Run your main commercial query. Most of what sits above your product page is somebody else's comparison article. You cannot outrank those by being a better product, because they are not beating you on authority. They are beating you on format.
You are not competing with that page. You want to be on it.
Roundup slots are finite. A best-of list has ten places, not unlimited ones, and the readers arrive with a decision half made. So the price follows the one number that determines what a slot is worth: how many people read that specific page each month. Not the domain. The page.
For comparison, FatJoe sells a brand listicle placement at $384 flat on any site above DR 30 with a thousand monthly visits. SERPsGrowth packages five newly published listicles at $4,000. Both price the domain, or the bundle. We price the page, which is why our range starts below theirs and goes further above it.
It secures your brand a place inside a "best of", top ten, roundup or comparison article on a publication your buyers already read, with a contextual link back to you.
What it is not: paying to be ranked first in a list somebody built to sell rankings. That product exists in volume and it is cheap to buy. Those are also the lists nobody reads and search engines discounted years ago.
The version worth buying is an entry in a list a real editor maintains for real readers, on a page that holds positions for queries your buyers type. There are fewer of those than the market implies. Most categories have somewhere between six and twenty that matter, and we can name yours in an afternoon.
Best for teams that need approval workflows without the overhead. yourbrand.com
Somebody searching "best project management software" is asking to be shown a comparison. They are not asking for a vendor. Search engines have read that intent correctly for years, which is why the top of that result page is almost always somebody else's list instead of anybody's product page, however good the product happens to be.
That is a structural preference. It is not a ranking gap you can close by pointing more links at your own page, and teams spend years discovering that the hard way, because the roundup above them is not winning on authority at all. It is winning on being the format the searcher asked for.
An entry inside it works the week it goes live. Same query, same readers, same position on the page, same everything except that your product is now part of the answer instead of the thing the answer is comparing against.
Ahrefs and Backlinko both rank above every service page on this topic, and both tell readers that paying for links is a red flag. Your buyer has read one of them. Here is the part neither explains.
Most best-of and comparison lists are affiliate monetised. Check any of them: inspect the outbound links and look for a tracking tag. That slot earns the publisher money every time a reader clicks through and buys. So when a publisher quotes a fee, they are usually pricing the revenue the slot would otherwise produce, not selling you their opinion of your product.
This explains three things buyers find confusing. It explains why entry costs anything at all. It explains why some lists will never add you, because you have no affiliate programme or your commission sits below the incumbents'. And it explains why position is not for sale the way people assume, since the publisher's own revenue depends on the ordering being roughly honest.
A publisher who charges a fee and still turns down brands that do not fit the list is a different animal from one who charges and accepts anyone. The first is selling access to an audience. The second is selling a page nobody reads. We check which one we are dealing with, every time, before you see the target.
Some entries cost nothing beyond the pitch. Some carry a publisher fee. We mark which is which on every target before you approve it, and we price them differently, because they are different products. You choose the mix. What we will not do is blend the two into one number and let you assume they are all earned.
Many list pages apply nofollow to every outbound link as blanket policy, and affiliate-monetised ones nearly always do. A sponsored or nofollowed link does not pass PageRank. We confirm the rel attribute on each target before pitching and put it in the report, so you are never surprised by what you bought. Some of these are worth buying anyway, for the readers.
A meaningful share of this inventory closes to you. Not all of it, because trade press and buyer's guides often do not monetise that way, but enough that it changes what we can promise. We tell you at scoping instead of six weeks in. If that rules the service out for you, better you know now.
List entries link to your homepage or your product page, with your brand name as the anchor. That is convention, not negotiation. Every other link product on the market pushes you toward blog posts and informational pages with softened anchors, because that is what editors will accept. This is the one format where the natural link is the one you would have asked for.
A reader on a best-of list has a decision half made and a card within reach. This is the only link type where the click matters as much as the link. One good placement can outperform a dozen ordinary links on revenue while looking identical on a link report, which is why we report each page's own traffic next to your position.
You appear on the page your customer is reading, whether or not your own page ever ranks for that query. This is the benefit that does not depend on any theory about how search works. The page has readers today. Some of them are yours. The only question is whether your name is on it when they get there.
Ask any model for the best tool in your category and watch which pages it pulls from. It leans on comparisons and best-of lists, because that is where the comparative information lives. Being absent from those lists makes you harder to retrieve. We will not put a number on it, because citation is attributable to the source page, not to your row inside it.
"10 Best [Category]" is the format buyers open once they have decided to buy and are choosing between options. These carry the most traffic and have the fewest slots, so they cost the most. When a category has one list everybody reads, this is usually it, and it is usually worth more than the next three combined.
"[Competitor] alternatives" catches people already shopping for a switch. Somebody else paid to create that demand and the page harvests it. On commercial intent this is the strongest thing in the category after the flagship roundup, and almost nobody in this market targets it deliberately.
Curated link lists on associations, industry bodies and university departments. A resource page is not selling anything, so the pages tend to be old, well linked and genuinely maintained. The pitch is different too: you are arguing that a specific page of yours is useful, which works with a real tool or dataset and fails with a sales page.
Explainers that end in a recommendations block. Slower to read and slower to place, and the reader who gets as far as the recommendations is close to buying. These often have less traffic than a flagship roundup and convert a higher share of it, which is why the price band does not always match the intuition.
Rewritten every year, which cuts both ways. The placement can be renewed and it can also be quietly dropped when the page is refreshed. We flag which of your placements sit on lists that get rewritten, and we re-check them, so you find out from us instead of finding out from a link audit nine months later.
Niche listings with real editorial curation behind them. The open-submission kind, where anybody can add themselves and nobody removes anything, is a different product and we do not sell it. If your category's main directory is that kind, we will tell you, and we will tell you it is not worth your money.
