How this blog gets written.

Who writes this

Kael Broersma. Every article on this site carries my byline because I wrote it. There are no ghostwriters, no contract content agency, and no rotating cast of freelancers behind a house voice.

That is worth stating plainly because most agency blogs at this size are outsourced, and readers have no way to tell from the outside. If a post says I have seen something go wrong in a Google Ads account, it is because I have.

Where the numbers come from

The articles quote a lot of specific figures. Retainer ranges by revenue band, what sits inside an agency invoice, website cost bands, how long SEO takes to move. Those come from three places, and I try to make clear in the text which one is in play.

My own book of business

Pricing ranges, budget guidance, and what a given scope actually costs come from quoting and running this work. These are the figures I would give you on a call. They are honest about the market I serve, which is established small and medium-sized businesses in the US, and they may not hold for enterprise buyers or overseas markets.

Named public sources

Statistics, platform behavior, and research findings get linked to the source. I check that every outbound link resolves to the specific claim being made before a post goes live, because the most common way a marketing article misleads people is by citing a real, reputable source that does not actually say the thing.

I prefer primary sources in this order: official platform documentation from Google or Meta, government data, published industry research with a stated methodology, then reputable trade press. If the only support for a claim is a vendor blog citing another vendor blog, I would rather cut the claim.

Rules of thumb, labeled as rules of thumb

Some widely repeated marketing statistics have no solid original study behind them. When I use one anyway because it is directionally useful, I say so rather than dressing it up with a false attribution. A number presented as research should be research.

How client work gets referenced

Some posts describe results from real accounts. When they do, the client is anonymized by category and market rather than named, because the people I work with did not hire me to become case studies.

What I will not do is inflate those numbers, quote the single best result I have ever produced as though it were typical, or describe a result without the context that makes it interpretable. A conversion rate lift means nothing without knowing the starting point, the timeframe, and what else changed. If I cannot give you that context, the number does not go in.

If a client is willing to be named, I will name them and say that they agreed to it.

How a post gets made

I use software throughout the process, including AI tools, for keyword research, outlining, drafting, and editing. That is ordinary now and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

What matters is what happens after: every claim, statistic, and outbound link is verified by me before publication, every price and benchmark is checked against what I actually see in the market, and nothing goes live that I have not read end to end and would not defend on a call. The judgment in these articles is mine. The tooling is just tooling.

Photography is licensed stock unless stated otherwise, credited to the photographer where the license asks for it.

The commercial interest, stated plainly

This blog exists to bring in clients. I sell branding, websites, Google Ads management, and local SEO, and articles about those topics are how people find me. You should read everything here knowing that.

What that interest sometimes tempts people into, I do not do. There are no affiliate links on this site, so no tool recommendation earns me a commission. No post has ever been sponsored or paid for by a third party. I do not accept guest posts, and I do not sell links.

Where my commercial interest cuts against the useful answer, I try to say the useful thing. Several posts here argue that you should not hire an agency yet, or that the work is cheaper done in-house, or that a channel I sell is the wrong first move for your stage of business. That is deliberate. Advice you cannot trust is worthless to both of us.

Corrections

I get things wrong. Platforms change, sources get retracted, and sometimes I simply misread something.

If you find an error, email kael@getbeefedup.com with the article and what is wrong. You do not need to be polite about it, and you do not need to be a customer.

Here is what happens next:

• I acknowledge the report within two business days, including when the answer turns out to be that the original was right.
• Factual errors get fixed within five business days of being confirmed.
• A correction that changes the meaning of a passage is noted at the bottom of the post with the date and what changed. I do not quietly edit an article and pretend the original said something else.
• Typos, broken links, and formatting fixes are made silently, because nobody needs a changelog for a missing comma.

Keeping articles current

Every post shows its publication date, and updated posts show the date they were last revised. Both are in the page’s structured data as well as on the page itself, so an automated reader gets the same information you do.

Posts covering platform mechanics or pricing get reviewed at least once a year, and sooner when something material changes. Posts with a year in the title get reviewed before that year turns over. A substantive refresh updates the revision date. Cosmetic edits do not, because a modified date that moves for nothing is a signal that means nothing.

Questions about the writing

Email kael@getbeefedup.com. Corrections, source requests, and disagreements are all welcome. If you think an article is wrong on the substance rather than the facts, I want to hear that too.

See also the about page for background, and the blog for the archive.