Aira is a UK-based SEO and digital PR agency that has published some of the most cited data in the SEO industry, including annual reports on link building tactics, digital PR benchmarks, and technical SEO trends. For marketers trying to build a credible SEO strategy, their research offers a rare combination of practitioner honesty and sample scale that most agency content avoids.

But data from any single agency, including Aira, needs to be read critically. What they measure reflects their client base, their methodology, and the incentives of a business that sells SEO services. That is not a criticism. It is just the lens you need to apply before building strategy from it.

If you are building or refining an SEO programme, Aira’s published research is worth understanding in context. This article breaks down what their data actually shows, where it is genuinely useful, and where you should apply your own judgment rather than treating industry benchmarks as strategy. For a broader framework on how all of this fits together, the Complete SEO Strategy hub covers the full picture from technical foundations through to content and authority building.

What Is Aira and Why Does Its Research Matter?

Aira was founded in 2007 and operates primarily out of the UK. They work across SEO, digital PR, and paid search, and have built a reputation for publishing research that goes beyond the typical agency thought leadership piece. Their annual State of Link Building report, in particular, has become a reference point for SEO practitioners because it surveys a large enough sample of in-house and agency professionals to produce data that is at least directionally meaningful.

What distinguishes Aira’s output from most agency content is a willingness to publish findings that are not always flattering to the industry. They have reported on how poorly many SEO teams measure their own work, how inconsistently digital PR is defined across organisations, and how link building tactics that are widely used are also widely questioned in terms of effectiveness. That kind of candour is worth something.

I spent years running agency businesses where the temptation to publish only the data that supported your service offering was constant. Most agencies do exactly that. When I see an agency willing to publish findings that complicate their own pitch, I pay attention. Aira falls into that category more often than most.

That said, they are still an agency with commercial interests. Their research is not peer-reviewed academic work. The samples are self-selected. The questions are shaped by what they think the industry cares about, which is itself influenced by what they sell. None of that makes the data useless. It just means you read it as one informed perspective, not as ground truth.

What Does the State of Link Building Report Actually Show?

Aira’s State of Link Building report is published annually and surveys SEO professionals across agency and in-house roles. The consistent themes across editions are worth noting because they reflect durable patterns rather than year-on-year noise.

First, digital PR has steadily grown as the preferred link acquisition tactic among professionals who are trying to build links at scale without resorting to tactics that carry algorithmic risk. The appeal is straightforward: a well-executed digital PR campaign earns links from genuine editorial coverage, which is exactly the kind of link that has held its value through every major Google algorithm update of the last decade.

Second, the data consistently shows that measurement remains the weakest part of most SEO programmes. Teams can tell you how many links they built. They struggle to tell you what those links contributed to revenue or pipeline. This is a problem I recognise from my own agency years. We were very good at reporting activity and very inconsistent at connecting that activity to business outcomes. The industry has not solved this, and Aira’s data confirms it has not.

Third, the report surfaces a persistent tension between what SEO professionals believe works and what they actually do. Practitioners often report scepticism about certain link building tactics while simultaneously using them, because client pressure, short timelines, and the difficulty of proving long-term value push behaviour in directions that contradict stated beliefs. This is not hypocrisy. It is the rational response to incentive structures that reward short-term activity over long-term compounding. Understanding this gap is more useful than judging it.

Moz’s community research on the relationship between community and SEO benefits adds useful context here. The link building tactics that hold up over time tend to be the ones rooted in genuine value creation rather than volume. Aira’s data points in the same direction.

Digital PR as an SEO Tactic: What Aira’s Data Tells You

Digital PR sits at the intersection of traditional public relations, content marketing, and SEO. The goal is to create content or stories that earn coverage in publications with editorial standards, generating links that carry genuine authority signals. Aira has been one of the more vocal proponents of this approach, and their research has helped establish it as a mainstream SEO tactic rather than a niche experiment.

The commercial logic is sound. A link from a national newspaper or a well-regarded industry publication carries more weight than a link from a directory or a guest post on a low-traffic blog. That weight reflects both domain authority and the editorial judgment that went into placing the link. Google has always claimed to value editorial links, and the evidence from practitioners who have tracked rankings over long periods supports that claim.

But digital PR is harder to execute than its proponents sometimes acknowledge. The conversion rate from pitch to placement is low. The lead times are long. The results are unpredictable. And the skills required, including genuine media relations, strong editorial instincts, and the ability to generate ideas that journalists actually want to cover, are not skills that every SEO team has or can develop quickly.

