LoudFace
Methodology · 8 stages

The Answer Chain: how LoudFace gets a B2B SaaS named in AI answers

Share of answers, per engineJune to August 2026, our own domain, non-branded prompts
ChatGPTGoogle AI Overviews
5.9%10.1%17.1%7.1%JuneAugust

The blend moved from 8.3% to 12.3% and showed neither.

The short answer

LoudFace is a full-stack organic growth agency for B2B SaaS and fintech, with AI visibility measured per engine. The Answer Chain is LoudFace's eight-stage generative engine optimization (GEO) method for getting a B2B SaaS named in AI answers. LoudFace measures that work against revenue outcomes rather than vanity metrics. Share of answers and citations are tracked per engine, then read against search demand, signups, booked demos and captured leads. Engagements start from $5,000 a month.

The eight stages, in order: baseline per engine, crawler access, brand entity, liftable artifact, original material, third-party corroboration, selective placement, and per-engine reporting through to revenue.

Retrieve, cite, name

Why the method starts with a distinction most agencies skip

Three different things happen inside an AI answer, and they happen separately.

ChatGPT, 40 of the 120 answers
40Answers sampled
24 of 40Retrieved a loudface.co page
7 of 40Named LoudFace

Each step can fail while the one before it succeeded.

We know the size of that gap because we measured it on ourselves. Across 120 recent AI answers, 40 on each engine, ChatGPT retrieved a loudface.co page in 24 of 40 answers and named LoudFace in 7 of them. In 30 days, mentions of LoudFace across the three engines rose from 968 to 1,905 while citations of our URLs stayed nearly flat, 4,075 to 4,183. Being read is not being recommended.

30 days, three engines
968
1,905
4,075
4,183
Mentions of LoudFaceCitations of our URLs

Being read is not being recommended. The Answer Chain moves a brand along those three steps, and it shows you where a brand currently stalls.

Measured against revenue

Every visibility number is measured against revenue

LoudFace measures AI search work against revenue outcomes, not vanity metrics.

LoudFaceReport, per engine, through to revenue · Our own domain
Link in the chainOur reading
  1. 21.5%ChatGPT 38.8%, Google AI Overviews 14.3%, Perplexity 11.2%, non-branded prompts, 18–28 September 2026
  2. Google Search Console, your own property
  3. 68AI-referred visitors in 28 days, 54 of them from ChatGPTFloor, not a total
  4. 2 of 43captured leads in 90 days carried an AI engine as first touchFloor, not a total
  5. Not yetWe hold no evidenced revenue figure attributable to AI search yet

Every signal in the method is a means to that end. Share of answers, citations, position when cited and sentiment are tracked on each engine separately, and clicks and impressions come from your own Search Console property. Each one is then read against the commercial events on your side: signups, booked demos, and any other lead capture you run. A program that moves the visibility numbers and leaves the pipeline flat is a program we call failing, and we say that in the report rather than leading with the chart that went up.

That standard only holds if the readings behind it are public, and ours are. We publish first-party studies instead of resting on other people’s statistics: a 90-day citation study of our own category, and a public record of our own domain’s share of answers over time. We record a per-engine baseline before any work starts, so later movement is compared against a number that existed first. Every factual statement on a page we ship is tied to a persisted primary source. And we publish the readings that make us look weak next to the ones that do not. The weakest numbers we hold, our own AI-referred traffic and our own AI-attributed lead capture, are published with the floors labelled rather than left out.

The Answer Chain

The eight stages

Each of the eight stages exists to move one link of the chain from engine signal to commercial event.

Stage 1. Baseline, per engine

We measure before we ship. Share of answers naming your brand, citations of your URLs, average position when cited, and sentiment, on every tracked prompt, on each engine separately. That baseline is the number every later claim is compared against. Without it, an agency can attribute any later movement to its own work.

Stage 2. Access

Each engine documents which crawler decides eligibility, and they are not the same crawler.

Read the full stage

OpenAI states that "OAI-SearchBot is used to surface websites in search results in ChatGPT’s search features" and that "Sites that are opted out of OAI-SearchBot will not be shown in ChatGPT search answers, though can still appear as navigational links." GPTBot is a separate control and governs training rather than search. Perplexity states that "PerplexityBot is designed to surface and link websites in search results on Perplexity." Google states that to appear as a supporting link in AI Overviews or AI Mode, "a page must be indexed and eligible to be shown in Google Search with a snippet, fulfilling the Search technical requirements."

