-clicks", "section": "ai", "claim": "In Pew’s March 2025 US browsing study, a link within the AI summary was clicked on 1% of visits with a summary.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "1% of AI-summary visits", "locator": "Clicking links within AI summaries", "evidence": "Source-link clicks within summaries were uncommon.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Clicks on summary citations were uncommon", "display_value": "1% of visits with a summary", "seo_takeaway": "A citation can create visibility without a visit. Report the observed citation and the observed referral as separate outcomes.", "number": 97, "period_label": "Mar 2025 browsing · US adults", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Record AI citations and visits from AI tools as separate results.", "Report a citation as visibility, even when it produces no visit." ], "plain_explanation": "People rarely clicked links inside AI summaries. Being cited and receiving a visit are different results." }, { "source_url": "https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/", "publisher": "Pew Research Center", "source_title": "Google Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results", "study_id": "pew-google-ai-clicks-2025", "published_date": "2025-07-22", "data_period": "Browsing March 1–31, 2025; search-result pages reconstructed April 7–17, 2025", "population": "Google search visits in browsing histories of US adults in a tracking panel", "sample_size": "900 adults; 68,879 unique searches reconstructed", "caveats": "Observational comparison, with different query types in AI and non-AI groups. April reconstructions may differ from March results; US panel only. A browsing session ends when the user exits the browser for at least five seconds.", "citation_label": "Pew Research Center, March 2025 browsing", "study_design": "observational panel analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S070", "finding_key": "pew-google-ai-clicks-2025:session-ending-comparison", "section": "ai", "claim": "In Pew’s March 2025 US browsing study, 26% of Google visits with an AI summary ended the browsing session, versus 16% without one.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "26% with summary; 16% without", "locator": "Browsing sessions ending after Google search", "evidence": "Session endings were more frequent following AI-summary results.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "short_title": "People often stopped browsing after an AI summary", "display_value": "26% vs 16% of visits", "seo_takeaway": "People were more likely to end their browsing session when Google showed an AI summary. Different types of searches may explain part of the gap.", "action_steps": [ "Track which important Google searches show an AI summary and whether visits from those searches change.", "Treat the pattern as a clue to investigate because the study compared different kinds of searches." ], "plain_explanation": "People were more likely to stop browsing when Google showed an AI summary. Different kinds of searches may explain part of the gap.", "number": 98, "period_label": "Mar 2025 browsing · US adults", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks-update/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "AI Overviews Reduce Clicks by 58% (Updated Study)", "study_id": "ahrefs-aio-ctr-2026", "published_date": "2026-02-04", "data_period": "December 2023 versus December 2025", "population": "Desktop Google Search Console data for AI Overview and non-AI informational keyword groups", "sample_size": "300,000 keywords, split into two groups of 150,000", "caveats": "Trend-adjusted counterfactual from observational groups, not a randomized test. The 58% estimate is relative to expected CTR without AI Overviews, not a raw before/after difference.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, February 2026; 2023–2025 comparison", "study_design": "observational modeled comparison", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S071", "finding_key": "ahrefs-aio-ctr-2026:position-one-adjusted-ctr", "section": "ai", "claim": "Ahrefs’ February 2026 update estimated that AI Overviews were associated with 58% lower desktop position-one CTR than expected without them.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "approximately 58% lower relative CTR", "locator": "Updated CTR comparison and counterfactual method", "evidence": "Trend adjustment of December 2023 and December 2025 keyword groups produced the reported estimate.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Top-position CTR was lower than the model expected", "display_value": "58% lower estimated CTR", "seo_takeaway": "Use your own query and page groups to investigate a traffic change. This is a modeled relative difference for desktop position one.", "number": 99, "period_label": "2026 release · modeled CTR comparison", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Track AI Overviews and click rates for important desktop searches.", "Use the pattern for forecasts, but do not promise the same traffic loss." ], "plain_explanation": "Top-ranking pages received fewer clicks than expected when AI Overviews appeared. This was an estimate, not a controlled test." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/chatgpt-has-12-percent-of-googles-search-volume/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "ChatGPT Has 12% of Google’s Search Volume, But Google Sends 190x More Traffic to Websites", "study_id": "ahrefs-chatgpt-referrals-2026", "published_date": "2026-02-11", "data_period": "not reported; February 2026 analysis", "population": "Websites using Ahrefs Web Analytics", "sample_size": "76,000 websites", "caveats": "Vendor analytics sample and undisclosed lookback period. Referral traffic is not search volume or market share. Rounded ratio is the publisher’s reported comparison.