Choose a GEO agency by testing whether its proposed work resolves your specific information and buyer-journey gaps. Give candidates the same scope, inspect how they turn one observation into an action, and confirm who approves and publishes the work. Compare full commitments, exclusions and evidence access rather than presentation polish or headline fees alone. A strong proposal can explain its dependencies and limits. The final decision should reflect your internal implementation capacity and the deliverables you can actually review, accept and maintain throughout the engagement.
Give every provider the same brief
Specify one priority offer, target buyer, market, working language and business objective. Explain the current website, available product evidence and who can approve changes. Ask each provider to show how its proposal addresses this context.
Without a common brief, one proposal may include content production while another only provides observation reports. A lower fee may reflect a materially smaller scope rather than greater efficiency.
Use a practical evaluation matrix
| Criterion | Ask for | Weak answer to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Buyer understanding | The actual questions and buying stages they would prioritize | A keyword list without commercial context |
| Evidence | A permissioned example or clearly labeled deliverable sample | Unverifiable screenshots and anonymous uplift claims |
| Production scope | Page, update, review and outreach allowances | “Unlimited optimization” without a unit definition |
| Measurement | Question set, interface, market, dates and denominator | One score without supporting observations |
| Implementation | Named ownership of CMS, technical fixes and approvals | An audit nobody is responsible for applying |
| Commercial terms | Total fees, setup, exclusions and change process | A monthly headline without the full commitment |
Use the matrix to structure a discussion rather than assigning a false-precision score. A provider can be strong at research but need your own team to implement; that may still be a fit if the responsibilities are clear.
Examine a report before buying reporting
Ask to see how a single observation becomes a conclusion and then a recommended action. A usable report should let you distinguish a brand mention, a link and a recommendation. Unavailable answers should remain visible instead of being silently counted as absence.
A hypothetical report is acceptable as a format demonstration if it is labeled. It is not proof of client performance. A case study should identify the work, measurement conditions and permissions, with an explanation of what the evidence does and does not establish.
Check the operating contract
- Which markets, languages and platform interfaces are included?
- Who approves facts and who publishes changes?
- How are content units, revisions and outreach attempts counted?
- What requires an additional fee or change request?
- How are source records and deliverables handed over?
- What are the agreed payment, cancellation and renewal terms?
Contract review belongs with the appropriate authorized people. For the commercial evaluation, ensure you understand the total commitment and the practical resources your own team must provide.
Evaluate TANTU AI by the same criteria
This guide is published by TANTU AI, a provider of the services discussed. Our plans show defined allowances and setup fees, and our measurement example explains the report structure. It is not an independent ranking of agencies.
The $990 diagnostic is a standalone starting point. It covers one market, one language, 15 questions and three agreed platforms. A subsequent managed program is a separate decision. Compare our proposal with your requirements and ask where additional work would be needed.
Ask for a five-step report replay
Ask the provider to select one permissioned or explicitly fictional observation and show the question, original answer, classification, source investigation and proposed action. The action should have an owner and an acceptance criterion. You are testing whether a result can be inspected and used, not asking a supplier to reveal confidential customer material or perform an unlimited unpaid audit.
Hypothetical example: the answer describes a product as available in a market it does not serve. A useful replay identifies the approved coverage fact, checks the conflicting public pages and proposes specific corrections. An answer that merely recommends publishing more content has not explained the discrepancy. Ask which parts are verified and which remain hypotheses before accepting the provider’s proposed scope.
Write the conditions for a workable engagement
Before selecting a provider, confirm that the proposed work has an internal factual approver, a publishing route and an inquiry owner. Confirm that the reporting format exposes question-level evidence and unavailable observations. Finally, check that included capacity and change handling match the brief. These are practical pass conditions; a high presentation score should not compensate for an unresolved delivery dependency.
If the provider relies on your engineering team, include that capacity in the buying decision. If your own team cannot supply it, revise the scope before signing. Agree how current deliverables, source records and outstanding tasks will be handed over when responsibilities change. Evaluate a standalone diagnostic on its defined output, and evaluate a standard managed program against its 365-day commitment rather than assuming the initial assessment includes ongoing implementation.
Common questions
Should we hire whoever promises the highest ranking?
A promised position in a changing AI answer is not a dependable procurement criterion. Ask for a clear deliverable scope and an inspectable measurement method.
Do we need a large agency?
Size alone does not answer the question. Relevant expertise, implementation capacity, review quality and clear responsibilities matter more to the engagement you are buying.