So stage 2 is unglamorous and non-negotiable. It means robots rules, and indexing that leaves the page eligible for a snippet. It also means text that exists in the HTML rather than only after a script runs. We confirm which crawlers actually arrived by reading the raw server logs, rather than trusting a tracker’s estimate. We do that where your hosting gives us access to them. Where it does not, we tell you, and the crawler picture comes from the tracked readings alone.

Stage 3. Entity

An engine can only repeat language it can find. If your category label reads one way on the homepage and another way on the service pages, and your verticals drift with it, the engine invents its own summary, and its invention is usually the flattest thing it can say about you.

Read the full stage

We fix one sentence that describes the company, one category name, the named verticals, and the proof that travels with them. Then we put that same wording on the homepage, the service pages and every roster entry that names you.

The category label matters too. The engines treat generative engine optimization (GEO) as the head term, with answer engine optimization and AI search optimization as synonyms. We use the words a buyer would actually type, rather than only the ones we prefer.

Ours reads like this: LoudFace is a full-stack organic growth agency for B2B SaaS, running SEO, AEO and GEO, content and Webflow as one program on a single retainer, measured as share of answer rather than traffic alone. Getting those exact words onto every surface, our own site included, is the stage 3 work.

Stage 4. Artifact

Format decides citation. In our own 90-day study of 128,515 citations in the B2B SaaS growth-agency category, listicles carried 53.17% of every citation, more than every other page type combined. Our own most-cited page is a listicle as well. It carried 819 citations in the 30 days to 1 September 2026.

Read the full stage

The pattern underneath that number is simple. Engines lift a pre-formatted unit: a ranked list that names brands with a one-line verdict, or a comparison table with real figures, or a short answer at the top of the page. A page that buries the same content in prose gets fetched and skipped. So every page we build for a buyer prompt leads with the unit that prompt wants, in the first screen.

Our own August 2026 output points the same direction on a small sample. We published fifteen pieces. The three listicles among them have earned 53 citations between them so far, and the other twelve earned 28, and 22 of those 28 belong to one alternatives page.

Stage 5. Original, not simulated

Format decides which pages an engine reaches for. What sits inside the page decides whether your brand survives the answer.

Read the full stage

So we do not publish thin programmatic pages, and we do not publish pages engineered to look original. Every page we ship is built from material nobody else holds. That material comes from three places, and a gate stands over all three. Each one is a step in the build with an output we can show you.

Your own measurement. Share of answers per engine, your Search Console data, and server logs showing which AI crawler fetched which page and when. The server logs come in only where your hosting gives us access to them. Those readings exist because we took them, on your domain, in a window we recorded. A competitor can restate a public statistic. They cannot restate yours.

Your experts, captured. Every correction and expansion your subject-matter people make to a draft becomes a proposed entry in a knowledge base of your positions, your results and the claims your category avoids. You approve each entry before it is written in. The next piece starts from that base. Expertise compounds across a program instead of evaporating in one revision round.

A source behind every claim. Every factual statement in a draft is tied to a primary source we keep on file. A statistic with no source does not reach a page.

A gate before anything ships. Every draft is checked for plain language and sourcing, and every claim is re-checked against its source before the page goes live.

Those three inputs, and the gate that stands over them, decide what a competitor can take from you. A rival can rebuild your page structure, and a content tool can flood your category with pages about it. Neither can produce your readings, your experts’ corrections, or the sources standing behind them. That is what we mean by original.

Stage 6. Corroboration

This is the stage most programs never reach, and it is the one that separates being cited from being recommended.

Read the full stage

Our own data makes the case against ourselves. Of the 1,000 most-cited pages the three engines used in our category over 30 days, 974 are somebody else’s and 8 of those mention LoudFace. In our own sample of 120 recent AI answers, 40 on each engine, LoudFace was never named unless one of our own pages was in the sources. A brand that is only ever named from its own pages has a ceiling.

