A reader question sent us down a rabbit hole worth sharing: when agencies write their own "top agencies in the UK" listicles — which, as we found earlier this week, is how the UK's list layer works — do those lists read like editorial or like service pages wearing a list costume?
Four agency-written roundups rank on page one for "content marketing agency" (UK). We opened two of them — the sharpest contrast pair — and checked where the author's own agency sits.
Munro's "Top 12 Content Marketing Agencies": Munro Agency is entry #1. The section reads like a service page — Glasgow-based, what they position content as — with competitors filling the remaining slots. Ranking-as-packaging.
Koozai's "Best Content Marketing Agencies in the UK": Koozai is entry #8 of 20, and the list runs alphabetically — Brafton, Cheshire Cat, CopyHouse, Found, Honest London, inBeat, Komodo… Before any agency appears, the post documents its evaluation criteria: strategy quality and research depth, editorial standards, measurement and reporting. Editorial-as-marketing.
Same SERP, same tactic ("agencies write the lists"), opposite integrity. And from the outside, the tell is cheap to check: sort order. Alphabetical with stated criteria reads as editorial. Self at the top reads as packaging.
Why this matters beyond trivia: if you're an agency deciding whether to invest in a listicle, the Koozai shape — criteria first, alphabetical order, yourself mid-list — is the version a skeptical reader can verify. If you're a buyer skimming "top agencies" posts, scroll to the order before you scroll to the names.
(Background: we make a marketing-data tool, and both lists are archived as pulled — any roundup in your category can be checked the same way.)
Next time a "top 12" post crosses your feed: glance at slot #1 before trusting slots #2-12.
Top comments (0)