People also ask
In practice
The transparency matters because the fee changes the product: a paid placement carries devaluation risk the buyer accepts knowingly (or should), and the client cannot make that decision about a fee they weren’t told exists. The practice, stated plainly: every placement in the approval pack carries its fee flag — paid or earned, and where paid, whether the placement carries marks; the tracker keeps the flag with the placement’s record; the reporting honours it (the risk-exposed segment is visible in the portfolio); and the guarantee’s terms apply across both, with replacements for what drops.
The objections that get raised, answered: “it’s commercially sensitive” (the client is paying the fee — hiding it is a margin policy, not a sensitivity), “it complicates the story” (the honest story is the differentiator — a vendor who says which placements involve fees is a vendor whose other claims can be trusted), and “the client doesn’t need to know” (the client carries the risk; they need to know).
The buyer’s verification: ask the question before signing (“will every placement be flagged as paid or earned?”), check the approval packs for the flags, and read any proposal that describes “100% editorial placements” at scale with the scepticism it earned. The strategic upside for the honest vendor: fee transparency is the trust layer that makes the flat price, the guarantee and the qualification floor all believable — the cheapest credibility in the industry, and the one most competitors won’t offer.
See also: Buying links, Paid placements disclosure and labels, Link attribution risk.
Related service: Guest posts.
