Get inbound leads fromChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and ClaudeChatGPTGeminiPerplexityClaude

Good SEO and good GEO are largely the same work. The goal differs: SEO aims to rank a page in a list of links, GEO aims to get your brand cited inside the answer itself. But the inputs are shared. Original research, real topical authority, clean technical architecture, and content that answers what buyers are actually asking all matter to both.

Three things genuinely change. AI systems weigh unlinked brand mentions and entity clarity more heavily than backlinks. They fan out a single question into many sub-queries, so your visibility depends on sources beyond your own site, from industry publications to the communities your buyers read. And they need one consistent version of the facts about your business across every surface, which is why we build a single source of truth before anything else.

What hasn't changed is that thin, keyword-stuffed pages fail in both. Anyone selling GEO as a replacement for SEO is usually selling a tool.

Usually not, though you don't have to decide that on day one. Our scope covers the technical, content and authority work an SEO retainer covers, plus the parts it doesn't: keeping one consistent version of the facts about your business across every surface, and earning placement in the external sources AI systems pull from when they break a question into sub-queries.

Most clients start with their existing vendor still in place. Within the first month they can see the overlap for themselves and consolidate onto one retainer rather than paying twice. Some keep both, and we'll work alongside an incumbent where there's a reason to.

We work directly with heads of growth, heads of marketing, or founders. The opening diagnostic makes the overlap visible either way, so it's a decision you make on evidence rather than one we argue you into.

We baseline your AI visibility before we start, then report against it monthly. Google Search Console now reports impressions inside AI Overviews and AI Mode as a dedicated view, and Bing Webmaster Tools reports Copilot and AI summary performance. We combine those with prompt-level tracking across the engines your buyers actually use, plus on-site behaviour data, so you can see which pages are earning citations and which are not.

The baseline matters more than any single metric. Without a before-picture, month three is just a number with nothing to compare it to.

We'll also be straight about the limits. Google's own AI surfaces are now directly measurable. Traffic from ChatGPT, Perplexity and Claude often lands in analytics as direct, so for those we report citation presence and share of voice against your named competitors rather than claiming a clean click-to-lead trail. Anyone promising exact attribution across every AI surface is describing something the platforms don't currently expose.

Most clients see visible movement within 30 days. The first month is front-loaded with work that changes how AI systems read you: strengthening technical architecture, unifying your information into a single source of truth, closing content gaps, and publishing against the high-intent queries your buyers actually ask. Those are structural fixes, and structural fixes move fastest.

Starting position sets the pace. A brand with an established site and reasonable technical health moves inside a month. One starting from close to nothing takes longer. Our slowest case was a real estate client with no digital footprint at all, not even a Google Business Profile, and that took 90 days to show traction. From there it compounds, because authority and external citations build on each other rather than resetting monthly.

Speed also depends on you. We need accurate information, access to help us extract original data, fast approvals, and clear communication. Clients who turn drafts around in days rather than weeks see results proportionally sooner.

Plans are $4,500, $6,500 and $10,000 a month, billed at the start of each month, with no lock-in. The difference is reach rather than access: the complete technical program, the rewrites, the audit and the reporting are on every plan. What changes is how many content pieces get published (ten, fifteen or twenty-five), how many surfaces each one exists on, and how much of the community work we run. The services page sets out the arithmetic. Above the three sits Enterprise, for groups running several brands, markets or legal entities at once, quoted on application.

Before any of that, the AI visibility audit is free to anyone who asks for it, client or not. It is not conditional on a call going well and there is nothing attached to it.

Eight things are standard on every plan, not just the reporting: the complete technical work, your existing pages rewritten, the FAQ work, the free audit, a dated benchmark report, measurement built on first-party data, monthly reporting in full, and Reddit participation under your name. We don't gate any of that behind a tier, because without a baseline none of the rest is provable. Digital PR and citation-source outreach are quoted separately.

Every engagement is month to month. No minimum term, no exit clause. If the work isn't showing up in your reporting, you stop, and we'd rather earn the next month than hold you to a contract. What we ask instead is ninety days before you judge it: the technical foundation lands in the first month and the content compounds after that, so one month is not a fair test of work that builds.

We work with brands where the buyer researches before they commit: D2C and ecommerce, B2B from technology through manufacturing, SaaS, and property developers. Those are the categories where someone asks an AI to compare options before they ever reach a website, which is where the work pays off hardest. We take clients outside these verticals when the buying pattern fits.

The method is the same across all four. What changes is which queries matter, which external sources AI systems pull from in that category, and who you're being compared against.