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, February 2026 analytics study", "study_design": "observational analytics analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S072", "finding_key": "ahrefs-chatgpt-referrals-2026:google-chatgpt-referral-ratio", "section": "ai", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ February 2026 analysis of 76,000 websites, Google sent about 190 times as much referral traffic as ChatGPT.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "approximately 190× referral traffic", "locator": "Google sends more traffic to websites; analytics comparison", "evidence": "The publisher reports a large Google-to-ChatGPT referral ratio.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected as a source-checked replacement during the plain-language revision.", "short_title": "Google still sent far more referral traffic", "display_value": "About 190× ChatGPT", "seo_takeaway": "In this website sample, Google sent far more visits than ChatGPT. AI referrals may be useful, but they were still small beside search traffic.", "action_steps": [ "Show Google visits and ChatGPT visits on separate lines in your monthly report.", "Keep investing in useful search pages while you test whether AI referrals are growing for your audience." ], "plain_explanation": "In this website sample, Google sent far more visits than ChatGPT. AI referrals were still small beside search traffic.", "number": 100, "period_label": "Feb 2026 · 76,000 websites", "evidence_type": "Website study" }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-brand-visibility-correlations/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Top Brand Visibility Factors in ChatGPT, AI Mode, and AI Overviews (75k Brands Studied)", "study_id": "ahrefs-ai-brand-correlations-2025", "published_date": "2025-12-12", "data_period": "Snapshot dates not reported; includes AI Overview results from earlier 2025 research", "population": "Brands identified from domains with DR above 40 and a top keyword with at least 800 monthly searches; AI responses in Brand Radar", "sample_size": "75,000 brands and millions of AI responses", "caveats": "Spearman correlations in an established-brand-biased sample; not ranking factors or evidence of causation. Web-mention and YouTube-mention measures partly overlap. Platform measurements are not all contemporaneous.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, December 2025 brand study", "study_design": "observational correlation", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S073", "finding_key": "ahrefs-ai-brand-correlations-2025:web-mentions-ai-visibility", "section": "ai", "claim": "Ahrefs’ December 2025 analysis of 75,000 brands reported correlations of 0.66–0.71 between web mentions and AI brand visibility.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "Spearman correlations approximately 0.66–0.71", "locator": "Key takeaways; brand mentions; methodology", "evidence": "Branded web mentions correlated with visibility across ChatGPT, AI Mode and AI Overviews.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "Web mentions correlated with AI visibility", "display_value": "0.66–0.71 correlation", "seo_takeaway": "Monitor accurate coverage of the brand across relevant sources. The study does not show that buying mentions causes AI visibility.", "number": 101, "period_label": "Dec 2025 release · 75,000 brands", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "List accurate brand mentions on relevant news, industry and community sites.", "Check which sources AI answers use and improve missing facts." ], "plain_explanation": "Brands mentioned more often online also appeared more often in AI answers. That does not prove that paid mentions will help." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-brand-visibility-correlations/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Top Brand Visibility Factors in ChatGPT, AI Mode, and AI Overviews (75k Brands Studied)", "study_id": "ahrefs-ai-brand-correlations-2025", "published_date": "2025-12-12", "data_period": "Snapshot dates not reported; includes AI Overview results from earlier 2025 research", "population": "Brands identified from domains with DR above 40 and a top keyword with at least 800 monthly searches; AI responses in Brand Radar", "sample_size": "75,000 brands and millions of AI responses", "caveats": "Spearman correlations in an established-brand-biased sample; not ranking factors or evidence of causation. Web-mention and YouTube-mention measures partly overlap. Platform measurements are not all contemporaneous.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, December 2025 brand study", "study_design": "observational correlation", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S074", "finding_key": "ahrefs-ai-brand-correlations-2025:youtube-mentions-ai-visibility", "section": "ai", "claim": "In its December 2025 brand analysis, Ahrefs reported an approximately 0.737 correlation between YouTube mentions and AI visibility across the platforms studied.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "reported correlation approximately 0.737", "locator": "Key takeaways; YouTube mentions show the strongest correlation", "evidence": "YouTube-mention measures had the strongest reported cross-platform association.