Resource-page acquisition on the inclusion criteria the editor actually curates against.
Curated resource pages exist because an editor decided certain links serve the page's audience. The pitch that lands names the inclusion criteria, surfaces fit, and proposes inclusion as a courtesy notification. 8 to 15 percent pitch-to-link is the baseline.
Inclusion-criteria fit, fresh prospect surface, courtesy-notification pitch.
The conversion math depends on the prospect-list freshness and the pitch's specificity to the page's inclusion criteria. Fresh discovery + criterion-fit pitch sustains the 8-15 percent rate. Saturated public lists collapse it to Fiverr-tier outreach levels.
Inclusion-criteria fit rather than generic add-our-link asks.
Curated resource pages exist because an editor decided certain links serve the page's audience. The pitch that lands names the page's specific inclusion criteria (depth, specificity, recency, originality, vertical-fit), surfaces the client content that meets those criteria, and proposes inclusion as a courtesy notification of fit rather than a transactional ask. Pitches that ignore the inclusion criteria converge on the 1 percent conversion rate Fiverr-tier outreach delivers.
Resource-page network vetted at prospect-list assembly.
Each candidate page is vetted on referring authority (page-level traffic as well as root-domain DR), outbound-link freshness (active editorial maintenance vs. abandoned page), inclusion-criteria specificity (curated vs. catchall), and topical-cluster proximity to the client's positioning. The vetted list typically prunes 60 to 80 percent of the candidate set. The conversion math is downstream of the vetting discipline.
8 to 15 percent pitch-to-link conversion baseline.
Resource-page acquisition runs higher than broken-link building (5-12%) because the page is live and the editor is actively maintaining the inclusion list. Lower than warm-relationship outreach (30-50%) because most resource-page editors don't know the agency's client at pitch time. The conversion math sits inside the inclusion-criteria-fit + outreach-list-freshness window. Saturated public resource-page lists collapse the math the same way they collapse broken-link lists.
Distinct workflow from broken-link building.
Broken-link building targets dead outbound links on resource pages. Resource-page acquisition targets the inclusion gap on live editorially-maintained pages. The pitches are different in shape (replacement-fit vs. inclusion-fit), the recipient context is different (editor noticing a dead link vs. editor curating an active resource list), and the conversion math is different. The agency runs the two as separate workflows in the campaign mix and tracks each separately.
A resource-page acquisition campaign, discovery to placement.
Inbound link profile segmented and scored.
The full inbound profile pulled and segmented by anchor category and topical-cluster proximity, modeled against the per-vertical baseline. Disavow candidates and Anti-Trust Rank exposure flagged.
Vetted prospects scoped to the campaign target.
Prospects sourced from competitor backlinks, the vertical-citation layer, resource pages, and HARO streams. Each vetted on Domain Rating, topical relevance, and SpamBrain footprint risk.
Manual outreach paced against decay.
Outreach runs through mailbox identity segmented per campaign cohort. Placements scoped against measured monthly decay, with anchor allocation handled at the URL level.
Net placement target sustained.
10 to 20 percent annual decay tracked per placement. Quarterly review refreshes lost placements and re-models anchor distribution against the updated profile.
Methodology questions we get during the audit conversation.
What's the difference between resource-page acquisition and broken-link building?
Resource-page acquisition targets the inclusion gap on live editorially-maintained pages where the editor is actively curating an outbound-link list. Broken-link building targets dead outbound links on resource pages where the editor would prefer working URLs. The pitch shape is different (inclusion-fit vs. replacement-fit), the recipient context is different, and the conversion math is different (8-15% vs. 5-12%). The two are complementary workflows in the campaign mix.
What inclusion criteria do resource-page editors look for?
Depth (substantive content, not surface coverage), specificity (a specific angle the resource list lacks), recency (active maintenance, not stale link bait), originality (independent perspective rather than aggregated commentary), and vertical-fit (topical-cluster proximity to the page's curatorial focus). The pitch that names these criteria explicitly and surfaces client content that meets them lands. The pitch that asks to be added regardless of fit gets ignored.
How do you avoid the saturated public-list problem?
Fresh prospect discovery against the campaign vertical's curated-resource-page network, not the public lists that circulate in the vendor market. Google search-operator queries for vertical-specific 'best of' and 'resources' and 'tools' pages. Backlink-profile mining of vertical-authority sites. Wayback Machine for newly-launched resource pages the public lists haven't picked up. The conversion math depends on the prospect-list freshness; fresh discovery sustains the 8-15 percent rate.
Is this paid placement?
No. Resource-page acquisition is unpaid editorial inclusion. The editor adds the link because the client content meets the page's inclusion criteria. If a resource-page editor asks for payment to include a link, the placement falls under sponsored-content negotiation rather than resource-page acquisition, and the compliance regime shifts (FTC §255 disclosure plus rel="sponsored" on the link attribute). The two are distinct workflows.
Most resource-page outreach reads as transactional, not editorial.
The audit names the vertical's curated-resource-page network, the fresh prospect set against it, and the inclusion-criteria angles per candidate page. Inside two weeks.