Between July and September I sent 11 pitches to 11 sites. Most of them are in the SEO and marketing industry. Five of them asked for a link. Four offered a guest post. Two suggested my article for a roundup page. Three sites replied and all three wanted money.
This article walks through those pitches: what I wrote, where it went and what response came back. If you’re looking for guest post pitch examples, these are real ones, mistakes included. Each site is described by its niche and authority score, not its name. After the replies, I go through what went wrong and rebuild the pitch from scratch, along with two templates you can copy.
1. 11 pitches, 3 replied, all paid
Here are the results in one table.
| Pitch type | Sent | Replied | What the replies offered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Link request | 5 | 1 | Paid guest post, link insertion or list spot |
| Guest post | 4 | 1 | Paid post or link insertion, about $50 |
| Resource page | 2 | 1 | Paid link insertion, listing or guest post |
| Total | 11 | 3 | Paid placements only |
No site said yes for free. Eight never even answered, and that includes an automatic reply from a form. These pitches went out in two ways: seven emails and four website forms. Every reply came from an email. None of the four forms was replied to by a person. Two follow-ups were sent out, both to the July pitches, eight days after the first email. Neither got a reply.
2. How I picked my targets
I didn’t start with a target list. I started with an article: my comparison of KWFinder and Ahrefs. Most pitches were built around getting that piece in front of people as a link. The guest post pitches offered new topics instead. The targets came in three batches.
July: sites I had already linked to. While writing the comparison, I cited two other breakdowns comparing the same two tools. Once it was live I emailed both sites to let them know. An easy opener.
August: sites with a review of one of the tools. I looked for reviews that touched on the other tool without going too deep into it. With the goal of having my comparison filling that gap. Three sites made the cut.
September: write-for-us pages and tool roundups. I pulled 20 write-for-us pages from guest-post directory lists and pitched four of them. Section 5 covers what happened to the other 16. I also found two “best SEO tools” roundups that already covered one of the tools and suggested my comparison as further reading. That’s 11 pitches: five link requests, four guest posts and two resource-page suggestions.
What I didn’t check properly
I picked every site on topic fit. I glanced at DA for some of them, but I had no minimum. So in November I went back and ran all 11 through an authority checker.
It shows three scores:
- Domain Authority (DA): Moz’s score for overall link strength.
- Trust Flow (TF): Majestic’s score for link quality, based on links from trusted sites.
- Citation Flow (CF): Majestic’s score for link quantity.
| Site (by niche) | Pitch type | DA | TF | CF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEO software blog | Link request | 14 | 9 | 24 |
| Digital marketing agency | Link request | 22 | 8 | 36 |
| Ecommerce blog | Link request | 62 | 8 | 37 |
| Blogging and SEO blog | Link request | 26 | 11 | 30 |
| Digital marketing agency | Link request | 29 | 7 | 26 |
| SEO blog | Guest post | 28 | 5 | 20 |
| SEO publication | Guest post | 42 | 17 | 25 |
| SEO blog | Guest post | 19 | 9 | 17 |
| SEO agency | Guest post | 34 | 25 | 39 |
| SEO and link-building agency | Resource page | 39 | 18 | 40 |
| Growth agency | Resource page | 6 | 2 | 22 |
As you can see, the spread is wide. DA runs from 6 to 62, with a median of 28. Trust Flow runs from 2 to 25, with a median of 9. Which means that my list had no floor. A DA 6 agency sat next to a DA 62 blog, and I pitched them both the same way. This mattered more than I initially expected.
3. The pitches, one by one
Here are the pitches as I sent them. The wording is mine, so I’ve kept it. The names, links and tool names are swapped for placeholders.
July: “I linked to you” (2 sites)
Both sites had their own post comparing the same two tools, and I’d cited each one in my comparison. So the email led with that:
“During my research I came across your breakdown [their article] and thought it would be useful to link it for those wanting another angle on it. I enjoyed reading your post and found it very useful in getting a better understanding of what I wanted to write about. If you ever want to take a look at mine [my article] and give some feedback, I’d welcome it.”
