Services
Every site arrives with a different mix of technical debt, content history and competition, so the work is shaped around the situation in front of it rather than a set template. Some companies want a single hard look; others want a steady second opinion as they ship.
Independent consultant, working remotely with companies worldwide.
Generative engines answer in prose and cite a handful of sources. Getting picked as one of them is a different problem from ranking a blue link, and it's the part of the work I spend most of my time on.
Finding the prompts your buyers actually type, seeing who gets quoted today, and working out what those pages have that yours doesn't.
Making it unambiguous what your company is, what it sells and who it serves, so a model describing your category has something solid to attach your name to.
Clear headings, self-contained answers, definitions near the top, consistent naming and structured data, so a passage can stand on its own when it's pulled out of context.
Repeating the same prompt sets across assistants so changes in how you're described, or whether you show up at all, don't go unnoticed.
AI answers are largely built on pages that were crawled, indexed and understood first. A site that search engines struggle with tends to be a site that language models quote badly, or not at all. So the classic work hasn't gone anywhere.
Two broad formats, outlined below.
A defined, finite engagement. I go through the site, the search data and how your brand is currently described by AI assistants, then hand back a prioritised set of findings with the reasoning behind each one.
Good fit if you need clarity on where you stand and a plan you own.
A standing working relationship instead of a document. We keep re-checking how you're surfaced in AI answers and in organic search, and I stay close to what you're shipping so decisions get made with search in mind rather than after the fact.
Good fit if you publish often, or you're actively rebuilding.
Not sure which one applies? Tell me about the site and I'll say so plainly.
A short outline of how a working relationship can begin.
A call where you describe the business, the site and what's actually worrying you. I ask questions and say whether I think I'm the right person for it.
Time spent with the live site and with how AI assistants currently describe your brand, so any scope reflects the real state of things.
I come back with what I'd do, in what order, and whether a one-off audit or ongoing advisory makes more sense. You decide from there.
No. AI assistants mostly draw on pages that were crawled, indexed and understood in the first place, so a site with technical or structural problems usually gets quoted badly or skipped entirely. GEO is an additional layer on top of solid SEO, not a replacement for it.
Two sides. On the AI side, repeating a fixed set of buyer prompts across assistants and recording whether you appear, how you're described and who gets cited instead. On the classic side, the usual organic data: rankings, impressions, clicks and which pages earn them. I don't promise specific numbers, because nobody honestly can.
Yes, entirely. I'm an independent consultant working remotely with companies worldwide, over video calls and shared documents. Time zones are worth mentioning early so we can set a call pattern that isn't painful for either of us.
Ideally read access to your analytics and Search Console, plus a look at the CMS or staging environment so I can see how pages are actually built. If access is restricted, exports and a screen-share session can cover a lot of it.
Work of this kind can be advisory — recommendations, specs and priorities for your developers and writers to put into production — or involve more hands-on help. Which applies is worth clarifying when the scope is discussed.
Engagements are shaped around your site and what you're trying to achieve. See audits and ongoing advisory for the two broad formats, or get in touch to talk it through.