Disclosed Sponsored Articles Placed as a Media Buy

A sponsored article on a Polish gaming site with a real audience costs between 1,800 and 7,000 EUR in media, and I add a fixed fee rather than a percentage, so the outlet's rate card reaches you unedited. What you are buying is a defined readership for a day and a URL that stays online afterwards. You are not buying link equity, and that sentence goes in the agreement. Why the link does not count: Every placement I arrange is marked to the reader above the fold and tagged rel="sponsored". That is Google's stated handling for paid placement, and in Poland it is separately required by the Press Law's obligation to mark paid material. Anyone offering an undisclosed followed placement is selling you a policy breach with your own domain as the collateral, and the outlets worth appearing on will not run it regardless of the fee. What the money actually buys: A slot in front of an audience that is hard to reach any other way. On a mid-sized Polish enthusiast site, a well-made piece returns 1,200 to 4,000 sessions in the first 72 hours, and roughly 40 percent of its lifetime pageviews arrive after month six because these sites rank their own archives. That tail is the reason to prefer editorial placement over display on the same property at similar cost. It is also why I will not buy a slot on a site whose archive gets no search traffic, however good the day-one numbers look. How the outlet gets chosen: I pull the property's own media kit, then check it against reality: Similarweb and Ahrefs for the archive's organic footprint, the site's last thirty sponsored pieces for how visibly they are marked and whether any of them still rank, and the ratio of sponsored to editorial output on the homepage. A site running six sponsored posts a week is selling its audience faster than it is earning one, and I will tell you that before you spend. The writing: Written by me in Polish or English, structured so a reader who is not in the market still finishes it. The product appears where it is the answer to something the piece raised, not in paragraph one. Outlets in this sector kill pieces at the edit stage for the reverse, and a killed piece still costs the media fee. What I will not write: No piece that hides its sponsorship. No comparison table where you happen to win. No fabricated user quote or invented case study. No claim about regulated products that your own legal team has not signed. No placement on a network that resells the same article to four other buyers with the nouns swapped. Who this is not for: Buyers who want this because a link vendor told them sponsored placement builds authority. It does not, by design, and if that is the goal your budget belongs in digital PR instead. Also not for anyone who cannot wait five weeks: outlets book editorial calendars out, and a rush slot means a site that had a hole to fill. What lands in your inbox: The outlet's unedited rate card, my fee stated separately, the draft, the live URL, and a screenshot record of the disclosure as published. Then a 30-day and 180-day read: sessions, scroll depth where the publisher shares it, assisted conversions from GA4, and the piece's own organic position if it earned one. If the 180-day number is dead, I will say the buy did not work and name a different property rather than repeat it.