About a week later I sent a short follow-up to both: “Just floating this back up in case it got buried.” Neither site sent an answer back. Looking back at it now, the problem was simple. The email gives them nothing to do. I had already linked to their content and asked for feedback. A busy editor can read it, feel good about it and move on.
August: “your review is good, here’s mine” (3 sites)
These went to sites whose review of one tool only touched on the other. Two of them got the same template, differing only in the compliment about a specific section:
“I recently published a deeper [tool B] vs [tool A] comparison focused specifically on that head-to-head, which felt like a natural complement to what you wrote […] Thought it might be useful if you’re ever pointing readers toward more detail on that specific comparison. No ask beyond that, just thought I’d send you an email since your review was genuinely good.”
The third went to a generic agency inbox with no name to address. The hook was sharper and their conclusion mentioned the comparison but didn’t link anywhere:
“I came across your [tool A] review and noticed your conclusion mentions “[tool B] vs [tool A]” without linking anywhere for readers who want to go deeper on that specific comparison. […] Thought it might be a useful reference if you’re ever updating that section. No ask beyond that.”
That was the best-targeted pitch of the 11. However, like the other two August emails, it linked to my article through a long google.com redirect instead of a plain URL. In a cold email from a stranger, a redirect looks less trustworthy than a plain link. Only one of three answered, but with a price list.
September: guest post pitches (4 sites)
I emailed one site and used forms for the other three. The pitch went to an SEO blog’s write-for-us address:
“I would like to write a guest article about how to interpret and use the difference between Keyword Difficulty ratings. Rather than another general SEO tool overview, I’d like to write about why Keyword Difficulty scores differ across platforms, why this happens and how to interpret it.”
It gave a topic, a target keyword and a one-line summary, which is what most write-for-us pages ask for. But it opened with “Hello” and nothing about their site, and linked to none of my work, and even included a typo. This is the pitch that got the $50 offer. The three forms went to an SEO publication, an SEO blog and an SEO agency.
September: tool roundups (2 sites)
The last two pitches asked roundup pages to add my comparison as further reading. One was an email to an SEO and link-building agency. I pitched it by complimenting their section on one of the tools of my comparison and admitted the obvious:
“I know link-building is literally what you do for a living, so I don’t expect this to be a normal ask for you, but the fit felt close enough, and the piece itself detailed enough, that I thought it was worth a shot.”
They replied the same day with prices. The other roundup belongs to a growth agency. Its only contact option turned out to be a sales form, but I tried it anyway. The reply was an automatic email offering me a free review of my own marketing. The five link requests and two roundup pitches all promoted the same article. And five of my seven emails never clearly asked for anything. Section 6 comes back to both.
4. The replies
Three of the 11 sites replied, and all wanted money. None of them mentioned the pitch itself, not the article, not the topic, not the fit. None of them were paid, but here’s what each offered.
The ecommerce blog (DA 62, TF 8)
This was a link request from August. The reply came eight hours later, the fastest response I got. It pointed me to their write-for-us page. That page sells three things: a guest post, a link in one of their articles, or a spot in a list post. After payment the post goes live within a day. A month later they sent out a follow-up with the same offer.
The SEO blog (DA 28, TF 5)
This was my guest post pitch on keyword difficulty scores. They answered about a week later. The reply did not mention the topic itself. Rather, it listed the niches they accept along with their price: about $50 for a guest post or a link insertion, with one commercial link allowed. For context, Linkody’s 2026 link building statistics put a typical guest post at about $300 to $460, citing BuzzStream. An offer at a fraction of that price is a warning sign rather than a bargain. The detail that stood out was the fact that the link would not carry a sponsored tag. This matters because Google’s spam policies allow paid links, but only when they carry rel=”sponsored” or rel=”nofollow”. So, buying a link that passes ranking credit without the tag is link spam. The offer was a paid link built to look unpaid.
The SEO and link-building agency (DA 39, TF 18)
This was the resource-page suggestion. I asked them to add my comparison to their roundup of SEO tools. They replied the same day that my email would be forwarded to one of their colleagues. When that person wrote back, they said they don’t swap links. Instead, they proposed three paid options, since the page gets steady traffic. A link insertion, a paid listing in their roundup, or a paid guest post. Not a surprising offer since my pitch itself had pointed out they do link building for a living.