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "YouTube mentions had a strong association", "display_value": "About 0.737 correlation", "seo_takeaway": "Video can be another place to explain a topic or brand. The association may also reflect brands that were already widely known.", "number": 102, "period_label": "Dec 2025 release · 75,000 brands", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Make useful, well-sourced videos for questions that benefit from a demonstration.", "Measure video mentions, AI citations and brand visibility separately." ], "plain_explanation": "YouTube mentions had a strong link with AI visibility. Well-known brands may simply be visible in both places." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overview-citations-top-10/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Update: 38% of AI Overview Citations Pull From the Top 10", "study_id": "ahrefs-aio-overlap-2026", "published_date": "2026-03-02", "data_period": "not reported; March 2026 release", "population": "Same-query Google SERPs and AI Overview citation URLs in Ahrefs Brand Radar", "sample_size": "863,000 keyword SERPs and 4 million AI Overview URLs", "caveats": "Organic blue-link top ten and first ten mixed SERP blocks are different definitions. Citation parsing changed since July 2025, so older 76.1% cannot support a like-for-like time trend. YouTube non-ranking figure uses the publisher’s broader results framing.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, March 2026 citation study", "study_design": "observational SERP analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S075", "finding_key": "ahrefs-aio-overlap-2026:organic-top10-citation-overlap", "section": "ai", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ March 2026 study, 37.1% of AI Overview citation URLs also ranked among the top ten organic blue links for the same query.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "37.1% of citation URLs", "locator": "Organic position table, second test excluding ads and SERP features", "evidence": "Top-ten organic overlap was 37.10% across four million citation URLs.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "AI citations extended beyond the organic top ten", "display_value": "37.1% also in the top 10", "seo_takeaway": "Check the URLs actually cited for your questions. Ordinary blue-link rankings are an incomplete map of citation visibility.", "number": 103, "period_label": "Mar 2026 · 4 million citation URLs", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Ask the same important questions regularly and record every cited page.", "Study why sources outside the top search results still earn citations." ], "plain_explanation": "Most AI citation URLs were outside the normal top ten. AI tools can find sources beyond the first search page." }, { "source_url": "https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overview-citations-top-10/", "publisher": "Ahrefs", "source_title": "Update: 38% of AI Overview Citations Pull From the Top 10", "study_id": "ahrefs-aio-overlap-2026", "published_date": "2026-03-02", "data_period": "not reported; March 2026 release", "population": "Same-query Google SERPs and AI Overview citation URLs in Ahrefs Brand Radar", "sample_size": "863,000 keyword SERPs and 4 million AI Overview URLs", "caveats": "Organic blue-link top ten and first ten mixed SERP blocks are different definitions. Citation parsing changed since July 2025, so older 76.1% cannot support a like-for-like time trend. YouTube non-ranking figure uses the publisher’s broader results framing.", "citation_label": "Ahrefs, March 2026 citation study", "study_design": "observational SERP analysis", "source_page_date": null, "id": "S076", "finding_key": "ahrefs-aio-overlap-2026:youtube-share-nonranking-citations", "section": "ai", "claim": "In Ahrefs’ March 2026 study, YouTube supplied 18.2% of AI Overview citation URLs absent from the top 100 results for the same keyword.", "kind": "statistic", "value": "18.2% of non-ranking citation URLs", "locator": "18% of non-ranking citations come from YouTube", "evidence": "YouTube was a substantial source within the subset of citations outside the top hundred.", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected: distinct, relevant finding supported by the inspected original publication.", "short_title": "YouTube supplied some citations outside the top 100", "display_value": "18.2% of that citation subset", "seo_takeaway": "Look at the format and source of citations beyond classic articles. This percentage is not YouTube’s share of all AI citations.", "number": 104, "period_label": "Mar 2026 · 4 million citation URLs", "evidence_type": "Website study", "action_steps": [ "Review cited YouTube videos that rank poorly in normal search.", "Note which speakers, topics and formats make them useful to AI answers." ], "plain_explanation": "Some cited YouTube videos were not in the top 100 search results. Video can surface differently in AI answers." }, { "study_id": "muckrack-ai-reading-may-2026", "source_url": "https://muckrack.com/blog/what-is-ai-reading-new-insights-may", "publisher": "Muck Rack / Generative Pulse", "source_title": "What Is AI Reading? New insights for May 2026", "published_date": "2026-05-27", "data_period": "May 2026 edition; collection window not disclosed in public write-ups", "population": "AI responses to constructed, unbranded discovery prompts across 17 industries", "sample_size": "More than 25 million citation links, per the companion May methodology article", "study_design": "AI response analysis", "caveats": "Designed prompts are not a random sample of user queries. Transactional branded prompts were intentionally excluded. Model versions, answer settings and citation classification affect the result. The public summary repeats an older 1-million sample description; the companion methods explicitly gives 25 million for this edition.", "methods_url": "https://muckrack.com/blog/how-we-built-what-is-ai-reading", "id": "S136", "finding_key": "muckrack-ai-reading-may-2026:paid-citation-share", "section": "ai", "short_title": "Paid content supplied a small citation share", "value": "0.3% of cited links", "claim": "Muck Rack’s May 2026 study classified 0.3% of cited links as paid or advertorial content.", "seo_takeaway": "Buying a placement does not establish that it will appear in an AI answer. Inspect actual citation behavior for relevant questions.", "locator": "Paid media section; companion methods", "evidence": "Muck Rack’s May 2026 study classified 0.3% of cited links as paid or advertorial content.