Every question we get asked

We audit every page for crawlability, AI-readiness, and citation potential. Our team then fixes whatever is holding you back, before it costs you visibility.

We turn GEO recommendations into shipped fixes and content, on your site, so citations grow without your team writing a single brief.

We track every domain and page the engines cite in your category, including Reddit, YouTube, review sites, and the press. Then we go and build your presence where it counts, as part of the engagement itself.

We measure your share of voice against every named competitor across every major AI engine, down to how early in the answer each of you appears. Then we show you exactly where you are losing ground, with a plan to close it.

You get a clear before-and-after view of mentions, citations, and position over time, with every movement tied to the work we shipped that month, so the number arrives already explained.

We research the questions your market asks, cluster them, and build the content that becomes the answer before your competitors get there. For large companies we also track how those questions and answers shift over time.

Managed GEO starts at $990 a month, and the final retainer is scoped after your free audit: how many buyer questions we track, how many competitors, how many markets, and how much content the roadmap calls for. There are no seat, credit, or per-prompt charges on top; the retainer covers the team and the platform.

No. There is no self-serve tier and we do not price by the seat, because what you are buying is a team that writes and ships the work, not a login. Both engagements start with a free AI visibility audit, and nothing is billed until you approve a proposal.

Nothing. It runs our 21 GEO checks on the pages that matter for your brand, alongside a first read of what the engines already say about you and who they name instead, and we walk you through both on a call. No card, no commitment, and the findings are yours whether or not we work together.

Per engagement, as a retainer or a project, quoted after the same free audit of the properties and markets you name. The number follows how many brands, markets, and personas we track, how often the trend briefings land, and how much strategist time the roadmap needs. We quote in quarters, because that is the unit the work moves in.

Managed GEO is a monthly retainer with no long lock-in: the notice period is set in the proposal you approve, and nothing is billed until that is signed. Give it a fair run, though, because fixes are recrawled in weeks and visibility compounds over months.

Your website, what you sell, who buys it, and the questions you wish AI answered with your name. If a competitor comes to mind, name them. We take it from there.

Yes. We run it before any engagement and walk you through the findings on a call. No card, no commitment. The findings are yours whether or not we work together.

Managed GEO starts at $990 a month, scoped after the audit. If the audit shows you do not need it yet, we will say so.

Yes. We work with clients worldwide, in English. The AI engines answer the same way everywhere, and we track the questions in the markets you sell to.

At onboarding we read your site and propose fifteen unbranded, evergreen questions, five for each buying stage, then go through them with you. After that, new prompts come from Prompt Research, which starts from keywords or URLs and real search demand, or from your team when a question comes up in sales or support. A person reviews every prompt before it is tracked.

Yes. Detection runs once per answer for your brand and every competitor in the workspace, using each brand’s name variants and owned domains. That is where share of voice and the competitor rate come from. Add a competitor later and the answers already collected are re-read for it.

Yes. Add one in the app, or through the MCP server if your team uses AI agents, set its country, and give it tags and a persona. Active prompts count against your workspace’s allowance; archived prompts do not. Keep it unbranded: a prompt that names you cannot fail to mention you, so it cannot measure anything.

Because every metric reads the prompt’s text and country live. If you reworded it, every answer already collected would be reported as if it had always been about the new wording, and the trend would lie. Instead you replace it: the original is archived with its history, and a successor starts fresh with the same tags, persona, and topic volume.

How early your first mention appears in an answer, scored from 0 to 100, where 100 is the very first words. Because it is averaged over the answers that name you, an answer with no mention lowers your mention rate rather than your position. It is not a ranking against competitors; the Position Quality report shows who tends to be mentioned first.

At onboarding we ask a research agent with web access for eight competitors, each with a verified live website, and a clean-up pass removes duplicates, comparison phrasing, and any entry that is really you. You and our strategist edit that list before the first run: rename, add aliases, add or remove brands. After that we add competitors as they surface in the reports.

Not by name. Detection matches the aliases and owned domains of the brands in your list, so a brand the platform was never told about is not counted. The closest signal is the Third-party tag on cited domains and business profiles, which marks a source that is neither yours nor a tracked competitor. When one keeps appearing, we add it as a competitor and re-scan every past answer.

Visibility, or mention rate, is the share of collected answers that name you at least once. Share of voice is your share of all brand mentions, yours and your competitors together, counted per occurrence. If competitors are named more often than you are, visibility can rise while share of voice falls. Both are in the report because they answer different questions.

The Competitor Movers card compares the current window with the equal-length window before it and ranks every competitor by the change in share points. Grew and shrank mean what they say. New is a competitor with no mentions last period, and Dropped is one that had mentions last period and none now. Rows with too few observations are dimmed, and your own brand is shown on its own rather than ranked with the rest.

No. Detection is matching, not sentiment analysis: it finds aliases at word boundaries and owned domains in the text and the citations, and records how often and how early. It does not judge whether a mention is a recommendation, a comparison, or a complaint. For that our team opens the answers themselves, which are stored in full with every mention highlighted.

