What we're honest about before you pay for this
There is no published, independently verifiable study that tells anyone exactly how ChatGPT, Perplexity or Google's AI Overviews choose which source to quote. Anyone who shows you a chart claiming to have cracked the ranking factors of a large language model has made the chart up.
What can be said confidently is mechanical. These systems retrieve documents, then generate an answer from passages inside them. A passage that already reads as a complete, attributable answer is easier to lift than one that needs three paragraphs of context to make sense. Structured data is easier to parse than an implied claim. A brand that resolves to a consistent entity across the web is easier to name than one spelled four different ways.
That's the basis for the work. It's engineering against how retrieval and generation function, not a decoded algorithm. If you'd rather see the argument in full, we've written about whether generative engine optimisation is real without the pitch attached.
The answer-block pattern we apply to every page
The core edit is small and it changes almost every page on a site. Under each H2, phrased as the question a person would actually type, we place a direct answer of roughly 40 to 60 words that makes complete sense with zero surrounding context. Everything else — the nuance, the caveats, the examples — comes after it.
Forty to sixty words is the target for a specific reason: it's long enough to contain a claim, a qualifier and a number, and short enough that a model can drop it into an answer without editing it. Below thirty words you're usually asserting without supporting. Above eighty, the model starts summarising you, and summarised sources get cited less consistently than quoted ones.
- Question-shaped headings. 'How much does SEO cost in India' beats 'Pricing'. The heading is a retrieval hook, not a design element.
- Self-contained answers. No 'as we mentioned above', no pronouns pointing at the previous paragraph. Assume the block is read alone, because it will be.
- A number, a range or a named thing in every block. Specifics survive summarisation. Adjectives don't.
- Dates on claims that decay. 'As of July 2026' gives a model a reason to prefer you over an undated page from 2021.
- One idea per block. Two claims fused into one paragraph get split, and the half that gets quoted is rarely the half you cared about.
Why tables do more work than paragraphs
A comparison table hands a model rows it can reproduce. Three paragraphs comparing the same two things hand it raw material to paraphrase — and paraphrased content usually gets attributed to whoever's version was cleanest. On competitive commercial queries we build the table first and write the prose around it.
The same applies to short numbered processes, price lists and specification blocks. If information has a natural shape, give it that shape rather than burying it in sentences.
Entity work: making a model resolve you as a named source
A model can only cite something it can name. If your company appears as 'Last Agency', 'LastAgency' and 'Last Agency Pvt Ltd' across LinkedIn, your own footer and every directory listing, you're three weak entities instead of one strong one.
Entity work is the least visible part of this service and the part that compounds. It's also cheap, because most of it is a one-time cleanup rather than an ongoing programme.
- `Organization` schema with a complete `sameAs` array pointing at your LinkedIn, Crunchbase, GitHub and any profile you control. This is the machine-readable statement that all those profiles are one company.
- One canonical name and one description, used identically everywhere. Boring, and it's the hour in this engagement that pays back hardest.
- Real authors with real credentials, marked up as
Person, linked to their own profiles. Anonymous content is harder to attribute and easier to ignore. - Unlinked brand mentions, which count for entity resolution even where the link doesn't exist. This is why digital PR matters here as much as it does for classic rankings.
- Third-party corroboration — a Wikidata entry if you genuinely qualify, listings on the platforms your category uses, consistent details on every one of them.
- `FAQPage` and `Article` markup. Google stopped showing FAQ rich results for most sites in 2023, so this isn't a snippet play any more. We still mark it up because it's cheap, unambiguous structure for anything parsing the page.
Where this stops and AI search optimisation starts
We split AI visibility into two services because they're genuinely two different jobs, done by different people, and bundling them lets agencies charge twice for whichever half they were going to do anyway.
This page is content and structure. The other half — AI search optimisation — is access and plumbing, proving the crawlers can actually reach you. If an assistant is blocked at your CDN, no amount of answer-block rewriting will help, which is why we usually run the access audit first.
| This service (AEO / GEO) | AI search optimisation (the sibling service) |
|---|---|
| Answer blocks, question-shaped headings, quotable structure | Log-file proof of which AI crawlers reached you and which got a 403 |
| Comparison tables, named numbers, dated claims | Robots.txt, Google-Extended and CDN bot-rule decisions |
Entity consistency, Organization and Person schema, sameAs | Bing indexation and IndexNow submission |
| Content rewriting and new page creation for retrieval | Rendering checks — whether your content exists without JavaScript |
| Monthly citation-share reporting across assistants | Crawler access monitoring and share-of-voice plumbing |
What's included, what it costs, and what the guarantee covers
Answer engine optimisation starts at ₹75,000 a month, ex-GST, month-to-month after the first quarter, thirty days' notice, and you keep every asset. Smaller sites with fewer than about 30 pages start at ₹40,000 a month. See pricing for the rest, including the bundle if you're running SEO and social with us.
| Included | Not included |
|---|---|
| Answer-block restructuring across your existing priority pages | Wholesale rewriting of an entire large site in month one |
| New pages built for the prompts you're losing | Video, podcast and creative production |
Entity audit, Organization and Person schema, sameAs cleanup | Getting you a Wikipedia page — that's editorial and not ours to promise |
| A frozen prompt panel of 40–80 questions, run monthly across three assistants | Enterprise AI-monitoring tool licences, if you want one on top |
| Citation-share reporting with competitor comparison and misses | Crawler access, CDN rules and Bing indexation — that's the sibling service |
| Digital PR aimed at unlinked mentions and third-party corroboration | Paid placements on review sites or sponsored listings |
The guarantee, stated exactly
On day one we freeze two numbers: your citation count across the agreed prompt panel, and your trailing-90-day qualified leads from organic search. If we haven't beaten both in 90 days, we keep working free until we do. Not a refund — unpaid work until the numbers clear. Three clients a month, because that risk doesn't scale.
What we will never promise is that ChatGPT mentions you for a given prompt. Model outputs aren't controllable, aren't stable, and aren't ranked in any sense anyone outside those companies can verify. An agency guaranteeing a mention is guaranteeing something it cannot deliver, which is the same trick as guaranteeing position one — just newer, so fewer founders have learned to spot it yet.