Media outreach for planned story campaigns
Build proactive campaigns instead of waiting for source requests to appear.
Get your experts quoted by the journalists who are already asking for a source today.
Turn journalist source requests into quoted expert coverage. We filter the right requests, draft useful answers, get expert approval and confirm the quote and link once the story runs.
HARO Link Building
A journalist on deadline needs a credible source with a useful answer. We filter requests by fit, match each one to the right expert, draft a response they can approve quickly and track the published quote and link.
Speak with a specialist •


The workflow exists to get a credible expert answer in front of a journalist quickly, without turning your executives into a full-time approvals desk.
We watch the current source-request platforms and the reporter callouts posted directly on social and in newsletters, filtered down to your team's genuine subject areas.
Every request is checked against topic fit, outlet quality, deadline and whether that publication has historically linked the sources it quotes. Most are declined, and that is the point.
We lead with the sentence a journalist could paste straight into the piece, then give the context behind it. The point is buried in paragraph three in most submissions, which is why most submissions are not used.
Each selection is followed to the live URL and checked for the name, the title, the accuracy of the quote, the link and its follow status. Anything published without a link goes to our media monitoring and reclamation queue.
There is rarely a shortage of requests. What goes wrong is the match between the request, the expert, the deadline and the quality of the publication asking.
Get an expert-sourcing fit review •Reporters start assembling the piece as soon as usable replies land. A strong answer that takes half a day frequently loses to an adequate one that arrived in the first hour, which is why the approval route matters as much as the writing.
A writer needs a real name, a real role and a reason a reader should trust the quote. A company statement with no named expert, or vague claims of expertise, is far harder to justify putting in print.
Some outlets link every contributor, some almost never do, and some leave it to the writer. If a link is part of why you are doing this, that history belongs in the filter before anyone spends an hour drafting.
We define narrow subject areas per spokesperson and read how much request volume actually exists around them, so the decision to run this at all is made on evidence rather than enthusiasm.
Titles, bios, headshots and proof of expertise are approved up front. That is what lets a response go out in the first hour instead of starting an internal scramble every time.
The screen is written down and signed off before the first response goes out, rather than explained afterwards in a report. You can challenge any line in it, and we would rather argue about the exclusions now than about a weak placement in month three.
Requests are triaged as they appear. The response opens with the quotable line and then supplies the context a writer needs before they will trust it enough to publish.
Every claimed result is opened on the published page and checked for attribution, wording and link status. Nothing enters the report on the strength of an email saying it would run.
We compare which subjects, writers and outlets are converting, then narrow the screen around them. The program should get more selective over time, not busier.
Unlike a cold pitch, HARO link building starts with a writer who needs a quote for a story they are already writing. The opportunity is specific and short-lived, so the whole job is putting the right expert in front of that writer while the piece is still open.
Once the article is live it can carry on ranking, sending readers and passing authority long after the original request has disappeared from any platform.
Everything below exists so HARO link building stays repeatable rather than heroic: you can always see who said what, to whom, and which of it actually went live.
Judge HARO link building by expert fit, outlet quality, published URLs and link status, not by response volume.
Send us the subjects your team can speak to and we will read the current request volume around them. If the channel is too thin in your category to justify staffing, we will say so.
For a response program like this, what you pay is set by how many request sources are watched, how narrow the expertise is, how many spokespeople need credential packs and how fast responses have to go out. We price the operating work rather than charging per link, because per-link pricing rewards accepting weak placements. You get a fixed quote in writing before anything starts.
Original data
Just 0.4% of links from news publishers carry the "sponsored" label Google asks sites to put on paid links, against 2.8% of links from online stores.
70% of news articles that rank in Google News never link to a company or commercial website, and 48.9% link to no outside website at all.
97.6% of established business websites have links from other websites pointing at pages that now return an error, and on a quarter of them more than 22.6% of all incoming links lead to a dead page.
Tell us who your experts are and what they can credibly discuss. A senior strategist replies within one business day with the request volume we can see in that category and how we would set the expert and outlet filters.



Fields marked * are required
Build proactive campaigns instead of waiting for source requests to appear.
Check whether published quotes, mentions and source credits include the links they should.
Connect expert-sourced placements to the wider authority work your search program needs.
Use reactive source requests as one lane inside a broader coverage and authority plan.
HARO Link Building Reviews