The First Ninety Days With An AI SEO Agency
2026.08.14 01:42
Month Two: Corrections and the First Rewrites The work should now be concentrated on the recurring sources from the baseline. Expect a list of listings claimed, details corrected and errors submitted, with names and dates attached.
Revisit the answers when the business changes rather than on a content schedule. Price changes, new capabilities and discontinued services all silently invalidate published answers, and an outdated answer stated confidently is worse than no answer at all, because it can be quoted back at you by an assistant that has no way of knowing it is stale.
One organisational habit makes this sustainable. Give the sales and support teams a single place to drop questions as they hear them, with no process attached beyond writing down the question in the customer's words. Anything more elaborate stops being used within a month, and a shared document with fifty verbatim questions in it is worth more than a formal intake process nobody completes.
This is the whole argument in one sentence, and it is why the audit is worth running even if you intend to do nothing with the findings for six months. The measurement is cheap. Reconstructing a baseline you never took is impossible.
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.
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.
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.
It does not contain a return on investment figure calculated from an assumed conversion rate applied to an estimated mention volume. That calculation looks rigorous and is a chain of guesses, and it will not survive the first person who asks where the first number came from.
The same applies to limitations. Stating plainly what you do not do, what size of job you decline and which situations suit a competitor produces the constraint statements that models lift as impartial facts.
How to Tell If It Is Working Ask an assistant directly who your company is, in a signed out session, and read what comes back. You are checking three things: whether the facts are right, whether it hedges, and whether it confuses you with anybody.
This frequently produces the first result of the engagement, because access failures are total and fixing them can change answers within days. It should also be short. A fifty page technical audit at this stage is usually padding drawn from a generic template.
Ask How They Price It Retainers dominate this field and mostly make sense, because the work is continuous and the third party portion is slow. What matters is what the retainer covers and whether the scope is written down in units you can count.
The Cheapest Fixes Have a Deadline That Already Passed Audits routinely surface mechanical problems that have been quietly costing visibility for months. Crawlers blocked in robots.txt. A bot management product returning challenges to legitimate retrieval agents. Key content rendering only after Javascript executes. Specifications trapped in a PDF.
There is a defensible way to measure this. It produces less certainty than a paid media report and considerably more than a visibility score, and it has the advantage of surviving scrutiny. answer engine optimization
This is the pattern search followed, and there is no obvious reason for it to play out differently here. The advantage of early movement is not that the channel is large yet, it is that the positions are cheap.
It is also worth doing while your category is boring. An audit run during a period of stability produces a clean baseline. One run in the middle of a competitor's campaign or immediately after a site migration measures the disruption rather than the position, and you will not know which you have unless you took the earlier reading.
Then listen for language. When prospects begin describing your business using phrasing you did not write and your competitors do not use, that phrasing came from somewhere, and generated answers are an increasingly likely source. It is anecdotal, it is not a number, and it is often the earliest indication that anything is working.
Then ask it to name your leadership, your location and what you sell. Wrong answers here point at specific sources you can go and correct, which makes this one of the few diagnostics in the field that hands you a task list directly.
How to Run the Ninety Day Review Ask three questions. Can you show me the prompt set is unchanged. Can you show me the raw answers. What specifically did you do, and which of the changes do you believe caused which movement.
Revisit the answers when the business changes rather than on a content schedule. Price changes, new capabilities and discontinued services all silently invalidate published answers, and an outdated answer stated confidently is worse than no answer at all, because it can be quoted back at you by an assistant that has no way of knowing it is stale.
One organisational habit makes this sustainable. Give the sales and support teams a single place to drop questions as they hear them, with no process attached beyond writing down the question in the customer's words. Anything more elaborate stops being used within a month, and a shared document with fifty verbatim questions in it is worth more than a formal intake process nobody completes.
This is the whole argument in one sentence, and it is why the audit is worth running even if you intend to do nothing with the findings for six months. The measurement is cheap. Reconstructing a baseline you never took is impossible.
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.
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.
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.
It does not contain a return on investment figure calculated from an assumed conversion rate applied to an estimated mention volume. That calculation looks rigorous and is a chain of guesses, and it will not survive the first person who asks where the first number came from.
The same applies to limitations. Stating plainly what you do not do, what size of job you decline and which situations suit a competitor produces the constraint statements that models lift as impartial facts.
How to Tell If It Is Working Ask an assistant directly who your company is, in a signed out session, and read what comes back. You are checking three things: whether the facts are right, whether it hedges, and whether it confuses you with anybody.
This frequently produces the first result of the engagement, because access failures are total and fixing them can change answers within days. It should also be short. A fifty page technical audit at this stage is usually padding drawn from a generic template.
Ask How They Price It Retainers dominate this field and mostly make sense, because the work is continuous and the third party portion is slow. What matters is what the retainer covers and whether the scope is written down in units you can count.
The Cheapest Fixes Have a Deadline That Already Passed Audits routinely surface mechanical problems that have been quietly costing visibility for months. Crawlers blocked in robots.txt. A bot management product returning challenges to legitimate retrieval agents. Key content rendering only after Javascript executes. Specifications trapped in a PDF.
There is a defensible way to measure this. It produces less certainty than a paid media report and considerably more than a visibility score, and it has the advantage of surviving scrutiny. answer engine optimization
This is the pattern search followed, and there is no obvious reason for it to play out differently here. The advantage of early movement is not that the channel is large yet, it is that the positions are cheap.
It is also worth doing while your category is boring. An audit run during a period of stability produces a clean baseline. One run in the middle of a competitor's campaign or immediately after a site migration measures the disruption rather than the position, and you will not know which you have unless you took the earlier reading.
Then listen for language. When prospects begin describing your business using phrasing you did not write and your competitors do not use, that phrasing came from somewhere, and generated answers are an increasingly likely source. It is anecdotal, it is not a number, and it is often the earliest indication that anything is working.
Then ask it to name your leadership, your location and what you sell. Wrong answers here point at specific sources you can go and correct, which makes this one of the few diagnostics in the field that hands you a task list directly.
How to Run the Ninety Day Review Ask three questions. Can you show me the prompt set is unchanged. Can you show me the raw answers. What specifically did you do, and which of the changes do you believe caused which movement.