No. It works from the source URLs that AI answers cite for the prompts we track for you, keeping the ones that belong to a social network. Account access, feeds, hashtags, likes, upvotes, views, and follower counts all sit outside that. A page earns its row only by being cited in an AI answer, however popular it is.

Reddit, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn, and X, matched on each network’s own hosts and their subdomains. Shortened links such as lnkd.in, t.co, and redd.it stay out of the count, and communities outside those seven, such as Quora or Medium, land in the general citation tables. A network that picked up no citations in the window still shows, as a 0% line.

Because the engines cite them. When ChatGPT or Perplexity answers a comparison question, it often points to a thread where real users describe what they use and why, and treats that thread as evidence. If the thread it leans on never mentions you, the answer is unlikely to either. Social Monitoring shows which threads carry that weight for your prompts, so the work goes where the engines are already looking.

Yes, and that is the point of the ranking. In Managed GEO our team works the list: a useful reply in the thread, an outreach to the creator whose video keeps getting cited, or a comparison page that gives the engine a better source. GEO Consulting & Trends hands your PR and community teams the same list with the numbers behind it. The Mentioned column then shows whether the answers citing that page started naming you.

Answers citing this page that also mention your brand. Answers is the number of distinct AI answers that cited the page in the window; Mentioned is how many of those named you anywhere in the answer, matched on your brand’s aliases and owned domains. The counting happens at the level of the answer, so mentions inside the thread itself, and any sentiment around them, stay out of the number. Open the row to see each answer tagged brand mentioned or brand not mentioned.

Yes. Any member of your account can create a report, name it, file it in a folder, star it, and set its filters. Your strategist does the same for the views used on the monthly call. What nobody can do is choose which metrics it contains: every report renders the same 24, so any two reports are comparable.

No. There is no PDF, CSV, or image export, no public link, and no scheduled email. You share a report by sending its URL to someone with a login to your account. For stakeholders who do not log in, the written monthly report from our team is the document.

Every change compares the current window with the window of the same length immediately before it: a 30-day report against the 30 days prior, and you cannot pick a different one. Movers rank on each window's share of its total, in percentage points, so a period with more answers does not read as growth. When either window has too little data, the delta shows a dash rather than zero.

If they have a login to your account, send the URL. It reproduces the filters, the tab, and any open drill-down, so they see exactly what you see. If they do not log in, the monthly call and the written monthly report from our team are how the numbers reach them.

Your prompts run once a day, and only completed runs inside the window count. A report's metrics are cached for six hours per filter combination, and the cache is cleared when a new run lands, so a report is at most a few hours behind the last daily run. It is daily data, not a live feed.

You do, with us. The platform never suggests a persona, generates one, or assigns it for you; each is a name, a colour, and a description your team and ours agree on. In Managed GEO we set them during onboarding; in GEO Consulting & Trends they follow your ICPs or buying committee. Add one, rename it, or rewrite its description from the Personas page whenever you like, and we can do the same.

No. A prompt has at most one persona, and setting a new one replaces the old. That is deliberate: it keeps every answer in exactly one segment, so the lines never overlap. If two audiences ask the same thing, track it as two prompts, each worded the way that audience would ask it. Tags are the other option for the overlap, since a prompt can carry many of them.

Its whole history moves. The persona is read from the prompt when the card is computed, so every answer that prompt ever collected is counted under the new segment, back to the start of the window. Metrics are cached, so the card can take a moment to catch up. Deleting a persona keeps its prompts and moves their answers to Unassigned, which is why we treat a deletion as a decision rather than a tidy-up.

Not on this card, which splits your own mention rate. To see competitors for one segment, apply that persona as a filter on the report and read Share of Voice and Position Quality for its prompts alone; the persona filter works on every metric. That is what we do in the monthly report for the segment you are losing.

As many as you have buyers who ask different questions, which for most clients is two to five. The count is not limited, but prompts are, and each one runs daily on every engine. Give a persona enough prompts that its rate moves on real change rather than on a single answer; ten is a sensible floor. A persona with no answers in the window drops off the card until it has some.

No. A routine writes one draft per run and stops there. A person approves or rejects every article, and approval only locks the text and marks it ready to publish. The platform has no CMS connection. In Managed GEO our team publishes approved articles on your site as part of the engagement.

Whoever holds the review queue. In Managed GEO that is our strategists, who edit, approve, and publish on your behalf. In GEO Consulting & Trends your own content team approves, working from the brand voice and standing instructions we set on each routine. Every approval and rejection is recorded with the name of the person who made it.

From your tracking rather than a keyword list. Each run scores the prompts its filters allow, keeps those with at least five AI answers in the window, drops any this routine already covered, and applies the strategy you chose: lowest mention rate, largest competitor gap, or lowest position score. Ties go to the prompt with more competitor mentions, then the one with more search volume.

The writer works from a brand voice you describe in your own words on the routine, plus standing instructions such as claims to avoid, a call to action, or sections you always want. If you already publish articles, the platform can draft that voice from their URLs. A reviser then checks the draft against the brief and our rules against machine-sounding prose, and you can still edit by hand or send it back with an instruction.