Stage 6 targets the specific pages each engine already retrieves for your buyer prompts, and works to be evaluated for inclusion in them. We open by telling the publisher how the engines treat their own page: how often each engine cites that URL, given in full and hedged to the sample it came from, with the full per-engine report for that page free and with no strings. Where we genuinely rate a page, we offer to link to it from ours, and that offer stands whether or not our own placement lands. We never make the link conditional. Our own lists stay independent, and we disclose our placement on them.

Stage 7. Selection over volume

Corroboration only counts when the page doing it is one an engine already uses. Buying hundreds of backlinks fails that test, and so does placement on a site the engines never fetch. A link no answer engine reads is a line in a report.

Read the full stage

The bar is how many citations a page actually earns across ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews. We rank the candidate pages by that count and work from the top of the ranking down. On the target list for our own category, the top third-party page was cited 523 times in 30 days. Those are the pages worth being on.

The standard we select against is a placement we expect to move share of answer by several points on the prompts it touches, on its own. One page like that is worth more than a hundred ordinary links. We are not claiming a week-one result, because we have not measured one. What we do is record the per-engine baseline before a placement lands, read it again in the weeks after, and report the number either way.

That standard means we pursue few placements, and we lose some of them. We would rather show you one page that moved the number than a list of fifty that did not.

Stage 8. Report, per engine, through to revenue

Every reporting cycle reads as a chain, in this order.

Read the full stage

Engine signals, per engine. Share of answers, citations of your URLs, position when cited and sentiment, on ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews separately. Never one blended figure. Between June and August 2026, on our own non-branded prompts, our ChatGPT share rose from 5.9% to 17.1% while our Google AI Overviews share fell from 10.1% to 7.1%. The blend moved from 8.3% to 12.3% and showed neither.

Search demand. Clicks and impressions from your own Search Console property, so the classic-search side of the same corpus sits next to the answer-engine side.

AI-referred visits. How many people arrived on your site from an AI assistant, by first touch.

Signups, booked demos and any other lead capture. The commercial events your site actually collects.

Revenue. Those events joined to your CRM, so a booked demo can be followed to what it became.

A rise at step one that never reaches step four is a finding rather than a result, and it changes what we ship next. Where a link in the chain is thin, we report the thinness rather than filling it in.

The readings

What we measure

The Answer Chain · measurementYour company
MetricWhat it answersWhere it comes from
Share of answers naming the brandHow often does an engine name you at all, on the prompts your buyers ask?Peec AI, per engine, per prompt
Citations of your URLsWhich of your pages does the engine actually use as a source?Peec AI, cross-checked against server logs where your hosting gives us access to them
Position when citedWhere in the answer do you sit? First carries more weight than eighth. This is Peec's own unit: position in the answers where one of your URLs is cited.Peec AI
SentimentHow warmly does the engine describe you when it does?Peec AI, per engine
Clicks and impressionsIs the same corpus still earning classic search demand?Google Search Console, your own property
AI-referred visitsFloor, not a totalHow many people arrive on the site from an AI assistant?PostHog, first-touch
Signups, booked demos, other lead captureFloor, not a totalHow many of those visits became a commercial event?Your site's own capture, read in PostHog
RevenueWhat did those events turn into?Your CRM, joined to the captured events

Two of these rows are floors rather than totals, and we label them that way every time. AI-referred visits and AI-attributed lead capture both depend on a referrer being present. Our own 28-day figure is 68 AI-referred visitors, 54 of them from ChatGPT, and 2 of 43 captured leads in 90 days carried an AI engine as first touch. Another 11 leads in that window carry no first touch at all, so 2 is a floor rather than a total. We hold no evidenced revenue figure attributable to AI search yet, on our own domain or a client’s, so we report the chain and the floors rather than a revenue number we cannot stand behind.

Engines

The engines we track, and the ones we do not

If someone quotes you a single "AI visibility" score across seven engines, ask which seven, how each is sampled, and whether it is a snapshot or a tracked panel.

ChatGPTPerplexityGoogle AI Overviews
Tracked panelChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews

We track ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews. Every number we report is broken out by those three.

  • Ongoing, not a point in time
  • Per prompt, per engine, never blended
  • Baseline recorded before any work starts
  • Share of answers, citations, position, sentiment
GeminiClaudeCopilot
One-time snapshotGemini, Claude, Copilot

We do not run the ongoing, per-prompt tracked panel described above on Gemini, Claude or Copilot.

