People also ask
In practice
The distinction protects two things at once. The audience: a buyer reading a case study assumes real engagements — passing off a constructed example as a result is fraud’s small sibling, and sophisticated buyers (who are the ones with budgets) detect the seams. The proof: when real results are presented, their credibility depends on the standard the site has established — a company that labels its illustrations earns the benefit of the doubt on its case studies, and the case studies’ attribution (“links were one component of a broader engagement”) reads as rigour rather than weakness.
The practical rules: illustrative material carries its label — “illustrative example, not a client result” — visibly, not in a footnote; real results carry their attribution (the period, the contributors beyond the service, what wasn’t controlled); numbers trace to a method the reader could inspect; and the temptation zones are named — the “typical results” claim (typical by what measure?), the borrowed case (another agency’s or another team’s work presented as the service’s), and the compounding fiction (a constructed example drifting into testimonials).
The AI layer adds a new reason: answer engines quoting a site’s claims repeat them verbatim — a fabricated number on the homepage becomes a fabricated number in the answers, attributed to the site — which makes factual hygiene on marketing pages a visibility question, not just an ethics one. The summary that survives scrutiny: label the demonstrations, attribute the results, and let the honesty be the differentiator — because in a market where everyone claims, the verifiable claim wins.
See also: Reporting honesty, Customer evidence in placements, E-E-A-T and experience signals.
Related service: Link building strategy.