At most one per run, so a weekly routine yields up to four or five a month and a daily one up to thirty. Runs skip when no prompt qualifies, which is normal, so the real count depends on how many tracked prompts sit inside the routine’s window with enough answers. Accounts start with three routines, and we size that to the engagement.

Yes. Reject asks for a reason, which stays on the article, and the decision is final: a rejected article cannot be edited or approved later. That releases the prompt it was written for, so a later run can pick it up again and start over with fresh research.

It is the core of it. The free audit runs these 21 checks on the pages that matter for your brand, alongside a first read of what the engines already say about you, and we walk you through both. Under an engagement it keeps running on every page we touch, before the fix and after it.

No. One audit is one URL: the page itself, plus robots.txt, llms.txt, and sitemap.xml from the site root. Our team runs it on the pages that matter and on the templates behind them, since a template fix carries to every page built on it.

A plain text file at the root of your site, like robots.txt, that tells AI assistants what the site is and which pages matter. The audit checks that it exists, that it is not an HTML error page in disguise, and that it starts with a top-level heading so it parses. A missing file fails; a file without a heading warns.

Twenty, by the tokens they announce in robots.txt: GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, and OAI-SearchBot; ClaudeBot and anthropic-ai; PerplexityBot; Google-Extended and GoogleOther; Bytespider; CCBot; Applebot-Extended; Meta-ExternalAgent and Meta-ExternalFetcher; GrokBot; cohere-ai; Diffbot; and a few smaller ones. The verdict is per crawler, for the audited path.

80 or above is green. Every scored check weighs the same, so the fastest route up is the failed checks, whatever category they sit in. Three of the 21 checks look for Eleva’s own OKF bundle, so a site that does not publish one tops out at 86, and that is fine. The score is a readiness check, not a ranking.

In Managed GEO, yes: robots rules, headings, structure, llms.txt, and the content gaps, all shipped by our team and confirmed by a re-run. Under GEO Consulting & Trends your engineers do the shipping, and we hand them the prioritised list with the check names on it so they can verify each fix in the same tool.

No, and it does not replace it. SEO earns you a rank in a list of links; GEO earns you a place in an answer that only names a few. They share a foundation, a site the crawlers can read and pages that say something specific, so the fixes we ship help your Google rankings too. If your SEO agency is doing good work, we work alongside them.

Technical fixes first: crawler access, text that is in the page rather than loaded by scripts, and the files AI engines read to find their way around your site. Then content: service and location pages rewritten to say what you do, where, and for whom, plus new pages that answer the questions people in your area ask. We make the changes on your site ourselves, so the to-do list stays with us.

Nobody honest gives you a date, and the parts move at different speeds. The site fixes go live in the first weeks and get recrawled soon after. The service, location, and question pages we publish have to be found and read before an engine will quote them, which takes longer. The slowest part is the one we do not control: the directories, review sites, and local threads the engines lean on for your trade update only on their own schedule. From the first month you watch your mention rate for your city move engine by engine, beside the list of what we shipped.

The platform asks the engines your customers’ questions every day, for your city, and records every answer. From that we measure your mention rate, your share of voice against the businesses the engines name instead of you, how early in the answer you appear, and which sources the engines cited. We record Google AI Mode’s local pack business by business, with ratings and review counts. That is the report you get each month.

You give us one onboarding call, access to your website and analytics, and a yes on the plan we propose. After that, a monthly call. Managed GEO starts at $990 a month, and the final scope depends on how many questions and competitors we track, so it is set after the free audit.

A feed gets your products listed in product cards, but it does not make an engine recommend them. ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Mode decide what to name from the open web: your product pages, comparison and buying-guide content, review sites, Reddit, and YouTube. Keep the feed. The work here is making sure those sources say your name, and say it first.

Product and collection pages get a plain-text block the engines can quote: what the product is, who it is for, specs, sizing, and price outside of tabs and images, plus the questions shoppers ask. We fix crawler access if AI bots are blocked, and we publish buying guides and comparisons as pages on your domain. Everything ships through your CMS access after you approve the plan, and your theme and checkout stay untouched.

We will not give you a date, and anyone who does is guessing. The order is predictable, though: a product page we rewrite this month is recrawled within weeks, so “does it come in wide sizes” gets answered off your page instead of a guess. Getting named in “best under $150” takes a season, because the engines assemble that answer from reviews, threads, and guides they already trust and those have to accumulate. From week one you watch the mention rate and the cited sources move, which is a fairer thing to hold us to than a promise.

Neither. Ranking on Google and being named in an AI answer are different jobs with different measures, so this one runs alongside your SEO, and alongside your paid social too. What it adds is the unpaid, high-intent recommendation you currently have no way to win, plus a number to hold up against the CAC you are paying.

Managed GEO starts at $990 a month, scoped after a free audit of your store. What we need from you: one onboarding call, CMS and analytics access, approval of the roadmap and of each article before it publishes, and a monthly call. Large retailers with in-house content teams usually take GEO Consulting & Trends instead, quoted per engagement.

No, and it does not replace them. SEO wins a position on a results page. This wins a mention inside an answer that has no results page. The overlap is real, since readable pages, clear structure, and crawler access help both, but what we track is different: how often ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity name you against the competitors you list, how early, and which sources they cite instead of you. The two can point in opposite directions in the same month, which is the reason to read both.

