AI SEO services

I don't sell a fixed package and hope it fits. Every AI SEO engagement I run follows the same skeleton, but the depth of each phase depends on what the audit finds.

1. Week 1 — AI-visibility audit. I check where the brand currently shows up across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Gemini for a set of commercial and informational queries, then map the gap against competitors already being cited. The client receives a scored report, not a slide deck.
2. Weeks 2-3 — GEO and AEO setup. I restructure key pages into answer-ready formats (see what AEO actually is), fix the entity signals engines pull citations from, and set up an llms.txt file where it earns its keep. The client receives rewritten page briefs and a technical fix list.
3. Weeks 4-8 — technical foundation and content. Schema, crawl access for AI bots, page speed, and internal linking that supports classic SEO and citation retrieval at the same time. This runs alongside content built to answer the queries mapped in week one.
4. Ongoing — measurement and iteration. Monthly tracking of citation rate, AI referral traffic and classic ranking movement, delivered as a working report the client can read without me in the room.

There's no stage where I disappear for six weeks and come back with a surprise. You see the audit, the briefs, the fixes and the numbers as they land.

AI SEO services get sold three different ways, and the difference isn't marketing language — it's what actually lands in your inbox.

I run engagements as the consultant model when a client already has an in-house or agency team that just needs direction, and as the full build when they don't. I say which one fits before signing anything — not after.

AI SEO earns its cost for brands with genuine commercial queries being answered by ChatGPT, Perplexity or AI Overviews right now — car rental, auto repair, local services, SaaS categories with comparison intent. If competitors are already being cited and you aren't, that's a revenue leak, not a nice-to-have.

It isn't for sites with near-zero existing content or authority — GEO and AEO amplify a foundation, they don't replace one. If there's no foundation, that budget is better spent on SEO consulting and core content first. It also isn't for brands chasing a single vanity query in ChatGPT with no measurement plan behind it — that's a stunt, not a strategy.

And it isn't for anyone expecting to run GEO and classic SEO as separate, competing workstreams. Read GEO vs SEO and AEO vs SEO before you split budget that way — the technical base underneath both is identical, and splitting it just doubles the invoice.

Most failures I see in this space aren't strategic, they're structural.

• Blocking the crawlers that matter. Robots.txt or CDN rules that quietly block GPTBot or PerplexityBot while allowing Googlebot — nobody notices until the citation audit flags it.
• Answer-shaped content with no entity backing. A perfectly formatted FAQ page means nothing if the brand isn't recognised as an entity anywhere else — see what generative engine optimization actually requires.
• Treating AI Overviews and ChatGPT as one channel. They pull from different sources and reward different formats — one playbook doesn't fit both. My notes on AI Overviews and ranking in ChatGPT cover this directly.
• Link building that ignores AI citation patterns. Some link sources still move classic rankings but do nothing for citation likelihood — see link building that survives AI search for what's actually worth the spend.
• No baseline. Without a week-one snapshot, nobody can prove the work did anything three months later.

I report on three layers, not one. First, citation presence — is the brand actually named or linked in AI answers for the mapped query set, tracked monthly against the same list used in the audit. Second, AI referral traffic — sessions arriving from Perplexity, ChatGPT and AI Overview click-throughs, separated from classic organic in analytics so the two don't get muddled. Third, the classic SEO layer underneath — clicks, impressions and rankings, because a solid technical and content base moves both channels together, which is exactly what shows up in the case work referenced on this page: portfolios where organic clicks and impressions moved sharply without extra ad spend, on the back of the same foundation this service builds.

Reports are monthly, written in plain language, and include what changed, why, and what's next — not a raw export from a rank tracker. If a client also runs local SEO alongside this, I report the two together, since local pack visibility and AI answer visibility increasingly draw on the same signals.

The market is full of AI SEO agencies now, and most AI SEO companies are simply existing SEO shops that added the label without changing the method. That's not automatically bad — but it's worth checking before you sign, because llm seo services done properly require someone who understands retrieval-augmented generation, not just keyword clustering with new terminology.

My honest view: if you need audit, strategy and a second opinion on work already underway, a single senior consultant is cheaper and faster than any agency retainer. If you need GEO restructuring, AEO content production, technical fixes and ongoing measurement running in parallel, you need the capacity a proper AI SEO agency provides — whether that's me running the full build or coordinating with your existing team. I'll tell you which one your situation needs during the audit, not after you've committed to a twelve-month contract. See GEO and AEO as standalone services if you only need one half of this.