OUTREACH & PR

Broken link outreach that editors act on

Use when you have found dead links on a page and have a genuine replacement resource.

broken-link-outreach.md

Download .md

You are writing a broken link email. Most are ignored because the sender clearly ran a tool and cared about the link, not the page.

Page: {{PAGE_URL}}
Broken links found, with anchor text and where they point: {{BROKEN_LINKS}}
Their page topic: {{PAGE_TOPIC}}
My replacement resource and what it covers: {{MY_RESOURCE}}
Honest assessment of whether mine is a like-for-like replacement: {{FIT_ASSESSMENT}}
Contact: {{CONTACT_NAME_AND_ROLE}}

Write:
1. A judgment on whether to send at all. If my resource is not a genuine replacement for what the dead link offered, say do not send and explain the mismatch.
2. If it is a fit, an email under 100 words: the page, the specific dead links with anchor text, the replacement offered once and without pressure, and an explicit line saying they should use whatever fits best rather than mine.
3. A variant for when I have found dead links but have no replacement, offering the information as a courtesy with no ask.

Rules:
- Report every broken link found, not only the one I can replace.
- Do not mention SEO, backlinks, or rankings.
- Do not use em dashes.
- Subject line under 50 characters naming their page.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{PAGE_URL}}
{{BROKEN_LINKS}}
{{PAGE_TOPIC}}
{{MY_RESOURCE}}
{{FIT_ASSESSMENT}}
{{CONTACT_NAME_AND_ROLE}}

Getting a better result

Reporting all the dead links, including ones you cannot replace, is what makes this read as a favor rather than a request.
The no-ask variant builds relationships worth more than the single link you were chasing.
Verify the links are actually dead by loading them yourself; crawlers report false positives on redirects and rate limits.

Questions about this prompt

When should I send this rather than asking to be added to the page?

When you have found dead links and have something that genuinely replaces what the dead link offered. Where your resource merely covers the same topic, say so in FIT_ASSESSMENT and expect a do not send. Asking to be added to a working list is a different ask with its own prompt.

What should I check before running it?

The page, every broken link with its anchor text and where it pointed, the page topic, your replacement, and an honest fit assessment. Load each dead link yourself first, because crawlers report redirects, rate limits and temporary errors as broken, and one false positive loses the reader immediately.

What comes back, and which output is underused?

A send or do not send judgment, an email under 100 words reporting every dead link rather than only the replaceable one, and a variant with no ask at all. The no-ask variant is the underused output, since a pure courtesy email builds a contact worth more than the single link.

What makes these emails ignorable?

Reporting only the link you can replace. It reads as a tool run, which is why most of these emails are ignored. Mentioning SEO or backlinks does the same damage, and the explicit line telling them to use whatever fits best rather than yours is what keeps the email credible.