Does link building still matter in 2026?
Yes, with changed emphasis: links remain a core ranking input and, increasingly, a corroboration signal AI engines lean on when deciding which sources to cite. What changed is tolerance, link schemes are detected and devalued faster, and the marginal value of a mediocre link has collapsed while genuinely earned coverage has become more valuable. Fewer, better, earned is not a moral position; it is the current arithmetic.
What do you refuse to sell?
Link marketplaces and guest-post networks (paid placements dressed as editorial), PBNs, directory blasts, and any "X links per month" quota, because quotas force purchasing when earning runs dry. We also refuse anchor-text over-optimisation, the classic accelerant behind manual actions. If a provider leads with volumes and DR averages, you are reading a purchasing menu, not an earning strategy.
How do you actually earn links?
Four repeatable routes. Data stories: original analysis (your operational data, FOI requests, surveys) journalists can cite. Expert commentary: your named specialists made available to journalists on their deadlines. Genuinely useful assets: tools, calculators and reference content that people link to because it is easier than rebuilding it. And relationship-led sector PR: knowing which trade publications cover what, and pitching in their language, which is where B2B and industrial clients quietly win.
How many links should we expect?
We forecast ranges, not promises, because earning is not procurement: typical programmes land a handful of genuinely relevant placements monthly, with occasional data stories producing bursts. That sounds modest against marketplace quotas until you compare durability: earned placements survive updates and keep referring traffic, purchased ones get devalued and sometimes need disavowing at your cost.
What about toxic-link cleanup and disavows?
Handled, with judgement: most sites do not need disavows (Google ignores most junk), but sites with historical purchased-link exposure, manual actions or aggressive anchor profiles do. The work is forensic: profile analysis, pattern identification, outreach for removals where feasible, and a conservative disavow, never the automated bulk-disavow that costs sites their good links.
Does digital PR work for unglamorous businesses?
Often better, because expectations are lower and data is rarer: a recovery firm publishing breakdown-pattern data, a manufacturer analysing lead times, a legal firm quantifying claim timelines, all produce stories trade press wants and competitors never attempt. Consumer-glamour PR gets crowded; B2B and trade-press earning is under-fished and closer to the buying decision.
What does link building cost?
Digital PR campaigns from £3,000 per campaign (research, asset, outreach, placements). Ongoing earning programmes inside retainers from £1,200/month. Manual outreach for resource and relationship links from £900/month. Link audits and cleanup projects from £750. We publish these because opacity in this corner of the industry mostly hides purchasing.