Every agency in this category says it prospects manually. Nobody can prove it, and the claim is worthless because it costs nothing to make. So we give you the output instead of a description of the method, and you can check the whole thing in your own browser.
You give us your commercial queries. We pull the lists ranking in the top ten for each and mark the ones you are absent from. You receive the URLs, the query, the current position and the page's monthly traffic. Check any row you like.
That rule costs us money. We will not pitch a page that is not sitting in the top ten for a query on your own list, unless we flag the exception and say why it earns one. Audit it in your browser.
Each surviving target gets checked for page traffic, curation, affiliate monetisation, rel attribute and competitive set. Fee-bearing and earned targets are marked. You see all of it before anything is pitched, in one list, with the rejects and the reasons included.
You approve or strike targets. We hold the list open for ten working days. After that the traffic figures go stale and we re-pull them, which costs time nobody wants to spend. If you need longer, say so and we will pause the campaign properly.
We draft your entry to the page's format and send it to you before the editor sees it. Editors then edit it. They occasionally decline to say the thing you would most like said, and we show you every change before it publishes.
You get the live URL, your position, how many entries the list has, the page's own monthly traffic, the rel attribute and the date it went live. Then, and only then, we invoice. Annual lists get a refresh check at twelve months.
Verified organic traffic to that URL, against a published floor. A DR 80 site with a dead roundup on it is still a dead roundup, and checking the domain instead of the page is how this market hides that. We check the page.
It holds top ten today for a query on your list, not for a query it was optimised around in 2022. Most inventory dies here. That is why nobody else publishes it as a rule.
A real recommendation with a point of view behind it. Somebody said no to somebody. If anybody can pay to enter and the list runs to forty entries in no particular order, it is a directory wearing an opinion's clothes.
Your product sits among genuine peers. Being listed tenth among category leaders reads better than being listed first among names nobody recognises, and the reverse arrangement quietly costs you more than the placement is worth.
Whether the page nofollows its outbound links as policy and whether the slots carry affiliate tracking. Both change what the placement is worth, and both are visible to anyone who looks. We look first.
Updated recently, with entries that still resolve. Where the page is rewritten annually we say so, because that is the difference between a placement you own and one you rent, and the price should reflect it either way.
We report the page's traffic, your position and the list length on every placement, so you can judge the work instead of taking our word for it.
One anonymised report from live work, downloadable without giving us an email address. It shows every column we fill in and every column we leave blank, including the ones that make a placement look worse.
Publication. List title and URL. The query it ranks for and its position on the day of placement. Your position in the list and how many entries it has. The page's monthly organic traffic. Rel attribute. Whether a publisher fee applied. Date live.
List placements carry an eligibility floor that no other link product has, and it is worth being blunt about it. On a guest post, nobody compares you to anything. On a best-of list, an editor puts your product next to nine others in public and writes a sentence about where it fits.
If your product is genuinely behind the field on the things that list compares, you get added at position ten with a lukewarm line under your name, on a page thousands of your buyers will read. That is a net negative. We have watched it happen.
We also say no when your category has no lists worth being on, which is rarer than you would think but real in some niches. And we say no when you have no affiliate programme and your category's lists are all affiliate monetised, because at that point we would be selling you access to inventory that is closed.
Getting your brand into a "best of", top ten, roundup or comparison article on a publication your buyers read, with a contextual link back to you. Nothing more exotic than that. It is an entry in a list a real editor maintains, not a ranking you paid to top.
A guest post is a new article you supply, starting from zero readers and hoping it earns some. A list placement adds you to an article that already ranks and already has readers, so the traffic exists on day one. That is why it costs more. It is also why the page's own traffic is the only number that matters here.
No, and neither can anyone else honestly. Editors decide ordering, and on affiliate-monetised lists their own revenue depends on that ordering being roughly defensible. We argue for where your product belongs, we report the position you got, and we tell you the list length so the number means something.
Sometimes, and not always. We mark which targets carry a fee before you approve anything, and most best-of lists turn out to be affiliate monetised, so the fee usually prices the revenue that slot would otherwise earn. A fee often means a sponsored attribute, which does not pass PageRank. We confirm that before pitching.
A listicle compares products for a commercial query and sends buyers. A resource page curates useful links on a topic, usually on an association or university site, and sends authority plus a steadier trickle of relevant readers. Both are worth having. They cost different amounts and they do different jobs, so we price them apart.
Most of them do. Lists get refreshed though, and entries do get dropped in a rewrite, particularly on anything titled "in 2026". We flag which of your placements sit on annual lists, we re-check at twelve months, and you hear about a change from us instead of from your next link audit.
That is the main reason to buy them. A reader on a best-of list is in decision mode, so the click matters as much as the link. Each report shows the page's own monthly traffic next to your position, which is how you work out what a placement was worth.
We draft it to match the page's format and send it to you before it reaches the editor. Editors do edit. Occasionally they write something you would not have chosen, and when they do we show you the change and we will not publish an entry you have not read.
More than a standard link. The slots are finite and the readers are buyers. Pricing is banded by the page's own monthly traffic and it is published above. We invoice when a placement goes live, so the first thing you ever pay for is a URL you can open. If you want the cheaper, lower-intent version of this, that is a link insertion — a different product.
Give us your product and the three commercial keywords you most want to win. We come back with every list ranking in the top ten for them, which ones you are already on, which ones you are absent from, and each page's monthly readership so you can rank them yourself.
Every list holding a top ten position for your three queries
Which you are on, which your competitors are on, and which nobody has claimed
Each page's monthly organic traffic, so you can sort them by what they are worth
Which carry a publisher fee, which are earned, and which nofollow every outbound link as policy
The ones we would not pitch, with the reason next to each