What the replies have in common
If you put the three replies next to the table in section 2 you’ll notice a pattern. The sites that replied had a higher DA than the ones that stayed silent: a median of 39 against 24. More importantly their Trust Flow was no better: a median of 8 against 9, almost the same. So their higher DA didn’t come with better links. A high DA with a low TF is what you’d expect from sites with lots of links but few from trusted sources.
The ecommerce blog is the clearest example of this (DA 62, TF 8). Three replies is a small sample however, so treat this as a tendency, not a set rule. The agency, with a Trust Flow of 18, does not fit neatly in either category.
The other side of the pattern is much clearer. The two strongest sites on my list never answered. One was the SEO agency with the highest Trust Flow (25). The other was the SEO publication with the highest DA among the guest post targets (42). Both were pitched through a form. The lesson from all of this is that a fast reply is not a good sign on its own. A fast reply with a price list usually means you’ve reached a sales inbox.
5. The write-for-us pages
For the four guest post pitches, I needed write-for-us pages. This is where most of the list fell apart.
Where the list came from
In August I found a few guest post directory lists through search. These pages had dozens of “write for us” links in one place. I copied 20 SEO and marketing sites from them into my tracker. When I checked back in September to pitch, 12 out of 20 no longer worked. I set three aside: one only took finished articles, one had broken contact forms, and I never got back to any of them. That left five to actually pitch. One was Linkody’s own blog. That pitch is how this article came about, so I’ve left it out. The other four are in these results.
What had happened to the 12
In November I opened all 12 again to see what had gone wrong:
- Six returned a 404 error.
- One site was down entirely.
- Two redirected somewhere unrelated: one to the homepage, one to an old webinar page.
- One had become a sales page. The site now sells guest posting and digital PR as a service.
- Two had moved. The guidelines still existed, just at a new address.
So “dead link” only describes seven of the 12. The two that moved were still open to pitches. One of them even says it doesn’t accept paid placements, which none of the sites that replied to me could say.
What this means if you use directory lists
Directory lists can go stale fast. A page that was a free guest post opportunity when the list was formed can be a 404, a redirect or a paid service by the time you get around to it. Mine failed at a rate of 60%.
That doesn’t make the lists useless. They’re an efficient way to collect a lot of potential prospects quickly. But you should treat every URL as unverified until you’ve opened it yourself, on the day that you pitch. If a listed URL fails, make sure to check the site’s menu before you cross it off. Both of my moved pages were easy to find from the site itself.
If you’re willing to put in time to build a list yourself it will always be fresher. Linkody’s guide to link prospecting covers how to find sites with search operators and check them before you reach out.
6. What went wrong
Looking back, the problems with my 11 pitches weren’t random. Most of them came down to a couple of habits.
I had no minimum for authority
I picked sites on topic alone. Linkody’s guide to guest post outreach suggests aiming for sites with a DA of 40 or more. Only two of my 11 cleared that. The rest ranged from DA 6 to 39, and I pitched all of them the same way.
Most of my emails didn’t ask for anything
Five of the seven emails said “no ask beyond that” or only invited feedback. A good way to not come on too strong, but in practice it gave them nothing to act upon. Of those five, only one replied, and with a price list.
I followed up once, then stopped
Only the July pitches got a follow-up, eight days after the first email. None of the August or September pitches got one. So nine of my 11 pitches got a single shot.
The links in my emails looked messy
Three emails linked to my article through a long google.com redirect. A clean URL costs nothing and shows the reader exactly where they’re going.
My one guest post email was generic
It opened with “Hello”, but said nothing about their site and linked to none of my writing. It even had a typo, which reduced its attractiveness even more. It did get a reply, but only a rate card.
I pitched into sales inboxes
One target was an agency that sells link building, and one form fed straight into a sales funnel. The fastest replies I got came from inboxes set up to sell. If a site is in the business of selling links or marketing services, a free pitch lands in the same place as a sales lead.