  • A single point in time
  • Broader engine set, lighter-weight read
  • No per-prompt sampling behind it
  • No share-of-answer figure reported inside an engagement

Our analytics record AI-referred visits, and they do not attribute every one of those visits to a named engine. There is no per-prompt sampling behind that traffic either. So we report no share-of-answer figure for any of the three inside an engagement.

A one-time snapshot tool can still score a broader set at a point in time; that is a different, lighter-weight read than the tracked panel this page describes, and we label the difference every time we quote a number.

Results

Proof

Our own domain
21.5%
of non-branded AI answers name us across the three engines, 18 to 28 September 2026, on the 141 non-branded prompts we track. Per engine: ChatGPT 38.8%, Google AI Overviews 14.3%, Perplexity 11.2%.
Read the full record
0.13%
21.5%
Share of non-branded AI answers
April 202618–28 Sep 2026
Per engine, non-branded prompts, 18–28 Sep 2026
ChatGPT38.8%
Google AI Overviews14.3%
Perplexity11.2%
A client· Toku
97.8%
of AI answers on "best stablecoin payroll providers"
Read the case study
ChatGPT
Best stablecoin payroll providers?
For stablecoin payroll,Tokuis the most complete option.
Sources
toku.comComparison site
Ask anything
A client

Genie Teacher, across its tutoring prompt set.

2.26%
12.94%
5.26%
9.17%
Share of voiceVisibility
25 May 202624 Aug 2026
share of voice on 24 August 2026, up from 2.26%
Read the case study
A client

A stealth fintech, on a fixed panel of buyer prompts.

0.53%
10.46%
AI visibility
15 Jun 2026Peak, 3 Aug 2026
peak AI visibility on 3 August 2026, up from 0.53%
Read the case study
A client

TradeMomentum, on its wedge topic.

8.8%
34.4%
AI visibility, trading communities
6 Jul 202624 Aug 2026
AI visibility on “trading communities”, up from 8.8%
Read the case study
The category study

A 90-day, first-party citation study of the whole category.

Read the study
128,515
citations read across three engines
6,616
citations of loudface.co, the most-cited source domain in the study
ReceiptsWe ran this method on loudface.co and published the full record.

We ran this method on loudface.co and published the full record. On non-branded buyer prompts, our share of the AI answers in our category went from 0.13% in April 2026, 3 of 2,306 monitored answers, to 21.5% over 18 to 28 September 2026 across the three engines together. Per engine, that is 38.8% on ChatGPT, 14.3% on Google AI Overviews and 11.2% on Perplexity. The September reading uses the 141 non-branded prompts left after we cut our prompt panel on 17 September, which lifts it; on the 55 prompts we have tracked since June, the share went from 11.4% to 24.9%. Our average position when named is 3.4, and we rank 3rd of the 53 brands we track.

Client
LoudFace (our own domain)
Prompt
Non-branded prompts for the B2B SaaS growth-agency category, by Peec AI’s own tag: the panel as it stood in April, then the 141 we track after the 17 September cut
Before to after
0.13% of non-branded AI answers in April 2026 to 21.5% across the three engines (ChatGPT 38.8%, Google AI Overviews 14.3%, Perplexity 11.2%), at an average position of 3.4, 3rd of 53 tracked brands
Engines
ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews
Window
April 2026 (from 8 April) to 18–28 September 2026, after our 17 September prompt cut
ReceiptsA 90-day, first-party citation study of the whole category.

We published a 90-day, first-party citation study covering 128,515 citations across ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews. It found loudface.co to be the single most-cited source domain in the category with 6,616 citations. Inside that corpus, over that window, the most-cited source domain and the most-named brand were not the same company. That study is public and the method is in it: Who AI actually cites in the B2B SaaS growth-agency category.

Client
None, category study
Prompt
The tracked B2B SaaS growth-agency prompt set, including “best GEO agencies” and “best AI search agencies”; the study does not publish a prompt count
Before to after
Not a before and after: a single 90-day read of 128,515 citations, in which loudface.co was the most-cited source domain with 6,616 citations
Engines
ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, the three channels active in the dataset
Window
90 days, 25 April 2026 to 24 July 2026
ReceiptsToku, on the highest-intent prompt in its category.