Yes, and they only work if they are honest. The engines quote comparison pages that read like documentation: what each product does, who it fits, what it costs, where each falls short. A page that declares you the winner on every row gets ignored, or quoted as marketing. We write the comparison a fair analyst would, with your product described accurately where it belongs, and your product marketer signs off on every claim before it ships.

Docs on a subdomain are fine: we register it as a property you own, so the engines’ citations of it count for you, and we audit it like any other URL. Hidden pricing is harder. An engine asked “what does it cost” answers anyway, from a directory listing, a two-year-old review, or a competitor’s comparison of you, and you do not get to correct it. We will push you to publish at least the shape of it: plans, what drives the price, a starting point.

The technical fixes land fast and the comparison pages take much longer. Once GPTBot is allowed in and your docs and pricing render as text, the next recrawl picks it up, and within weeks “what does it cost” and “does it integrate with X” get answered off your page instead of guessed. A comparison page takes a quarter or more, because an engine has to find it, see it hold up, and see other people reference it before it will quote it. Nobody can promise you a date on that second part. What you do get from week one is the daily runs, read against what shipped on the monthly call.

One onboarding call, CMS and analytics access, and a yes on the roadmap. After that, one call a month. Our team writes and ships the pages and the fixes. Nothing goes to your engineers as a ticket unless a change genuinely needs a deploy, and then it arrives specified. Your product marketer reviews comparison pages before they go live; we build that into the plan.

Managed GEO starts at $990 a month and is scoped after the free audit: how many buyer questions we track, how many competitors, how many markets, and how much content the plan needs. No seats, credits, or per-prompt charges. Larger companies with a content team in place usually buy GEO Consulting & Trends instead, quoted per engagement.

The ones the engines name for your questions, which are rarely the ones in your peer group. We run your program-level questions first and read who got named per market, then agree the competitor set with you: a few named rivals per program, plus anyone the engines keep naming that you had not considered. We measure share of voice, position score, and movers against that set, and it can change as the answers do.

Each question is tracked in one country, in that market’s language, and every report filters by country, so the international office reads its own answer rather than a global average. Today the platform runs questions in the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Greece. If a priority market of yours is not on that list, say so in the first call and we scope it before we quote.

One URL of each template: a program page, a department page, a catalog entry, a brochure, a news article, and the home page, on each host and subdomain that matters. The 21 checks find what the template gets wrong, which is what every page built from it gets wrong, and the roadmap fixes it once. We check crawler access per host, because the rule that blocks the engines is usually in one robots.txt that nobody in marketing has opened.

Your web team ships the template and crawler fixes, your content team or the department rewrites the program pages, and comms works the sources. The roadmap names the owner and the order, and the monthly briefing shows what moved once they shipped. If a bootcamp, a single-program provider, or one department wants the writing and the fixes done for it, that is Managed GEO, and it can run beside the consulting work.

The platform keeps every answer and every source it cited. A person on our team reads the answers for your questions, engine by engine, flags each claim that is wrong, outdated, or unfavorable, and traces it to the page the engine quoted. Usually that page is a stale third-party listing, or your own site saying the same thing three different ways. The roadmap fixes what you own and names the source to work on for the rest. We will not put a date on when an engine stops repeating it; you watch it change in the tracking.

Yes. GEO Consulting & Trends is quoted per engagement, and for a public body that usually means a project with a defined deliverable list: the audit of the templates and the files, a question set per service tracked for an agreed period, the accuracy read, the roadmap, and a set number of briefings. We are a small agency, so we will say plainly what we can take on and what we cannot. If your procurement needs a particular document format or a supplier registration, say so in the first message and we will work through it before we quote.

Nobody can edit an engine. We can take away the reasons it gets the fee wrong, which is what the roadmap does. The page with the current fee has to be reachable by the crawlers, state the figure in plain text rather than in a PDF or behind a portal, and be the page your sitemap and llms.txt point at. The old fee schedule has to be retired or redirected, because it is the source the answer cited. The accuracy read finds each wrong claim and its source, and the tracking rechecks the question daily once your team ships the fix. Engines recrawl on their own schedule, so we will not promise a date.

That is your decision, and we do not give legal advice on it. The audit gives you the fact base: which of the 20 AI crawlers we track are allowed in, per template, and what each of the five engines is citing for your services today. Residents ask either way; with a block in place, the answer about your permit process comes from a commercial guide and a news story instead of your page. One common choice is to allow the crawlers on the service pages and keep them off the rest. Whatever you decide goes into the roadmap, with an owner.

A person reads it. The platform records every answer to every tracked question, engine by engine, with the sources it cited, and a reviewer on our team goes through them with your service catalogue open. Each claim gets flagged as correct, outdated or wrong, and each flag is traced back to the source the answer cited. There is no automated accuracy score, and we do not think one would be honest. You get the list, and the tracking tells you when a fixed claim stops appearing.

