Link building can’t fix this alone

Hey, it’s Amit here.

Todays newsletter is inspired by a post I read recently from Kevin Indig, called “AI-SEO is a change management problem”. Got me thinking about that this specifically affects link building teams, or any teams with off-page SEO as part of their remit.

Over the last year or so, I noticed something subtle happening within SEO or marketing teams.

Leadership asks:

“Why aren’t we appearing in AI answers?”
“Why are competitors cited instead of us?”

And somehow…

…it immediately became a link building problem.

More links.
Stricter filters.
Higher DR.
Tighter prospecting rules.

On paper, that sounds disciplined.

In reality, it often masks something else.

An alignment gap.

Link building sits at the intersection of:

When visibility feels off, off-page is the first lever pulled.

But you can’t build links to compensate for unclear positioning.

You can’t out-DR your way into category recognition.

And you can’t fix misaligned teams with stricter prospecting rules.

Even if you rank #1…

You might not appear in AI answers.

Because ranking is not the same as being structurally associated with a category.

AI systems lean heavily on:

If your brand isn’t consistently associated with a term across the web, you won’t be surfaced confidently.

That’s not a link metric issue.

That’s a signal alignment issue.

Historically, TLG was positioned as a link building agency.

We’re pivoting toward being a link building or off-page SEO consultancy.

If I don’t:

…AI systems won’t associate us with that category, at least in its current form.

It doesn’t matter what I intend. It matters what the ecosystem reflects.

If positioning changes internally but not externally, visibility lags.

Another pattern I’m seeing: teams tightening link criteria.

Only pages with traffic.
Only DR 60+.
Only ranking pages.
Only perfect contextual alignment.

Quality matters.

Relevance matters.

But the more restrictive you become, the smaller your opportunity pool becomes.

In competitive markets, this isn’t just a quality game.

It’s a quality plus sufficient authority accumulation game.

If filters reduce velocity so much that you build half the links required to compete, you stall.

Doing something strategically aligned beats building nothing because it didn’t meet an arbitrary metric.

Link teams need clarity on overall strategy -  not just tighter guardrails.

Let’s be direct.

If a page is generic, adds no information gain, and doesn’t deserve to rank…

Why are we building links to it?

Off-page shouldn’t compensate for weak content.

That’s how teams burn budgets and look ineffective.

That said, not every linked page must rank.

Some pages exist to:

The key is shared understanding.

Content and off-page must know what each page is meant to do.

Otherwise, effort fragments.

Here’s a pattern I’ve seen repeatedly.

Once upon a time, we secured interest from Dark Reading, one of the leading cybersecurity publications.

Their response was clear:

The outreach worked. The content ideas we pitched sounded good.

But internally, no qualified expert who had a cybersecurity certificate was available to attach their name to the article. Marketing just said “we don’t have anyone.”

The result?

No placement. Not because the link team failed.

But because the organisation wasn’t structurally prepared to earn it.

I’ve had this happen this so many times, and across industries:

Marketing is often asked to “build authority.”

But authority has to exist first.

Without named experts, clear credentials, and internal willingness to contribute, Tier 1 placements stall.

And link building or SEO gets blamed again.

There’s also a technical layer worth noting.

Google tracks when links appear and whether they were part of the original content.

That’s why:

Execution details matter.

But they only compound if the broader strategy is aligned.

Search: “best lobster delivery company.”

Google’s AI Overview recommends 3 brands with one of those being a client we worked with for several years. 

That didn’t happen because someone spammed listicle insertions for three months.

It happened because of sustained digital PR, editorial coverage, the client having good content and site structure, and years of category reinforcement.

Media placements.
Product listicles
Consistent authority building.

You might even need to grease the wheels a bit by doing affiliate deals, or sponsoring placements inside (good quality) product roundups.

No shortcuts.

Just aligned signals compounding over time. That’s how brands enter the consideration set.

When leadership asks:

“Why aren’t we in AI answers?”

The better question is:

Link building accelerates authority.

It cannot define it alone.

Before tightening filters.

Before demanding more outreach.

Before blaming DR thresholds.

Ask: What are we trying to be known for -  and does our ecosystem reflect that?

Alignment first. Then velocity.

That’s how authority compounds.

Inside your organisation (or your clients’), who owns category positioning?

Is it clear - or assumed?

Hit reply. I read every response.

—

Amit Raj
The Links Guy

P.S.

Link building is a force multiplier.

If alignment is clear, it compounds authority. If alignment is missing, it multiplies confusion.