When I was scaling an agency from around 20 people to over 100, one of the hardest hires was always the person who could bridge SEO strategy and genuine PR craft. Most candidates were strong in one and weak in the other. The hybrid is rare. Aira’s research implicitly acknowledges this by showing how many organisations are investing in digital PR while also reporting difficulty demonstrating its ROI. The investment is there. The measurement infrastructure often is not.

There is also a question of fit. Digital PR works well for brands with a story worth telling, data worth sharing, or a perspective that journalists find credible. It works less well for commodity businesses, highly regulated sectors, or organisations where the approval process for external communications is so slow that by the time a piece is cleared, the news hook has passed. Aira’s data captures aggregate trends. Your specific context determines whether those trends apply to you.

Technical SEO: What Aira’s Research Consistently Surfaces

Alongside link building, Aira publishes research on technical SEO health across client sites. The findings are not surprising to anyone who has spent time inside large websites, but they are worth stating plainly: most websites carry significant technical debt that has been accumulating for years, and most organisations do not have a clear owner for resolving it.

Crawl inefficiency, duplicate content, slow page speeds, broken internal links, and indexation errors are common across sites of all sizes. These are not exotic problems. They are the result of websites being built and modified over time by multiple teams with different priorities, none of whom were primarily accountable for organic search performance.

The challenge is not identifying these issues. Any competent technical audit will surface them. The challenge is getting them fixed. That requires engineering resource, product prioritisation, and organisational alignment that SEO teams frequently lack the authority to secure. Aira’s data reflects this frustration. Technical SEO recommendations that sit in a backlog for 18 months are not delivering value, regardless of how accurate the diagnosis was.

I have sat in enough board-level conversations to know that technical SEO rarely gets prioritised unless there is a visible performance drop or a major site migration on the horizon. The preventive case for technical SEO investment is genuinely hard to make, because the counterfactual is invisible. You cannot easily show what would have happened if the crawl issues had been left unresolved. Moz’s work on lessons from failed SEO tests is useful context here, particularly the point that attribution in SEO is rarely clean and that this makes it harder to build the internal case for investment.

The practical implication is that technical SEO work needs to be framed in business terms, not just SEO terms. Crawl efficiency affects how quickly new content gets indexed. Page speed affects conversion rates, not just rankings. Internal linking affects both user experience and PageRank distribution. When you connect technical recommendations to outcomes that the business already cares about, you get more traction than when you present them as SEO hygiene.

Speaking of conversion, the case for conversion rate optimisation applies directly here: organic traffic that lands on a slow, poorly structured page is traffic that is being wasted. Technical SEO and CRO are not separate disciplines. They share the same underlying logic.

How to Read Aira’s Data Without Over-Indexing on It

This is where critical thinking matters more than any specific tactic. Industry benchmarks are useful for calibration. They tell you what the distribution looks like, what the average organisation is doing, and where you sit relative to that. What they cannot tell you is what the right strategy is for your specific business, your specific audience, and your specific competitive environment.

I judged the Effie Awards for several years. One of the things that struck me most was how rarely the winning work followed industry best practice as it was being written at the time. The campaigns that drove genuine business results were often doing something that contradicted the prevailing consensus, not because they were being contrarian for its own sake, but because they had understood their specific situation clearly enough to know when the consensus did not apply.

The same logic applies to SEO research. If Aira’s data shows that 60% of SEO professionals are investing in digital PR, that is useful context. It is not a mandate. If your audience does not consume the publications that digital PR targets, if your sales cycle is driven by referrals rather than search, or if your technical debt is so severe that link building cannot move the needle until it is resolved, then following the majority approach is not the right call.

The most dangerous way to use industry research is as a substitute for thinking. I have seen this pattern repeatedly in agency pitches: a deck full of industry statistics used to justify a predetermined recommendation, with the client’s specific situation barely mentioned. The research becomes a confidence trick rather than a genuine input. Aira’s data deserves better than that, and so does your strategy.

Good SEO strategy starts with understanding your own data first. What does your current organic traffic actually look like? Where are the gaps between your content and the queries your audience is using? What is your conversion rate from organic sessions? What does your technical health look like relative to your competitors? These questions need answers before you start benchmarking against industry surveys.

Tools like on-site surveys can surface qualitative insight about what visitors are actually looking for when they land on your pages, which is often quite different from what you assumed when you wrote the content. That kind of direct signal is more valuable than any industry benchmark when you are trying to understand the gap between your current performance and your potential.