Yes, as Managed GEO rather than consulting. The consulting engagement assumes there is a digital team and a communications team to execute the roadmap. Where there is not, we do the work ourselves: fix the crawler access and the templates, rewrite the service pages to state the fee, the steps, the documents and the deadline, publish them on your site, and track the questions daily. Managed GEO starts at $990 a month and is scoped after the free audit. It also fits a single agency inside a larger body that wants its own pages done.

Not in this engagement. You have content, SEO, PR, and web teams; the roadmap tells them what to change, why, and in what order, and the tracking shows what moved once they did. If a brand or business unit wants the writing and the fixes done for it, that is Managed GEO, and it can run alongside the consulting work.

As many as the engagement scopes. Each question is tracked in one country, in that market’s language, and reports filter by country, so every market is its own view. Today the platform runs prompts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Greece; if a priority market of yours is not on that list, say so in the first call and we scope it before we quote.

What changed since the previous window, per market: competitors that gained or lost share of voice, sources the engines started or stopped citing, questions that are new or growing, and platforms that moved. Every signal comes with a recommendation and an owner. Your strategist writes it from the same reports your teams can open, and walks leadership through it.

Every team you name gets a login. Reports are saved per market and per team, a link opens the exact view down to the drill-down, and the platform exposes an MCP endpoint so your own AI agents can query the same data. Access starts in the first weeks, as soon as the question set has run long enough to compare one window with the one before.

It starts with a free audit of the properties and markets you name. From there we quote a retainer or a project: the number of brands, markets, and personas to track, the briefing cadence, and how much strategist time the roadmap needs. We quote in quarters because that is the unit the work moves in. A page your web team unblocks this month reaches the crawlers weeks later. A source your PR team earns in the US can take a full briefing cycle to show up in the UK answer, and may never show up in the Brazilian one. We will not put a date on any of it; each quarter is read against what your teams shipped.

SEO earns a position on a results page. GEO earns a citation inside a generated answer. The engines read the same site, but they pick sources differently: a direct answer in the first paragraph, first-hand detail, freshness, and access for their crawlers count for more than link equity. Most of what you ship for SEO still helps. GEO adds the measurement your stack does not have: mention rate, citations, and share of voice per engine, plus the fixes and content that move them.

No. Nothing we recommend trades a ranking for a citation. The audit fixes are things Google rewards anyway: server-rendered content, clean canonicals, a heading hierarchy, crawler access. The drafts answer a question your buyers ask and go through your editors, so they slot into the calendar and clusters you already run. Anything that touches a template you own waits for your review before it ships.

Usually a few, not all. The audit runs on one URL per template, so you see which template fails which check: a blog template rendering client-side, a product template with no meta description, a robots.txt rule blocking two crawlers site-wide. The fix list is written per template for your platform team, and the same URL is audited again after the fix ships, so a check flipping from fail to pass is the proof the work landed. Whether an engine then starts citing that template is a separate question, and the daily runs answer it in their own time rather than on a date we invented.

The report your CMO is asking for: mention rate and citation rate per engine, share of voice against named competitors, position in the answer, and the prompts, competitors, and sources that moved since last month, each tied to the work shipped. It sits beside rankings and traffic in the same deck. We walk through it on a monthly call, and it is a saved view on the platform your team can open any day.

Yes, that is who they are for. Every draft arrives with the prompt it answers, a brief that says what the current answers are missing, verified sources, and a short FAQ. Your editors approve it, send it back to the agent with an instruction, or reject it with a reason. Nothing publishes by itself. The drafts follow the brand voice and standing instructions you set, and an approved draft is yours to publish in your CMS.

Not directly, and nobody can. Engines build the description from the sources they retrieve, so the work is changing the sources: your pages stating the positioning plainly, comparison and use-case content that answers the questions buyers ask, and presence on the third-party pages the engines cite. We show you which ones each engine leans on, and the description follows them.

Unevenly, and never on a date we can promise you. The rewrite has to be recrawled first, and that alone takes weeks. After that the engines separate: the one that reads your site often starts quoting your sentence, while another repeats a two-year-old review because nothing better exists for it to lift, and a competitor’s comparison page keeps winning the “vs” prompts until yours is published. What we can tell you is which engine changed, on which prompt, on which day, because we ran that question that day. A claim that is still missing from every engine after a quarter is usually a claim no page of yours states plainly enough to quote.

Every tracked prompt belongs to one persona, so the answers split cleanly by role: the questions an economic buyer asks, the ones a champion asks, the ones an admin asks. The mention rate per persona shows where you are shortlisted and where you are absent, and every other view, share of voice included, can be filtered to a single persona. You define the personas with us at the start, rather than leaving a model to guess them.

No. It is the feedback loop that work never had. You still own the positioning; we tell you how much of it survives contact with the engines, which claims they repeat, which they drop, and whose framing they use instead. Most teams end up changing the pages, not the positioning.

A report and a call. The report shows what moved since the previous period: prompts where you gained or lost visibility, competitors who rose or fell, sources the engines started or stopped citing, all sliceable by engine and persona. On the call we tie each movement to a cause and agree the next changes for your team. If you are on Managed GEO, we ship those changes too.

No. Media monitoring tells you where you were mentioned. We tell you what ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and the rest say when someone asks about you, which sources they built that answer from, and how both change over time. Most clients keep their monitoring tool and use us for the layer it cannot see.