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Report paid placements and AI citations as separate results.", "Check the same questions before and after publishing, without promising a change." ], "plain_explanation": "Paid or sponsored pages made up a very small share of citations. Buying a placement does not guarantee AI visibility.", "number": 105, "display_value": "0.3% of cited links", "period_label": "May 2026 release · constructed prompts", "evidence_type": "AI answer study" }, { "study_id": "muckrack-ai-reading-may-2026", "source_url": "https://muckrack.com/blog/what-is-ai-reading-new-insights-may", "publisher": "Muck Rack / Generative Pulse", "source_title": "What Is AI Reading? New insights for May 2026", "published_date": "2026-05-27", "data_period": "May 2026 edition; collection window not disclosed in public write-ups", "population": "AI responses to constructed, unbranded discovery prompts across 17 industries", "sample_size": "More than 25 million citation links, per the companion May methodology article", "study_design": "AI response analysis", "caveats": "Designed prompts are not a random sample of user queries. Transactional branded prompts were intentionally excluded. Model versions, answer settings and citation classification affect the result. The public summary repeats an older 1-million sample description; the companion methods explicitly gives 25 million for this edition.", "methods_url": "https://muckrack.com/blog/how-we-built-what-is-ai-reading", "id": "S137", "finding_key": "muckrack-ai-reading-may-2026:platform-citation-frequency", "section": "ai", "short_title": "Citation frequency differed across AI systems", "value": "96% / 82% / 55%", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s May 2026 tested responses, 96% from ChatGPT, 82% from Gemini and 55% from Claude included citations.", "seo_takeaway": "Keep platform, prompt and date in the report. A citation rate from one system is not a universal visibility benchmark.", "locator": "Citation behavior varies across platforms", "evidence": "In Muck Rack’s May 2026 tested responses, 96% from ChatGPT, 82% from Gemini and 55% from Claude included citations.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Ask the same approved questions in ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude.", "Record the date and compare each system with its own past results." ], "plain_explanation": "The three AI systems cited sources at different rates. Results from one platform should not become a rule for another.", "number": 106, "display_value": "96% / 82% / 55%", "period_label": "May 2026 release · constructed prompts", "evidence_type": "AI answer study" }, { "study_id": "muckrack-ai-reading-may-2026", "source_url": "https://muckrack.com/blog/what-is-ai-reading-new-insights-may", "publisher": "Muck Rack / Generative Pulse", "source_title": "What Is AI Reading? New insights for May 2026", "published_date": "2026-05-27", "data_period": "May 2026 edition; collection window not disclosed in public write-ups", "population": "AI responses to constructed, unbranded discovery prompts across 17 industries", "sample_size": "More than 25 million citation links, per the companion May methodology article", "study_design": "AI response analysis", "caveats": "Designed prompts are not a random sample of user queries. Transactional branded prompts were intentionally excluded. Model versions, answer settings and citation classification affect the result. The public summary repeats an older 1-million sample description; the companion methods explicitly gives 25 million for this edition.", "methods_url": "https://muckrack.com/blog/how-we-built-what-is-ai-reading", "id": "S138", "finding_key": "muckrack-ai-reading-may-2026:trend-query-journalism", "section": "ai", "short_title": "The question changes the source mix", "value": "46% of trend responses", "claim": "In Muck Rack’s May 2026 study, 46% of industry-trend responses cited journalism.", "seo_takeaway": "Match the publication strategy to the questions buyers ask. Reporting on a market trend serves a different need from product instructions.", "locator": "Question type and journalism citations", "evidence": "In Muck Rack’s May 2026 study, 46% of industry-trend responses cited journalism.", "kind": "statistic", "verified_on": "2026-09-09", "verification_status": "verified", "selected": true, "decision_note": "Selected after reading the original source; comparison values count as one finding.", "action_steps": [ "Group questions by type, such as trends, comparisons or instructions.", "Create the kind of source each question needs and check results again later." ], "plain_explanation": "Trend questions cited journalism often. Different questions lead AI systems to different types of sources.", "number": 107, "display_value": "46% of trend responses", "period_label": "May 2026 release · constructed prompts", "evidence_type": "AI answer study" } ]