Your narrative≠AI's version

No, and the gap between the two is where your pipeline is leaking. SEO determines whether you show up in a list of links. GEO determines what AI says about you when a buyer asks which companies to consider. One sends buyers to your site to form a view. The other has already shaped it. A company that ranks well on Google can be invisible, or misrepresented, in the AI conversation that preceded the search.

Sometimes, partially. That partial overlap is exactly what creates a false sense of security. Google ranking and AI visibility share some underlying signals, but AI engines weight sources differently, draw heavily from third-party sites, and synthesize a narrative rather than returning results. Clients who rank well on Google consistently discover meaningful gaps in how AI represents them. The audit makes that visible.

What AI is telling your buyers about you, across the tools they use and the personas that matter to you. Whether you appear. Where in the conversation you appear. How you are described. What competitors you are framed against. What sources AI is drawing from. Where the gaps are largest. The output is a prioritized roadmap, not just a findings report.

AI does not give the same answer to a CEO and a VP Engineering asking about your category. Different personas get different representations of you. The gap with one persona can look completely different from the gap with another. The audit maps this explicitly. We typically find that visibility and framing vary significantly across the buying committee, and the plan addresses each persona in priority order.

Self-serve GEO tools measure whether you show up and give you a visibility score. Useful, but incomplete. They tell you that you appeared, not how you were framed, whose voice AI drew from, whether the right persona is being served, or what the gap is between your intended positioning and the position AI has actually formed. Those are the things that determine whether a buyer puts you on their shortlist or passes.

When a buyer asks an AI tool who to hire in your category, the AI is synthesizing from directories, review platforms, industry publications, and editorial content. Those sources often carry more weight than your own. Most GEO approaches focus on what you control. The most consequential gaps frequently live in what you don't.

Audit findings are visible within the first week. The full plan is delivered by end of month one. Results from closed gaps typically begin to show within four to eight weeks, depending on the source type and the nature of the gap. We track this across the engagement so you can see what is moving and what isn't.

We work with your team, not instead of it. We bring the GEO methodology. Your team brings the category and product knowledge. The two are complementary.

No. The engagement starts with a $1,000 audit. At the end of month one you have findings and a plan, and you decide whether to continue. Ongoing retainers run month to month with no lock-in.

B2B companies that have been investing in digital presence, website, content, thought leadership, and are starting to notice that AI is changing how their buyers research and shortlist vendors. You don't need a GEO program already. You need to care about how buyers perceive you at the moment they are forming a shortlist.

Typical GEO agencies don't look at the full picture. They optimize either what you own, your website and content, or specific third-party channels as silos. We start from the buyer's query and work backward. That means we look at owned and unowned signals together, across every persona in your buying committee, across the models and indices that shape what AI says. The goal is not just that you show up. It is that the right buyer finds you, recommended, and for the right reasons.