Toku appeared in 97.8% of AI answers on “best stablecoin payroll providers”, the highest of any brand on that prompt. On “best stablecoin payroll solutions for crypto and Web3 companies” the figure was 93.4% at an average position of 2.5, up from 86% in the spring window. Both August figures come from the 30-day read ending 19 August 2026, across 95 tracked prompts. LoudFace was Toku’s growth partner for 18 months, and the 2024 site foundation is part of why the AI work compounded as fast as it did. Those figures are visibility readings, which means how often Toku appears at all. They are not share of voice, and they are not a three-month result.

Client
Toku (a former client)
Prompt
“best stablecoin payroll providers”
Before to after
Near zero to 97.8% of AI answers on that one prompt, the highest of any brand on it; across all 95 prompts the average cited position was 2.1
Engines
Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini and Grok
Window
30-day read ending 19 August 2026, from an 18-month engagement
ReceiptsGenie Teacher, across its tutoring prompt set.

Genie Teacher went from 2.26% share of voice on 25 May 2026 to 12.94% on 24 August 2026. Visibility went from 5.26% to 9.17% over the same window, with a 28.39% peak on 20 July 2026. When the engines cited Genie Teacher across its 81 tracked prompts, its average position was 1.1, on the 30-day window ending 19 August 2026.

Client
Genie Teacher
Prompt
81 buyer prompts in Peec AI across the tutoring category, spanning brand, competitor comparisons and the certified-teacher wedge
Before to after
2.26% to 12.94% share of voice; visibility 5.26% to 9.17%, peaking at 28.39% on 20 July 2026; average position 1.1 when cited
Engines
The case study does not name the engines; it reports the Peec AI tracked reading as one number
Window
25 May 2026 to 24 August 2026; position read on the 30 days ending 19 August 2026
ReceiptsA stealth fintech, on a fixed panel of buyer prompts.

A stealth fintech went from 0.53% AI visibility on 15 June 2026 to a peak of 10.46% on 3 August 2026, then settled at 8.00% by 24 August 2026. Average mention rank improved from 6.0 to 1.6. The tracked panel runs about 500 AI answers a week, thinner than our larger accounts, so week-to-week swings, the 3 August peak included, read as directional rather than exact.

Client
A stealth fintech (named privately)
Prompt
A fixed panel of buyer prompts in Peec AI; the case study does not publish the individual prompts
Before to after
0.53% to a 10.46% peak, settling at 8.00%; average mention rank 6.0 to 1.6
Engines
ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Overviews, tracked in Peec AI
Window
15 June 2026 to 24 August 2026
ReceiptsTradeMomentum, on its wedge topic.

TradeMomentum went from 8.8% to 34.4% AI visibility on its core wedge topic, trading communities, between 6 July and 24 August 2026, tracked in Peec AI. On the classic-search side, Google clicks grew from 46 a week in September 2025 to 332 a week in August 2026.

Client
TradeMomentum
Prompt
The wedge topic “trading communities”, inside a buyer prompt set that also holds “best 60-day trading bootcamp” and “top momentum trading communities”
Before to after
8.8% to 34.4% AI visibility; Google clicks 46 a week in September 2025 to 332 a week in August 2026
Engines
Peec AI panel: ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, plus Google Search Console
Window
6 July to 24 August 2026 for AI visibility; September 2025 to August 2026 for Google clicks
Honest limits

What we do not promise

The engines decide, they change their minds weekly, and nobody who tells you otherwise can show you the mechanism. What we can do is raise the probability, then show you the number moving, per engine, against a baseline we recorded before we started.

No guaranteed placements

We cannot promise you a citation.

No sold position

Position is not ours to sell either.

We also do not sell tactics Google has publicly said do not work. Its own documentation is direct:

“There are no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary”

Google Search Central

“Structured data isn't required for generative AI search, and there's no special schema.org markup you need to add”

Google Search Central

and of llms.txt-style files, “Google Search ignores them”

Google Search Central

We corrected three of our own published articles on 31 August 2026 for overstating exactly these levers. We would rather fix our own copy than sell you a trick.

Where to start

Where to start

Run the free AI visibility audit.

