Don’t Mix Earned and Contracted Results: A Provenance System for Reporting Mentions and Links
Learn how to classify mentions and links by origin, conditions, and evidence to create transparent, comparable reports that are useful for SEO, marketing, and digital PR.
Why not all links are the same kind of result
A report can lose credibility when it combines mentions that arrived through different routes into a single figure. A feature that a publication chooses to include because of editorial interest does not have the same provenance as a collaboration with agreed commercial terms. Nor is it identical to coverage that emerged after a digital PR initiative, even though all three may provide visibility and, in some cases, links. The difference is not a moral hierarchy or a way to diminish the value of any channel. Each route serves a different objective and involves a different degree of control, cost, timeframe, and disclosure obligation. Treating them as equivalent prevents teams from understanding what was done, what worked, and what should be repeated. The issue becomes more serious when a report uses a single metric to summarize everything. Third-party tool metrics can serve as comparative signals when used under a consistent criterion, but they do not replace a review of editorial context, audience, topic, terms, or the available evidence. Above all, they cannot turn a result into a guarantee of rankings, traffic, or authority. A provenance system addresses this limitation: every mention or link retains a trace of how it originated, the conditions under which it was published, and the evidence that can verify it.
- Separating origin from outcome prevents contracted activity from being presented as independent coverage.
- Recording terms makes it possible to review disclosure, link attributes, and editorial commitments.
- Preserving evidence reduces retrospective disputes and makes internal or client audits easier.
- Comparing like-for-like categories improves decisions about budgets, content, and media relationships.
The provenance principle: questions every record should answer
Provenance is the documented chain that explains why a publication exists. It is not limited to identifying the final URL. A good record should allow another person, even months later, to clearly answer: which initiative generated it, who initiated contact, whether there was consideration, what was agreed, when it was verified, and where the evidence is stored. The operating rule is simple: if a statement in the report cannot be connected to a data point, source, or internal document, it should be marked as pending verification rather than presented as fact. This protects both the reporting team and the people who need to make decisions using the report. It is useful to distinguish three layers. The first is activity: research, outreach, pitching, negotiation, or sending materials. The second is deliverables: content, collaborations, press releases, interviews, or assets created. The third is observed publications and mentions. An activity is not the same as a publication; a deliverable does not guarantee coverage; and a publication alone does not support attribution of a specific SEO effect.
- What was the source initiative or campaign?
- Did the publication result from an editorial decision, a commercial agreement, an existing relationship, or a reclamation?
- Was there payment, a transfer of value, an invitation, an exchange, or any other relevant condition?
- What evidence supports the classification, and when was it checked?
- Who is responsible for maintaining the record and resolving a potential discrepancy?
A practical taxonomy: earned, contracted, hybrid, reclaimed, and unverifiable
The taxonomy should be simple enough for the team to use without friction and precise enough to prevent ambiguity. These five categories cover many common cases. Earned: the mention or link is published without payment or agreed consideration in exchange for obtaining that publication. It may result from useful content, relationships with journalists, an expert source, or the editorial interest of the publisher. Prior communication does not automatically make the result contracted. Contracted: there is agreed consideration for the publication or for elements directly connected to it. It can take different forms and should be recorded transparently. Public disclosure and the use of rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow" to qualify the link may be appropriate depending on the case and applicable policies. Google explains the use of these attributes in its guide on qualifying outbound links: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links. Hybrid: both editorial components and agreed terms relevant to interpreting the publication are involved. For example, a PR initiative that leads to a collaboration with part of the scope agreed in advance, or a piece whose editorial form is decided independently but includes consideration. The hybrid label is not a catch-all: it requires describing both components. Reclaimed: the mention already existed or was independently justified, and the team requests a correction, attribution, URL inclusion, update, or recovery of an asset. It should be distinguished from a publication created from scratch through an agreement. Unverifiable: there is not enough evidence to classify the case with confidence. It is not a failure category; it signals missing documentation. Keeping it prevents assumptions and triggers a review.
- Use one primary category and a notes field for nuance; do not invent subcategories every month.
- Do not change a category to improve an aggregate figure: retain the change history and its reason.
- Define in writing what the team considers relevant consideration.
- Review hybrid and unverifiable cases regularly, as they are the most likely to distort the report.
The minimum fields for a traceable record
A record can live in a spreadsheet, a database, or the management tool the team already uses. What matters is not the format, but that the fields are consistent, have clear owners, and make it possible to link a publication to the activity that preceded it. Start with a unique identifier. Then store the date of discovery and, if known, the publication date. Link the outcome to a specific initiative, such as a content campaign, public relations activity, collaboration, or reclamation. Record the publication URL, the destination URL if there is a link, and the mention type: link, brand mention, expert quote, resource inclusion, or another relevant format. Add the provenance category, agreed terms, and disclosure status. In the terms field, avoid vague descriptions such as "collaboration." Briefly explain whether payment, a product, an event, content licensing, an exchange, access, or any other element that helps interpret the case was involved. Keep a link to the evidence: email, purchase order, approved proposal, dated screenshot, or campaign document. Access to this evidence should be restricted according to privacy and confidentiality needs. Finally, assign an owner, a last-verification date, and a review status. These fields turn the record into a living system rather than a static list of URLs.