It depends on the engine and on where the story ran. Engines that search the web can cite a piece within days of publication; others lean on what they were trained on and take longer. We run your questions every day, so you see the first engine to pick a story up, from which outlet, and how the framing spreads from there. We do not promise a timeline.

Not by asking. An engine cites what it trusts, and a story stays in the answers as long as the sources carrying it are the strongest ones available. What works is giving the engines something better to cite: a newsroom page that addresses it directly, newer coverage, and answered threads. We track which sources still carry the old story and whether the new ones are replacing them. Expect months, not days.

Different ones per engine, per question, and per month, which is why we measure instead of guessing. Across most categories the engines lean on a mix of news outlets, Reddit, YouTube, review sites, Wikipedia, and the company’s own pages. The exact list for your questions is in your report, ranked and tagged, with the change since the last period.

It gives them a target list. The briefing names the outlets the engines cite in your category, the threads that need a reply, and the pages your newsroom is missing. Your agency pitches and places as it always has, and we measure whether the placements changed the answer. That replaces nobody; it gives the work a scoreboard.

Yes. Each client’s monthly report is built for you to present under your account management: what moved, what we shipped, and what comes next. We brief you before the call, or join it as your GEO team, whichever you prefer. The client’s workspace stays yours to open at any time in between.

Yes. Managed GEO is scoped one client brand at a time, so a consultant with one client gets the same engagement as an agency with thirty: a retainer per client brand, a workspace, a monthly report, and a strategist on our side. The client relationship stays yours, and we do the delivery behind it. When the next client signs, you add a workspace and keep the same login.

You do, unless you want us to. You keep the relationship and the account management; we work behind it. One strategist covers all of your client accounts, briefs you monthly, and is on hand when a client asks something you want answered precisely. If you would rather we join a client call, we join it.

Then GEO Consulting & Trends is the fit. We audit the client’s site, build the roadmap, and keep the daily tracking running; you or your team ship the fixes and the content, and we report on what moved. Some agencies run both: Managed GEO for the clients they have no capacity for, consulting where they do. So can a consultant who writes their own content.

Managed GEO starts at $990 a month per client brand. The final retainer is scoped after that client’s free audit, based on the size of the site and how much content the roadmap calls for. There is no per-seat or per-prompt metering; the retainer covers the team and the platform. GEO Consulting & Trends is quoted per engagement.

Four things. One onboarding call, so we learn the business and the buyers. Access to your CMS and analytics, so we can ship without waiting on you. A yes on the roadmap after the audit. Then one call a month. Everything else, the writing included, is ours.

Every tracked question runs every day across every engine, and every fix and article we ship is dated. The monthly report puts the two side by side: what changed on your site, and what changed in the answers, as mention rate, citations, share of voice, and position against the competitors the engines name. You can log in on any day and see the same numbers we do.

Partly, and you are right to ask. Some of what is sold as GEO is SEO renamed by people who wanted a new retainer, so make anyone selling it tell you what they ship. The part that is not a rename: an AI engine picks a handful of sources per answer and there is no page two, so the job is qualifying as one of them, getting cited, and being named early. Both jobs want a site engines can read and content worth citing, so your existing SEO keeps working and most of what we ship helps it too.

Keep them if they are shipping. We often work alongside an SEO or web agency: we bring the audit and the roadmap and track the answers every day, and either they ship the fixes or we do. If the retainer you have is a dashboard and a deck, the free audit will show you what it has and has not changed.

Yes. It is a monthly retainer with no long lock-in: the notice period is set in the proposal you approve, and nothing is billed until that is signed. Give it a fair run, though, because fixes are recrawled in weeks and visibility compounds over months.

No, and nobody can. An engine assembles its answer from the sources it trusts, and it decides which those are. We show you how each engine frames your issue today, which sources shape that frame, and where your evidence is missing. The work after that is publishing your positions and evidence in a form the engines can cite, and briefing the sources they already lean on. When an answer changes, it is because a better source exists, and the daily runs show you which one.

Usually because it is a PDF. Engines that search the web prefer an HTML page that states the point in its first paragraph, with a heading structure they can parse and a date they can read. A scanned filing or a 40-page report with the finding on page 23 rarely gets quoted, even when it is the best evidence available. The audit checks whether your site can be crawled and read at all, and the roadmap turns each position into a page the engines can cite, with the PDF linked underneath.

Yes. We track the organisations the answers name beside yours, whether allies, opponents, or a rival think tank, as a named set, so you see their mention rate, how early they appear, and which of their pages get cited, next to yours. Their explainer ranking above your position statement is usually one of the first things the sources table shows. We report what the engines say about them; we do not write anything about them.

Probably as Managed GEO rather than consulting. The tracking and the monthly read are the same. The difference is that our team builds and publishes the position pages, fixes the site, and writes the explainers, with you approving every draft before it goes live. It starts at US$990 a month, scoped after the free audit. If you have a comms team that can publish, the consulting engagement hands them the roadmap instead.

