Credibility Beats Reach
Placement lists are usually sorted by how big a site is. For a person whose answer is written by a model, the better question is whether the site will be believed, and whether the piece answers anything.
Personal reputation & personal branding for the AI era · Founder, ExcBrand.AI
5 min read
In one paragraph
Choose where a senior professional is published by credibility, not reach. Ask whether the shortlist reads the site, whether its editors would run the piece unpaid, whether the label says honestly what it is, and whether the piece answers a query in the plan. A domain score measures a site’s size, not whether this page will be believed.
The usual way to choose where a professional should appear is a spreadsheet of sites sorted by a domain score. The score is a reasonable proxy for one thing, how much of the web points at a domain, and it is easy to buy against: the bigger the number, the more the placement costs, and the better the report looks.
It answers the wrong question. A model composing a paragraph about a person is not asked how big a site is. It is asked who this person is, and the sources worth being in are the ones that are about them, consistent with each other, and plainly stood behind by an editor.
Four questions before a placement
- Does the shortlist read it? A banker, a regulator or a candidate in this person’s field, not a general audience the person will never meet.
- Would its editors run the piece if nobody paid? If not, the piece is an advertisement, and should be treated and labelled as one.
- Is the label honest? Earned, paid and sponsored are different things, and a reader and an engine both deserve to know which they are reading.
- Does the piece answer a query in the plan? A placement that answers nothing the shortlist asks is attention without a target.
What a domain score cannot see
| The question | What a domain score says | What we look at |
|---|---|---|
| Is the site big? | Roughly, yes | Not the deciding question |
| Does the shortlist read it? | Nothing | Who the site is written for, and who quotes it |
| Will this page be believed? | Nothing | Editorial standards, named bylines, a corrections policy |
| Is it honestly labelled? | Nothing | Whether the piece is marked earned, paid or sponsored |
| Does it answer a target query? | Nothing | The query in the plan the piece is written to answer |
The veto stays with the person
Every site on a plan can be vetoed by the person it is for, with a reason, and the reason is kept. Senior professionals know things about their field that no score records: the publication a regulator distrusts, the site a rival owns, the outlet that misquoted a colleague. A veto with a reason improves the next plan as well as this one.
Paid is a label, not a secret
Some placements are paid, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they say so. The damage comes from disguising them. A paid piece passed off as earned coverage is a claim about independence that the person cannot stand behind.
The record is only as credible as its least honest page.
So every piece carries the label it earned, and the writer is named for what they are: the person under their own byline, a contributor, the publication’s own staff, or a studio writing for a brand. None of these is lesser. Each is a different claim, and the reader is owed the right one.
The terms this piece uses
- Credibility
- Whether a source will be believed by the people deciding about a person: read by them, edited on its merits, honestly labelled and specific to the person.
- Reach
- How large an audience a site has, often approximated by a domain score. A measure of size, not of belief.
- Veto
- The person’s right to remove any site from their plan, with a reason that is kept and applied to later plans.
What to take from this
- Choose placements by credibility, not reach.
- Four questions decide a placement: the shortlist reads it, its editors would run it unpaid, the label is honest, and it answers a target query.
- A domain score measures size, not whether a page will be believed.
- The person keeps a veto on every site, with a reason that is kept.
- Paid placements are legitimate when labelled; a disguised one costs the whole record its credibility.
Questions people ask
- Is a domain score the best way to choose where to publish a senior professional?
- No. A domain score measures how much of the web points at a site, which says little about whether the people deciding about the professional read it, or whether the page will be believed. Choose by credibility first.
- Should paid placements be disclosed?
- Yes. Paid, sponsored and earned are different claims. A paid piece labelled as paid is a legitimate placement; one passed off as earned coverage undermines the credibility of the whole record.
- Can a senior professional refuse a publication on their plan?
- They should be able to. Every site on the plan can be vetoed with a reason, and the reason is kept so that later plans avoid the same site for the same reason.
Written with the help of AI and reviewed by our team.
More in Strategy
Client One: Personal Reputation Management Starts With Your Own Name
Before we ran the method on anyone else, I ran personal reputation management on my own record. The engines described me by an old title, and most of the pages they trusted were mine.
5 min read
Nobody Is Googling Your CEO
A senior professional might be searched a hundred times a month, and that is on the generous side. The number is not the problem. Believing the number is the audience is the problem.
6 min read