- Record ID and internal project or client.
- Date discovered, publication date, and last-verification date.
- Source initiative, owner, and provenance category.
- Publication URL, destination URL, mention type, and observed link attributes when visible.
- Agreed terms, observed disclosure, and link to the evidence.
- Review status, issues, and the reason for any reclassification.
How to record paid collaborations transparently
A paid collaboration can be a legitimate communications and visibility activity when it is correctly identified and managed transparently. The report should not hide it or dilute it among earned results. It should show what was contracted, what was published, and whether disclosure and link treatment were checked. Record the consideration as it was agreed, without having to expose confidential information in a shared version of the report. For example, the report can state that a commercial condition exists while leaving financial details in documentation with restricted access. Also indicate whether the piece was identified as sponsored, advertising, or with the disclosure wording appropriate to the regulatory and editorial context. For links, review the available markup. Google recommends using rel="sponsored" for paid links and allows rel="nofollow" as a way to indicate that you do not want to associate with or endorse the linked page. The official guide should be the technical starting point, rather than an interpretation based on commercial promises: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links. Google’s spam policies also include guidance on link practices: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies. Report attributes as an observation on the date they were checked, not as a permanent promise. Pages can change, and any search engine’s crawling depends on factors outside the team’s control. Nor should a paid collaboration be presented as a mechanism for obtaining a guaranteed SEO result.
- Separate the volume of contracted publications from the volume of earned publications in the report.
- State whether visible disclosure was verified and when the check took place.
- Record observed attributes, where present, without inferring ranking effects.
- Document later changes: removal of the piece, link modification, or disclosure update.
How to resolve ambiguous cases without forcing a label
Ambiguous cases are unavoidable. A pre-existing relationship with an editorial team, an event invitation, sending a sample, an interview facilitated by an agency, or a publication following a PR campaign can influence the outcome without determining its nature on their own. The response is not to choose the most favorable category, but to document the sequence and apply consistent criteria. If there was prior contact but no consideration or commitment to publish, the outcome may still be earned if the final decision was editorial and independent. If an invitation, product, or access to a service was involved, record the fact and assess whether it constitutes a relevant condition according to internal policy and context. If a publication stems from a PR activity and an insertion or format is also agreed, it should likely be classified as hybrid. When the team cannot confirm an important point, use unverifiable and open a review task. A smaller but defensible figure is preferable to an apparently precise classification based on assumptions. Record the outstanding question, the responsible person, and a reasonable deadline for resolving it.
- Prior contact does not automatically mean payment or editorial independence.
- An invitation or transfer of value should be recorded even if there is no invoice.
- A publication following a campaign should be linked to that campaign, but its category depends on the actual terms.
- If evidence is insufficient, classify it provisionally as unverifiable and do not aggregate it into closed results.
How to structure a report that informs rather than promises
A useful report separates what the team did from what the market or publishers published. This structure reduces excessive attribution and lets leadership, clients, or internal teams assess the campaign with more context. Open with the reporting period, documented objectives, and classification criteria. Continue with the activity carried out: research, pitches sent, follow-ups, PR assets produced, or collaborations managed. Then present the agreed deliverables and, in a separate section, verified publications, mentions, and links segmented by provenance. Include a qualitative interpretation: topic, fit with the intended audience, messages that generated interest, recurring editorial formats, issues, and identified opportunities. If third-party metrics are used to sort or compare, identify the source, the date consulted, and their limits. Do not turn them into a complete conclusion on quality or universal equivalents. Close with learnings and next decisions: which relationships to continue, which content angles to revisit, which disclosure requirements to confirm before contracting, and which records need verification. Google’s Search Essentials guide helps maintain a public reference for search presence fundamentals, but it does not justify promises of results: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials.
- Executive summary: period, objectives, criteria, and relevant changes.
- Activity: actions carried out, without confusing them with publications obtained.
- Deliverables: contracted or produced items, with their status.
- Verified results: mentions and links segmented by provenance.
- Learnings: patterns, limits, issues, and next decisions.
- Traceability appendix: records, evidence, and cases pending review.
Frequently asked questions
How can you report earned and sponsored links without mixing them?+
Create separate sections in the report and use a provenance category for every record. Earned, contracted, hybrid, reclaimed, and unverifiable links should be available separately, along with their terms and evidence.
Is a publication earned if it was obtained after contacting a media outlet?+
It can be, provided there was no consideration or commitment to publish and the decision was editorial. Prior contact should be documented, but it does not by itself make the publication contracted.
Which attributes should links in a paid collaboration use?+
According to Google’s guidance, rel="sponsored" is the recommended attribute for paid links. rel="nofollow" can also be used to indicate that you do not want to associate with or endorse the linked page. Review the specific case and record the observed attribute.
Should unverifiable links be included in the report total?+
Not as a closed result. You can show them in a pending section with the reason evidence is missing and the review plan. This keeps the work visible without inflating figures.
Can a third-party SEO metric decide whether a mention is good?+
Not on its own. It can help compare results under the same criterion, but it should be complemented by topical relevance, editorial context, audience, publication terms, and the initiative’s objectives.
Sources and references
- Google Search Essentials — Google Search Central
- Spam policies for Google web search — Google Search Central
- Qualify outbound links — Google Search Central