Do not start with the agency's tactics. Start with what it can prove.
A credible AEO partner should define what it measures, preserve the underlying evidence, disclose uncertainty, and separate observed visibility from claimed causation.
If the proposal cannot do that, the terminology does not matter.
Ask these before you sign.
Look for defined prompts, platforms, markets, dates, mentions, citations, competitors, accuracy, and a repeatable observation method.
A score without the answer, source, date, and prompt is difficult to review or challenge.
One prompt on one platform is an observation. A baseline requires controlled repetition and clearly stated coverage.
The partner should distinguish what appeared from why it may have appeared. A visibility change does not prove that one optimization caused it.
Technical SEO, content, schema, digital PR, reviews, and entity consistency may all contribute. The proposal should explain how each activity connects to an observed answer gap.
No agency controls a model's output. Guaranteed citations, mentions, or rankings should trigger scrutiny.
Require reviewable findings, source records, limitations, prioritized actions, ownership, and a method for re-measurement.
Automation can collect and organize observations. A named analyst should be accountable for interpretation, caveats, and recommendations.
Tell the two proposals apart.
SEO work may be part of the remedy. The problem is not overlap. The problem is relabeling familiar work without connecting it to an observed AI visibility gap.
Read AEO vs. SEO →Proof is a record, not a promise.
Case studies can show prior work. They still should not be presented as a guarantee that another brand, market, or model will behave the same way.
Learn how AI visibility is measured →
Compare partners on what serious work must disclose.
How to weigh the advice on this page: what Google documents, what Bnarrativ observes when evaluating providers, our interpretation, and the limits.
Google explicitly cautions against treating unnecessary AI text files or forced content chunking as optimization tactics, and says no separate technical requirements exist for AI features (optimizing for generative AI features).
Bnarrativ evaluates providers on whether their AEO claims are backed by observable measurement across systems, rather than proprietary hacks.
A credible AEO partner should be able to show its evidence method and its limitations — and should not promise guaranteed citations or recommendations.
No agency can control how a given assistant ranks or phrases an answer; a promise of guaranteed AI placement is a warning sign.
What is the biggest red flag when choosing an AEO partner?
Guarantees. No agency controls a model's output, so guaranteed citations, mentions or rankings should trigger scrutiny. Look for a partner who discloses what they measure, preserves the evidence, and separates observed visibility from claimed causation.
How do I tell real AEO from repackaged SEO?
Ask what work is actually AEO-specific and how each activity connects to an observed answer gap. Technical SEO, content and digital PR may all contribute, but the proposal should tie them to measured answer behavior, not only rankings.
What should a credible engagement deliver?
Reviewable findings with the underlying answers, sources and dates; disclosed limitations; prioritized actions; and a repeatable method for re-measurement — with a named analyst accountable for the interpretation.
Establish the baseline before buying the remedy.
Cited by Bnarrativ records what AI systems say, which sources they cite, which competitors appear, and where the evidence remains incomplete.
Explore Cited by Bnarrativ →