We will not give you a date, because the parts move at different speeds. A position page can be crawled within weeks, and an engine that searches the web can cite it soon after. Engines that rely more on what they were trained on take longer. The slowest part is the sources you do not own. A news explainer, a reference article, or a regulator’s page updates on its own schedule. From the first month you watch each question, engine by engine and market by market, beside the list of what your teams published.

Usually one of three things, and the audit tells you which. Either the engine cannot read your site, because a crawler is blocked or the text arrives by script. Or it reads the site and finds nothing worth quoting, because no page says plainly what you sell, for whom, and at what price. Or the answer is built from sources you are not in, so nothing corroborates you while two review sites and a Reddit thread corroborate the competitor. The daily runs add which prompts you lose and which sources each answer cites.

Often, yes. Which ones depends on your category, and the cited-domains table shows what the engines lean on for your prompts: in one category it is two review sites and a trade publication, in another it is Reddit, YouTube, and a directory. The roadmap names the profiles to complete, the threads to answer, and the listings to claim, ranked by how often the answers cite them. Your own site still matters most. It is the one source you control, and it has to state the facts the others repeat.

Not automatically. ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, and Google AI Mode retrieve from different indexes, lean on different sources, and change on their own schedules. A brand can be named in most Perplexity answers and absent from Gemini for the same prompt. That is why the tracking runs per engine and per market, and why the report shows mention rate and position score for each one. The site fixes help everywhere at once. The source work tends to land on one engine more than another, and the runs show where each piece of it lands.

The audit score, because the site fixes ship in the first weeks and we check the same URL again once they do. Then, as the engines recrawl, the prompts where the missing piece was a readable page start to name you. New comparison and buying-guide pages take longer, since they have to be found and read before an engine quotes them. The slowest part is the third-party sources, which update on their own schedule. We do not promise a date for any of it. From the first month you watch the mention rate per engine beside the list of what shipped.

Both run the same five steps. Managed GEO is for a small or medium business that wants the work done: we fix the site, write and publish the pages, work through the sources with you, and track daily, from $990 a month after the free audit. GEO Consulting & Trends is for a large company with its own web, content, and PR teams: we research, audit, build the roadmap per market, track daily, and brief you monthly, and your teams execute. The free audit is the same in both cases, and the first call is where we say which one fits.

Usually because the answer was never built from the page you updated. The engine cited an old URL that still resolves, or a directory listing, or a comparison page somebody else wrote, and that source still says the old number. Sometimes the model is not looking anything up and is answering from what it memorised in training, which only changes when the model is retrained. The cited-sources table for the prompt shows which of these you have. An old URL of yours gets a redirect and a rewrite, a listing gets a request, and the rest gets a new page that answers the question better than the stale one.

Then the fix is a plan rather than an edit, and it is slower. If the source has someone we can write to, a directory or a review site or a publication, we send them the correction with the facts and a page of yours that states them. If it is a thread, you or we answer it, plainly and with your name on it. Either way we also publish the page that answers the exact question better than the stale source does, because the engines cite the clearest current answer they can find. A competitor’s comparison page is not going to change, but the page that outranks it in the answer can.

No. The platform records every answer for your tracked prompts, every day, on every engine, with the sources each one cited. A person on our team reads those answers and logs what is wrong, outdated, incomplete, or unfavourable, because deciding that a price is stale or a framing is unfair takes someone who knows your business. What the platform does on its own is keep the record: the same prompt, asked the same way every day, so the log shows the day the wording changed.

The fix is the same, because the engines read the same web: your pages, the listings, the threads, the comparisons. What differs is how quickly each one picks up the change and which sources it prefers. Perplexity and Google AI Mode look things up on every answer, so they tend to move first once a page is recrawled. ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot mix live lookup with what the model already holds, and a memorised claim can outlast a fixed page. The daily record shows each engine separately, so you know which ones have dropped the claim and which still need a push, usually through a source that engine favours.

Because the prompts that surfaced it keep running every day, and each answer is kept in full. The accuracy log records the day the wording changed for each engine and each country, so you see that Perplexity dropped the old price in week two, Gemini in week four, and Copilot has not yet. Nobody promises a date, because the engines update on their own schedules and a memorised answer waits for a retrain. What you get instead is the record: what each engine said yesterday, what it says today, and the list of what shipped in between.

No. The free audit comes first, and every engagement starts with it: it checks whether AI crawlers can read your site and what your pages give them, and takes a first look at where you land in the answers against competitors. The accuracy audit is the second half, and it comes with a scoped engagement. It adds a question set per market, daily runs on every major AI engine, and a person reading the recorded answers claim by claim. It is the first deliverable of both Managed GEO and GEO Consulting & Trends, and we plan the rest of the engagement from its report.

The recording is. The reading is not. The platform runs each prompt once a day on ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, and Google AI Mode, and keeps the full answer, every cited source, and which brands it named and how early. It does not judge whether a claim is true, and we have not met a tool that can. A person on our team reads the recorded answers, logs each claim about you with its status, engine, market, and source, and writes the report. That takes longer than a score would, and it is the only version we would put our name on.

Because one answer is one draw. Ask the same engine the same question twice and you can get a different list of brands, or a different price cited to a different source. A screenshot from one person’s account tells you what that person saw that day. The audit reads every recorded answer for the window, usually the first weeks of tracking, so each claim is logged with how often it appeared and on which days. A wrong claim that turns up in most runs goes to the top of the fix list; one that appeared once gets noted and watched.

A statement about you that is not true today: a wrong price, a wrong owner, a product you discontinued, a location you closed, a person who left, a feature you do not have, or a competitor’s product attributed to you. We log those separately from outdated claims, which were true once, and from missing ones, where the engine does not know something you would want a buyer to hear. Unfavourable framing gets its own status: a claim that is accurate but chosen against you, such as an old complaint quoted as the summary of your support. Every entry names the engine, the market, and the cited source.

That is the choice the report sets up. On Managed GEO, our team does it: we correct the pages the engines cite, update or claim the listings, publish the comparisons and answers that are missing, and keep reading the answers each month to confirm the claim has changed. On GEO Consulting & Trends, the fix list goes to the teams that own each source, and the daily tracking keeps running so they see each claim move as their work lands. Either way, we will not give you a date by which an engine will say the new thing, but we will show you the day it does.

You can, and it costs you the citation without protecting much. An engine that cannot fetch your page still answers the question, from a Reddit thread, a review site, or a competitor’s comparison, and describes you from those. The audit tells GPTBot, which OpenAI uses for training, apart from OAI-SearchBot, which ChatGPT uses to fetch a page it is about to cite, and the same for the other engines, so you can allow the retrieval crawlers and decide about training separately. What we will not recommend is a site-wide disallow you inherited from a CDN default.

No. The audit runs per template, so a fix to the blog template reaches every post at once, and most of what a crawler cannot read is a rendering or robots.txt problem, not a copy problem. The rewriting is targeted: the pages that answer a prompt you track and are losing, starting with the ones an engine already reaches. A page that is retrievable, recent, and says something specific mostly stays as it is. New pages go only where the daily runs show you absent.

It can be fetched, it answers one question in its first paragraph, and the answer carries facts in plain sentences: who it is for, where, what it costs, how long it takes, how it compares. The headings are the questions people ask. The detail is first-hand, the date is recent, and any FAQ matches the copy a reader can see. Structured data helps when it describes that visible copy and hurts when it describes something else. Length on its own does nothing; a short page with a number beats a long one with none.

Engines cite pages that answer the question with specifics they can trace, and they do not check who typed it. What they will not cite is the bulk-generated page that says nothing, however it was written, and that is the failure mode we see most. Our drafts are aimed at one prompt, built from what the current answers cite and miss, and every claim carries its source. A person approves, revises, or rejects each one before it goes anywhere, and on Managed GEO our editors add the first-hand detail only your business has.

From the daily runs. Every answer to every tracked prompt is kept with the sources it cited, so the cited-pages table lists each URL the engines used, marked as yours, a competitor’s, or third-party, with how many answers cited it and on which engine. You see the docs page cited by all five engines and the pillar page cited by none, and the Reddit thread that outranks both. It is a saved view you can open any day, and it moves as the fixes and the new pages land, engine by engine, on the engines’ own schedule rather than a date we promised.

No. The platform records answers, not visits: which engines name you, cite you, and recommend a competitor, every day, for the prompts you track. Visits from AI assistants are already in your own analytics, filed under referral, and that is where they should stay counted. As part of an engagement we set that channel up in GA4 or whatever you run, with landing pages and conversions, and read it beside the answer data in the monthly report. Nobody should sell you a second analytics tool for a row your current one can show.

Because Google sends them as google.com. A click from an AI Overview, an AI Mode answer, or a blue link all arrive with the same referrer, and neither Google Analytics nor Search Console labels which surface the click came from. No tool can separate them from referrer data, whatever its pitch says. What you can see is the effect: impressions holding while clicks fall on the queries that show an Overview. For those surfaces the answer record is the measurement. We run the prompts on Google AI Mode daily and report whether you are named and cited there.

A channel for AI assistant referrers: chatgpt.com, perplexity.ai, copilot.microsoft.com, gemini.google.com, and the rest, defined as a channel grouping or a segment so it appears in the reports your team already opens, with landing pages and conversions attached. On Managed GEO we do it with whoever holds your analytics access. On consulting we specify it and your analytics owner ships it, a small job in most setups. Either way the row is yours, in your account, and it keeps working if we are no longer in the picture.

The sessions are the small half. Most AI answers never send a click, and the ones that do are undercounted, so the referral row understates AI’s effect on demand by a wide margin. It is still worth a row: on the published studies those visits convert well above organic, and a small channel that converts is easy to lose in a bucket called referral. The larger measurement is the answer record, which does not need a click to happen. Put both in the report, say which is which, and the under-1% figure stops being the whole story.

An accuracy audit is a read of the truth at one moment: a person on our team goes through the recorded answers for your prompts, engine by engine, flags what is wrong or outdated, and traces each claim to the source the answer cited. Measurement is the ongoing record: the same prompts run every day, and each month the report sets mention rate, citation rate, share of voice, and position against the previous window. The audit tells you what to fix. The measurement tells you whether the fix, and everything else you shipped, moved the answers.