Drive organic traffic. Attract customers.

SEO optimizes for Google rankings; AEO optimizes for being quoted by AI answer engines like ChatGPT and Perplexity; GEO is the closely related discipline of getting cited specifically in generative AI answers, including Google's AI Overviews. In 2026 these three have converged — the tactics that win Google rankings (depth, structure, entity density, schema) also win AI citations, so we run them as one integrated program.

Cost is driven by content scale, technical-debt remediation, competitive intensity, geographic coverage and speed expectations. A program building 60+ new pages, fixing a full technical backlog, earning links in a competitive vertical and monitoring AI citations is a different scope than doing one of those activities alone. We scope against the actual diagnosis.

SEO moves on its own schedule, and the honest answer is that it depends on where you are starting. Technical fixes tend to surface first because they remove things actively holding the site back. Content programs take longer, because they have to be written, indexed and then earn their position. AI-citation improvements can move faster when the content base is already strong. What we will not do is put a date on it — anyone promising you a specific week is selling thin tactics or paid traffic labelled as SEO.

Unedited AI content is a problem; AI-assisted content with expert review, fact-checking and original insight is fine and often the practical way to produce content at scale. Google's Helpful Content updates target low-effort AI output specifically — articles that just regurgitate what's already on the web. The test is quality, not whether AI touched the draft.

A search-state audit, keyword and intent mapping, technical remediation, content strategy and production, schema implementation, link earning through digital PR, AI-citation monitoring, and transparent measurement. Paid search and CMS migration sit outside the core scope — we coordinate on the former and can support the latter, but they're typically separate work.

Yes — we work with most CMSes, including WordPress, Webflow, Shopify, Sanity, Contentful, custom Next.js or Astro builds, and Framer, and rarely require platform migration. Migration only becomes necessary when server-side rendering is impossible on the current stack or indexation is broken at the platform level — the exception, not the rule.

Through organic traffic, AI-citation rates and share-of-voice in target keyword clusters — not ranking screenshots or DR-score increases. Those are the things the work actually moves, so those are the things we report. You get a written review each cycle covering what changed, what it did and what we would do next. What that traffic is worth to your business is yours to measure — we do not claim it and we do not report on it.

By publishing content that's structurally quotable — a direct-answer block up top, entity-dense body copy, FAQ schema, and specific numbers an AI model can lift with confidence — and backing it with earned citations from sites those models already trust. Generic, thinly-sourced content rarely gets pulled into an AI answer regardless of how well it ranks in Google.

Yes — English-only is the lightest scope; adding EU multi-language, LatAm Spanish, MENA Arabic or APAC regional coverage requires language-specific content and in-market search-behavior research, which we scope as part of the program. Geographic coverage is one of the main drivers of program cost.

Check whether your buyers research before they buy — and in most categories they do. Where people compare options, read documentation or ask an AI assistant before talking to sales, search and answer-engine work compound for years. We start by mapping the questions your buyers actually ask, so the investment goes behind demand that already exists rather than terms nobody searches. Where the audience genuinely does not research that way, we will say so and point the budget at the channels that reach them.