What To Ask Before Hiring An AI SEO Company

Ask Who Writes and Who Reviews Find out whether the writing is done by somebody with subject knowledge or generated and lightly edited. Both happen, and the second is not automatically disqualifying, but you need to know because you are the one who carries the liability for inaccurate claims about your own products.

Prioritise by your own citation data rather than by prestige. A trade directory nobody has heard of that appears in half your category's answers is worth more attention than a well known publication that never gets cited. ai visibility agency

Absence is not disqualifying on its own, since their category is crowded and they may serve a niche. But they should have an interesting answer, and the answer should not be defensive. A practitioner who has run this test on themselves will have thought about it and will tell you what they found.

Ask What They Will Not Do Good practitioners have a list. They will not guarantee a position in an answer, because nobody controls that. They will not fabricate reviews or seed forum threads under false identities, because it is detectable, damaging and increasingly enforced against.

Say What You Will and Will Not Approve Publishing constraints kill more engagements than capability gaps. If every page needs legal review with a three week turnaround, say so, because it changes what is realistic and what should be prioritised.

Include one deliberately open question at the end, asking what they would do differently from what the brief proposes. A good supplier will disagree with something, and the disagreement is worth more than the rest of the proposal because it shows they read the situation rather than the request. A response that agrees with every assumption in your brief has told you nothing you did not already believe.

Where a roundup includes you with errors, a factual correction with evidence has a high acceptance rate. Publishers generally do not want to be wrong, and this is the single highest return outreach available in this discipline.

Getting Into the Roundups Where a roundup already exists and omits you, most publishers will consider an addition if you make it easy. Send the specifics they need, in the format their existing entries use, without a pitch attached.

The condition is that it has to be honest. A comparison where every row favours you is transparent to readers and produces nothing quotable as an impartial claim. Name real competitors, use concrete axes, and state plainly where somebody else is the better choice.

Structured Data Is the Statement, Not the Proof Organisation markup on your site lets you state your identity explicitly: name, URL, logo, contact points, and the external profiles that belong to you. It is worth implementing carefully because it removes guesswork.

Ask What Happens in Month One A proposal that opens with content production has skipped the diagnosis. There is no way to know what to write before you know which questions matter, which assistants answer them badly and which sources they draw on.

It helps where one is justified, but notability requirements make it unavailable to most businesses and attempting to force one usually backfires. Consistent details across ordinary sources achieve most of the effect.

Second, prompts that presuppose a weakness: is this company expensive, are they slow, are they suitable for small clients. The answers reveal what the system believes about your reputation, and where the belief is wrong it points at a specific source you can correct.

This matters because the prompt set is built from it, and a prompt set written from segment language measures your positioning rather than your market. If your brief says mid market operations leaders, the prompts will use that phrase and no buyer ever will.

Publish Your Own Comparison Anyway It will rarely be the most cited source in your category and it is still worth having, for two reasons. It puts a version of your figures into circulation stated correctly, and it is frequently the page journalists and roundup writers use when compiling their own comparisons.

Weight toward the commercial tiers. Roughly a third on buying intent, a quarter on evaluation, a quarter on problem framing and the remainder split between definitional and branded is a reasonable starting distribution.

Each individual inconsistency looks trivial. Collectively they prevent a set of mentions from resolving to one confident record, and the symptom is a brand that gets described vaguely or hedged around rather than recommended.

One final practical check costs nothing. Ask for a client reference in a category structurally similar to yours rather than a famous name, and when you speak to them ask what the agency got wrong rather than what went well. References are chosen to be positive, so the useful information is in how candidly they describe the difficult parts.

The Corroboration Reason Any system that weighted self description heavily would be trivially manipulable, so independent agreement carries more weight than assertion. A review platform aggregates many independent accounts, which is a strong signal by construction.