Where Aira’s Approach to SEO Fits Within a Broader Strategy

Aira’s public positioning reflects a coherent view of SEO: technical foundations matter, content needs to be genuinely useful, and links need to be earned through real editorial value rather than manufactured through volume. This is not a radical position. It is broadly aligned with what Google has been saying it wants for over a decade. But it is worth examining how this plays out in practice.

The challenge with any agency’s publicly stated philosophy is that it is inevitably shaped by what they are good at and what they sell. Aira is strong at digital PR and technical SEO. Their research naturally emphasises the value of these disciplines. That does not make them wrong. It just means you should be aware of the frame.

A complete SEO strategy needs to account for the full picture: technical health, content strategy, authority building, and measurement. These are not independent workstreams. They interact. A technically sound site with no content strategy will not rank. A strong content programme on a slow, poorly crawled site will underperform. Link acquisition without conversion infrastructure is traffic that does not convert. The integration of these elements is where most SEO programmes fall short, and it is where strategic thinking matters more than tactical execution.

There is also a question of time horizon. Aira’s data on link building reflects the preferences of practitioners who are often working within quarterly reporting cycles. But SEO compounds over time. The decisions you make about content architecture, internal linking, and topical authority today will affect your performance for years. That long-term compounding logic is harder to capture in annual survey data, and it is often underweighted in agency recommendations that are shaped by short-term client expectations.

The broader framework for thinking about all of this, from how to structure a content strategy through to how to build authority in a competitive vertical, is covered in the Complete SEO Strategy hub. Aira’s research is one useful input into that framework. It is not the framework itself.

The Measurement Problem That Aira’s Research Keeps Returning To

Across multiple editions of their research, Aira surfaces the same finding: SEO teams are not measuring their work well enough to make the case for investment or to learn from what they are doing. This is worth dwelling on because it is the most commercially significant finding in their body of work.

Poor measurement in SEO is not primarily a technical problem. The tools exist. Google Search Console, GA4, rank tracking platforms, and link analysis tools between them give you enough data to build a credible picture of what is happening. The problem is analytical and organisational. Most SEO teams are not structured to connect their activity to business outcomes, and most businesses have not invested in the attribution infrastructure that would make that connection visible.

I spent years managing large performance marketing budgets, and one of the things that experience taught me is that the channels with the clearest attribution models tend to get the most investment, regardless of whether they are actually the most effective. Paid search looks accountable because the click-to-conversion path is visible. SEO looks less accountable because the path from a piece of content to a sale often runs through multiple touchpoints over weeks or months. That visibility gap drives budget decisions that are not always in the business’s best interest.

The solution is not to pretend that SEO attribution is as clean as paid search attribution. It is not. The solution is to build an honest measurement framework that captures what you can measure directly, uses reasonable proxies for what you cannot, and is transparent about its limitations. Aira’s research implicitly calls for this without always being prescriptive about how to achieve it. The honest approximation is more useful than the false precision that comes from over-relying on last-click models.

Understanding friction in the user experience also matters here. Not all friction is bad, but friction that you have not deliberately designed is almost always a problem. When you cannot measure why organic visitors are not converting, you cannot improve it. Measurement and conversion are connected, and both are underinvested in most SEO programmes.

What Aira’s Agency Model Tells You About How to Brief an SEO Partner

If you are considering working with Aira or any specialist SEO agency, their published research gives you useful insight into how they think and what they prioritise. But the more valuable exercise is using their research to sharpen how you brief any SEO partner.

The questions worth asking before any SEO engagement are not about tactics. They are about accountability. How will we measure success, and over what time horizon? Who owns technical recommendations once they are made? How does this work connect to our commercial objectives rather than just our organic traffic metrics? What does the agency’s track record look like in businesses similar to ours, not just in SEO metrics but in business outcomes?

Aira’s transparency about the measurement challenges in SEO is actually a useful prompt for these conversations. If their own evidence suggests that most SEO teams struggle to connect their work to revenue, the right response is to build that connection into the engagement structure from the start, not to assume it will emerge naturally.

I have run enough agency pitches from both sides of the table to know that the briefs that produce the best work are the ones that are specific about business outcomes, honest about constraints, and structured around accountability rather than activity. An agency that publishes data showing how poorly the industry measures itself is telling you something important about what the brief should prioritise. Take them at their word.

The same principle applies whether you are building an in-house SEO function or managing an external partner. Clarity about what success looks like, and how it will be measured, is more valuable than any specific tactic. Aira’s research, read carefully, reinforces this point consistently.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions