People also ask
In practice
There is no universal ratio to hit — natural profiles differ by brand size, market and history — but the shape of a healthy profile is recognisable: the brand name and bare URLs dominate, descriptive phrases appear in variety, and exact-match commercial terms are a small minority, because that is how independent writers actually cite things. A profile where a commercial keyword appears in a large share of anchors across unrelated publishers is one of the clearest fingerprints of a link scheme, and it is visible to anyone who pulls the anchor report — including search evaluators and competitors.
When buying placements, the distribution is managed at campaign level, not per link: the plan sets an anchor approach per target page, and each new placement is chosen to keep the whole profile reading naturally. Two rules keep it sane in practice. First, brand anchors are the default — the product name travels across languages, needs no creativity from the publisher, and never reads as manipulation. Second, variety is not cosmetic: different writers describing the same tool naturally produce different phrasings, so a campaign that produces identical anchors everywhere looks built, whatever the intent.
After acquisition the profile is reviewed periodically as part of risk screening — not to panic about every new exact-match link, but to catch drift: a vendor quietly inserting keyword-rich anchors across clients is a pattern worth stopping early, before it becomes the profile’s dominant signal.
See also: Anchor text, Anchor text over-optimisation, Anchor plans per campaign.
Related service: Link building strategy.