Every link and resource pitch was about my article
Every link and resource pitch promoted the same tool comparison. So those pitches were about what I wanted, not about filling gaps on their site. The one exception being the review with an unlinked mention in its conclusion, my best-targeted pitch.
I worked from a stale list
As section 5 showed, 12 of my 20 write-for-us pages had failed by the time I pitched. I lost more than half of my guest post targets before I’d even written a word. Each of these mistakes is easy to fix. The next section rebuilds my pitch around them.
7. The pitch I’d send now
Here’s the pitch I’d send now. Each part of it fixes one of the mistakes I made earlier.
Vet the site before you write a word
Four checks, done on the day that you pitch:
- Open the write-for-us page yourself. If the URL fails, check the site’s menu before giving up.
- Check the site in Linkody’s Website Authority Checker. Look at Trust Flow as well as Domain Authority. A high DA with a low TF was common among the sites that sent me price lists.
- Look for prices. If the write-for-us page sells guest posts or link insertions, a free pitch will get a rate card. Skip the site, or pitch it having that knowledge. Linkody’s post on toxic backlinks explains why unmarked paid links are a risk.
- Find a person. My four form pitches got no human reply. A named editor’s email address is definitely worth the extra search.
The guest post pitch
This is the template I’d use now. One of the pages I found in section 5 asks for almost exactly this: a topic, a working title, a short outline and links to two pieces you’ve written.
Subject: Guest post idea for [site]: [working title]
Hi [first name],
I read your post on [their article]. [One sentence on a specific point it made, or a question it left open.]
I'd like to write a guest post for [site] on [topic]. I couldn't find it covered on your blog, and it fits readers who [who their readers are].
Working title: [title]
Outline: [point 1]; [point 2]; [point 3]
Target keyword: [keyword]
Two things I've written: [link 1], [link 2]
If it's a fit, I can send the draft by [date]. If it isn't, I'd be glad to know what topics you're looking for.
Thanks,
[Your name]
What changed: you’re naming a person, pointing at their site, making a clear ask, linking to your work and giving a date. Most of that was missing from my September email, and the clean links were missing from my August ones.
The link request
For a link request, the best pitch I sent pointed at an exact gap on their page. The new version keeps that and adds the ask I left out:
Subject: Your [article title]
Hi [first name],
Your [article] mentions [topic] in [section], but doesn't link anywhere for readers who want more.
I've written a full comparison of [topic]: [link]. Would you consider adding it as a further-reading link in that section?
Either way, thanks for the [specific part] of your post. It helped me with [what].
[Your name]
Follow up, then track the link
I’d now send one follow-up email about a week after the first one for every pitch. If that gets no answer I’d move on. Linkody’s outreach guide, linked above, gives the same advice: try once more, then move on to the next site. If the site still fits later, I’d come back with a new idea, not the same pitch.
When a pitch does land, the link will still need watching. In Linkody’s link building statistics, 17% of monitored links were removed while the page stayed up, and 52% of links that die are gone within a year. So I would add each promised link to Linkody as a prospect link before it goes live. You switch on “I am expecting a link from this page”, then fill in the page you expect it to point to, the anchor text and whether it should be follow. I’d also tag each one by where it came from, such as “guest blogging” or “resource page”. This way you can keep track of which kind of pitch actually produced results. Linkody’s guide to monitoring backlinks walks through the setup.
8. Conclusion
If I had to boil 11 pitches down to a few lines:
- A fast reply with a price list means you’ve reached a sales inbox, not an editor.
- Check authority before you pitch, not after. Look at Trust Flow next to Domain Authority.
- Open every write-for-us URL on the day you pitch. 60% of mine had failed.
- Ask for something specific. My polite emails with no ask got no free placements.
- Send your pitch to a person, not a form.
- Follow up. Nine of my 11 pitches only got a single shot.
- Track the links you do get. Links disappear, often within the first year.
Eleven pitches and zero free placements is a bad result. But it’s also a cheap lesson, because every mistake on this list costs nothing to fix.
About the Author
Axel Bollansée is the writer and owner behind Tooled Marketer. He reviews and compares SEO and marketing tools for bloggers, freelancers and solo marketers. His readers are building an audience from scratch.