Running six or seven clients through one link account

Three lifetime tiers are published on softwareprogrammer.app, labelled Starter, Growth and Agency, and they are sized by link volume rather than by seats or months. That shape suits an agency holding several client accounts at once, because you pay once for a capacity rather than renewing a subscription each month while you decide how to split the work.

Read the tiers as a ceiling on how many placements you can run through the account, not as a promise about what each client receives. Match the tier to the total volume across your client list, then decide internally how that volume is divided. A small roster of six or seven clients will not need the same capacity as a larger book of work.

Keep your own site accounts as part of the setup. Because the product does not hold those logins for you, the separation between clients sits with you: one client's placements stay under that client's accounts, and the sending never merges into a shared inbox. That is the practical reason the tier question comes second to the account structure.

Every tier rests on the same foundation: a researched library of places that accept links, plus a live browser that performs the submission work you would otherwise repeat by hand. What changes between Starter, Growth and Agency is the volume of links the account is sized to handle, not the nature of the underlying task.

Begin with the free starter link. It lets you see how the library and the browser behave before you commit to a lifetime purchase, and it gives you something concrete to show a client or a colleague. Treat it as a test of the workflow rather than as a sample of results, since one link tells you about process, not about reach.

Growth and Agency then differ mainly in how much volume you can push through in a period. If your roster is stable and your outreach is steady, the middle tier often covers the work. If you are adding clients or running several campaigns at once, the larger tier gives you room without splitting the account across separate purchases.

The worry you named is a shared inbox that mixes clients together, and it is a fair one. An agency's reputation rests on keeping each client's sending distinct, with a clear record of where every lead came from. Any tool that blurs that line creates reporting problems you will have to unpick later, often in front of the client.

The answer here is structural rather than reassuring. You keep your own site accounts, so the identity behind each submission belongs to the client it serves. The product supplies the researched library and the browser labour; it does not ask you to pool your clients into one sending identity. That keeps the audit trail in your hands.

Where the hesitation is really about proof, plan for it. Record which placement came from which account and which client, and recheck the list periodically, because a placement can be removed later by the site hosting it. The account gives you the work; the record of attribution is something you maintain alongside it.

Moving up a tier buys capacity, not a different kind of service. The research behind the library and the browser that carries out submissions are the same across the range. What you gain at Growth or Agency is headroom: more placements in flight before you run out of room, which matters when several clients need work in the same stretch of weeks.

The honest way to weigh that headroom is against the hours you would otherwise spend finding places and filling in forms. If your team currently does that by hand across six or seven clients, the higher tier earns its place by absorbing repetition. If your volume is modest, the lower tier does the same job at a smaller commitment.

Do not treat a larger tier as a route to a ranking. Where a page sits is decided by search engines, and no tier changes that. Judge the upgrade on placements produced and checked, on how cleanly the work separates between clients, and on whether the capacity matches the roster you actually have.