It is the one-time snapshot version of the baseline stage above: an AI search presence score for your brand across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, a side-by-side competitor comparison, one fix you can implement within a week, and a personal Loom from Arnel on the AEO gaps costing you pipeline visibility. It checks a broader set of engines than the tracked panel above, at a single point in time rather than on an ongoing per-prompt basis.

  • An AI search presence score across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity
  • A side-by-side competitor comparison
  • One fix you can implement within a week
  • A personal Loom from Arnel on the AEO gaps costing you pipeline visibility
Run your free AI visibility audit
Category discoveryExample report · Acme Corp
35%Does an unbranded search name Acme Corp?
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity
Best project management software in 2026
Top project management tools for SaaS
What project management solution should I use?
Recommended project management platforms for businesses
Best project management for early-stage startups
An example report for a sample company. Yours is built from your own site and competitors.
What it costs
from$5,000a month

Pricing depends on tier, scope and complexity, and every engagement starts with an intro call where we scope it. A fixed scope runs inside a retainer with a three-month minimum. For the right partnership we tie part of the fee to results, case by case. The full breakdown is on the pricing page. Our SEO and AEO program and our GEO program both run on this method.

Minimum
Three months, fixed scope inside a retainer
Scoping
Every engagement starts with an intro call
Performance
Part of the fee tied to results, case by case

Questions buyers ask

How long until we get cited in AI answers?
Three different clocks. A well-structured page on a brand with existing authority can be cited within a day on a prompt with no entrenched winner. Holding a slot in the cited-source set takes weeks of re-evaluation. Winning a competitive prompt cluster takes months. Most agencies sell the fast clock and bill for the slow one.
What is the difference between a citation and a mention in answer engines?
A citation is the engine listing your URL as a source. A mention is the engine naming your brand in the answer text a buyer reads. They move independently. Over 30 days our own mentions went from 968 to 1,905 while citations of our URLs went from 4,075 to 4,183. Buyers act on mentions.
How is your content different from thin programmatic pages?
Every page is built from material only you and we hold: your per-engine measurement, your experts’ own corrections proposed as knowledge base entries that you approve before they are written in, and a primary source behind every factual claim. Nothing ships until every claim is checked against its source. Volume is cheap. Material nobody else holds is what earns citations.
Do you use schema markup, llms.txt or word-count tricks?
No, and we say so because Google says so. Its documentation states that structured data is not required for generative AI search, that there is no special schema.org markup to add, and that llms.txt-style files are ignored. We use schema where it helps normal search. We do not sell it as an AI-citation lever.
Which AI engines do you track?
ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, measured separately on every prompt. We do not run continuous prompt-level tracking on Gemini, Claude or Copilot. Our analytics record AI-referred visits without attributing every one to a named engine, and no per-prompt sampling sits behind that traffic, so we report no share-of-answer figure for any of the three. We would rather report three engines honestly than seven loosely.
Why report per engine instead of one AI visibility score?
Because the engines move in opposite directions and a blend hides it. Between June and August 2026, on our non-branded prompts, our ChatGPT share rose from 5.9% to 17.1% while our Google AI Overviews share fell from 10.1% to 7.1%. The blended number moved from 8.3% to 12.3% and told you nothing about either.
Do you report revenue or just visibility?
Both, in that order, as far as your data reaches. We report per-engine share of answers, citations and position, then Search Console clicks and impressions, then AI-referred visits, then signups, booked demos and other lead capture joined to your CRM. We hold no evidenced revenue figure attributable to AI search yet, so thin attribution is labelled a floor.
Can you guarantee we will be named in ChatGPT?
No. The engines decide, and they change their selections week to week. Anyone guaranteeing a placement is either not measuring or not telling you. We commit to a recorded baseline, a documented method, per-engine reporting, and honest labels on numbers that are floors rather than totals.
What does an engagement cost?
Engagements start from $5,000 a month. The figure depends on tier, scope and complexity, and we scope it on an intro call. A fixed scope runs inside a retainer with a three-month minimum. For the right partnership we tie part of the fee to results, case by case.
A 30-minute strategy call

Find out where AI answers
put you today.

Your visibility in AI answers now
ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and AI Overviews
Which pages they read
The sources behind the answers in your category
What we would do first
A written scope within 48 hours
Prefer email? Write to arnel@loudface.co
We reply within two hours during working hours