01
SaaS companies
Products whose buyers search the problem long before they search the category.
In the record
- Lumin PDF
- CloudCall
- Agistix
Service 07Editorial standards
A generic topic becomes a relevant angle, then evidence, then structure, then a placement that reads as part of the argument rather than an insertion into it.
7 standards, read before the draft rather than after the rejection
Angle, structure, sources and internal links agreed before writing starts, so revision is an edit and not a second commission.
Word count, link policy and sourcing rules are published by almost every publication and ignored by almost every pitch.
A piece that has appeared elsewhere, which is the one rule no publication in the record bends on.
A number with no origin, or one linked to somebody quoting somebody quoting the study.
A restatement of what everyone agrees on, when the guidelines specifically ask for the opposite.
One long block of prose sent to a publication whose readers move through headings and bullets.
The editor holds a draft the client has not seen, and the correction arrives as a retraction.
Drag the divider — or use the arrow keys
01
Products whose buyers search the problem long before they search the category.
In the record
02
Category pages competing against directories and every other agency in the city.
In the record
03
White-label delivery under your brand. No named account in the record; /for-agencies has the terms.
Not in the record
How white-label delivery runs04
Community and development pages, where the market name is the search.
In the record
05
One chain per market: the service, the city, a topic that belongs to both.
In the record
06
Service-area pages that each need their own authority, not one campaign stretched thin.
In the record
The publication's own guidelines, in full, before anything else. Link policy first, because it decides whether the piece is worth writing.
One position, specific enough to disagree with, on a question the publication's coverage has left open.
Named sources, recent enough to still hold, linked to the original. Anything that cannot be sourced comes out rather than gets softened.
Headings, length and format matched to how that publication's readers actually move through a page.
One do-follow link where the argument needed a reference anyway, plus internal links where the publication asks for them.
Editor's changes made and returned in the thread. Because the standard was read first, this is an edit rather than a rewrite.
ResultA verified live URL, logged against the campaign.
Every row is an artefact — something you are holding at the end of a week. None of them is an outcome, because an outcome is not something a supplier can hand over.
The publication's stated requirements, written down before drafting — word count, link ceiling, sourcing age, internal-link expectations.
One position on one open question, signed off with you before writing rather than defended after it.
Named, dated, linked to origin. Guidelines in the record ask for material no older than three years, and that is the bar applied.
The structure the piece will take, matched to the publication rather than to a house template.
Written to publish. The test is whether the editor's reply is a publication date rather than a list of changes.
Where the link sits and why the sentence needed it. If moving it does not break the paragraph, it is in the wrong place.
What was asked for and what changed, so the next piece for the same publication starts from what they have already told us.
541
14
8
190
Read from the supplied delivery record. Editorial standards are the bar the work is held to; the sheet records placements and destinations, not acceptance rates.
24
Tracked placements
Editorial angles the campaign ran on
Houston and Dallas web-design services. One product, opened into the questions its buyers were already asking somebody else.
See the delivery ledgerIt is the layer around the writing. Angle, sources, structure and link placement are decided against the publication's standards first — which is what turns a draft into something an editor keeps rather than something they negotiate.
Yes, and it often works well when your team knows the subject deeply. The coordination is the same either way: the guidelines get read first, and the draft gets shaped to them before it goes anywhere near an editor.
Original copy, a position rather than a summary, sourced statistics linked to origin, a skimmable structure, and a ceiling of one do-follow link. Across the record those five recur almost word for word.
Named, recent and linked to the original study rather than to an article citing it. Where a claim cannot be sourced it is removed — softening it into a vague statement is the version that gets a piece pulled later.
You do, if you want to — and it is the right point to catch anything about the product that research would not surface. What does not work is review after the editor already has it.
The reason is recorded and the angle is either reworked for the same publication or taken to a better-matched one. A rejection on policy is permanent; a rejection on angle is information.
No. These are pieces written for somebody else's publication, and every one of them is required to be original to that publication. Reusing them on your own site is the fastest way to have them removed.
No. Editorial quality decides whether a piece gets published and whether it stays published; it cannot decide a search position. This is accountable for the standard of the work, not for the result of it.
Still something here unanswered?
Send the question with the domain and the page it is about. It is read the same day, by me — there is no auto-responder.
Start here
Send the subject you can speak on with authority and the page it should support. The reply says what angle a real publication would take on it, and what evidence it would need.