How To Tell If Your AI SEO Agency Is Working

When to Change Supplier Three conditions justify it individually. Raw answers cannot be produced on request. The prompt set has been changed without disclosure, which invalidates every comparison in every report you have received. Or two quarters have passed with the agreed inputs completed and no movement on citation presence, accuracy or source coverage.

That matters most for the facts that establish identity, because those are the facts that let scattered mentions of you resolve into one record. It matters far less for content, where the model is going to read the prose anyway and is reasonably good at it.

Because there is no independent scoreboard in this channel, an engagement can run for a year on the strength of a number the supplier produces. That is an unusual amount of trust to extend, and it makes knowing what to check more important here than in any other marketing channel.

Agree the Reporting Before You Sign Settle this in the contract rather than discovering it in month three. A useful monthly report contains the prompt set, the raw answers, which competitors were named, which sources were cited, what changed against last month, and what work was done that might explain the change.

Run each one across the assistants your customers use, and write down the answers verbatim. Do this from a signed out session so your own history does not colour the result. What you want at the end is a simple table: which prompts named you, which named competitors, and which sources got cited.

Finally, pay attention to how they talk about their existing clients. Somebody who describes a client's category accurately, names the specific constraint that made the work difficult, and mentions something that did not work has actually done the job. Somebody who describes every engagement as a success in identical language has either been unusually lucky or is describing a template.

Study the citation lists in almost any commercial category and one format keeps appearing: the page that weighs named options against each other. Comparison articles, alternatives pages, best of roundups and side by side tables get quoted far out of proportion to how many of them exist.

Distinguish between a supplier who is failing and one who is reporting badly, because the remedies differ entirely. Ask for the raw answers and read them yourself before deciding. It is not unusual to find that sound work has been buried under a dashboard nobody understands, and fixing the reporting is far cheaper and less disruptive than replacing a team that is actually doing the job.

Everything else has to be transformed. A brand page has to be reframed as one option among several. A specification sheet has to be weighed against a competitor's. A comparison page needs none of that work, which makes it the cheapest source to use.

Be prepared for the internal objection that this sends people to competitors. Some of it will, and those are mostly people who would not have bought from you anyway. The trade is that the page becomes usable as an impartial source, which is worth considerably more than the small number of poorly matched prospects it redirects, and the sales team usually agrees once they see which enquiries stop arriving.

Check How They Handle Numbers Statistics circulate in this field faster than anyone checks them. A widely repeated claim about referral traffic growth turned out to rest on a sample of nineteen analytics properties. A frequently cited conversion comparison came from a vendor that sells the service.

Check which agents you allow, confirm your important pages render meaningful content without scripts, and make sure nothing critical is trapped in a PDF or an image. This is the cheapest work in the whole discipline and it is routinely skipped.

What can legitimately be committed to is process: the prompt set will be run on a schedule, the raw answers will be kept, specific technical fixes will be made by a date, a defined number of third party listings will be corrected. Commitments about inputs are honest. Commitments about outputs are not.

One structural tip improves these more than any amount of rewriting. Put the comparison itself in a real table with concrete columns, then follow it with short prose explaining which option suits which situation. The table gets extracted for factual comparisons and the prose gets quoted for the recommendation, so the page earns citations of two different kinds rather than one.

Screenshots of favourable answers with no run count, which say nothing about how many attempts produced them. Impressions or traffic from unrelated channels included to fill a report. And activity described in the language of effort, such as ongoing optimisation, with no countable output attached.

Keep the raw text of every answer, not just a tally. Six months in, the archive is the most useful thing you own, because it lets you see exactly when a competitor entered the shortlist, which source appeared alongside them, and whether your own description shifted from something a marketer wrote to something a customer would recognise. A score with no working behind it cannot tell you any of that. get recommended by ai