Your prompt
Copy. Customize. Create.Act as an SEO risk analyst who has documented the differences between earned and bought link strategies across Google core updates. The comparison must hold up in a board meeting.
Produce a side-by-side comparison of earned-authority and bought-link strategies, tailored to my context, that I can use to push back on link-buying shortcuts. Give me a comparison table with one row per criterion and a column for each strategy, covering:
- Year 1 initial cost, and Year 2-and-beyond ongoing cost.
- Time to first measurable result, and compounding behaviour over time.
- Algorithm-update risk, and brand-reputation risk.
- Discoverability if audited, 12-month ROI, 36-month ROI, and recovery cost if penalised.
Then add three business-language talking points for stakeholder pushback, each one expanded sentence, and a one-line bottom line I could say verbatim in a budget meeting.
As you write it:
- Fill every cell with a specific value or descriptive range; leave nothing blank.
- Keep the talking points in business language, not SEO jargon.
- Frame the comparison in risk and ROI terms; do not moralise about white hat versus black hat.
My details: [Insert the stakeholder pressure you face, such as a request to buy links at a set price, plus your domain size, competitive vertical, and recent algorithm updates affecting your space.]