The GEO agency that gets you cited by AI.

A classic agency optimizes for rankings on Google and sends a monthly PDF. A GEO agency optimizes for citations inside AI answers and gives you a live dashboard where each citation appears as it lands. The two disciplines overlap on technical foundations, since generative engines rely on traditional indexes to find their sources, but the target moves from blue links to being the source an engine chooses to quote. The reporting changes just as much. An SEO agency reports positions and traffic. We report Share of Model, meaning your share of AI citations, along with how accurately your brand is described and which competitor gets named when you are absent. That last figure is usually the most uncomfortable one to read and the most useful, because it shows precisely which questions you are losing and to whom.

The done-for-you engagement is quoted individually, after a 30-minute conversation: the price depends on content volume, scope and commitment term, so there is no public rate card. Every engagement includes the Citeme platform and the initial audit, which is included in the engagement, so you can see exactly where you stand before committing to anything. If you only need the software and intend to run the work internally, the platform is 59 euros excl. VAT per month, or 49 euros per month on a yearly commitment. The gap between those two figures reflects what is actually delivered: the platform measures, the agency plan measures and then executes, with a strategist, writers and a technical expert shipping every single week. One thing worth knowing when you compare quotes: a real GEO engagement includes recurring measurement across ten engines, and that measurement costs money to run, because each query has to be repeated over time on every platform. Offers far below market usually skip it entirely.

You would know from a number that moves, not from a feeling. The honest baseline is that visibility in AI answers starts low for almost everyone: across roughly 2,000 measured queries on the brands we monitor, the citation rate sits at 13 %, so nearly nine answers out of ten name a competitor instead. Progress is measured against that starting point, engine by engine, because the spread is real. We record 17 % on Anthropic, 16 % on Google, 15 % on Grok, 14 % on OpenAI and 11 % on Perplexity across the engines where we have at least 100 queries, and the ranking is not the same from one brand to the next. Our own site is the clearest illustration: Anthropic is our weakest engine at 2 %, while it is the strongest across the brands we monitor. A generic playbook would have sent us in the wrong direction. That is the entire argument for measuring first, and the reason the initial audit is included in the engagement: you see your own numbers before deciding whether the work is worth it.

It depends on what is holding you back. Technical fixes, such as opening your robots.txt to AI crawlers or adding structured data, get picked up fairly quickly by engines that read the web live, such as Perplexity or Google AI Overviews. Content and authority take longer: an engine first has to find your pages, then prefer them to the sources it already cites. The GEO Score also smooths results across several audits, so a real improvement shows up over two or three measurements, not overnight. We do not promise a fixed timeline. We set a measured starting point, engine by engine, and every month you see what moved and what did not.

The real question is who will do the work. The Citeme platform measures your citations on ten engines, flags what is missing and proposes the fixes: it is enough if someone in-house can write, publish and fix things every week. It costs 59 euros excl. VAT per month, or 49 euros on a yearly plan, with a 7-day trial for 1 euro. The agency makes sense when nobody has that time: the same measurement, plus a team that executes. You can also start with the platform, see the size of the job in the first audit, then decide. The two stay compatible, since the engagement includes the platform.

Yes. Every asset we produce is yours to keep: the content, the llms.txt file, the structured data, the technical fixes applied to your stack. The engagement builds durable visibility on your own domain rather than a dependency on us, which is a deliberate choice and the reason we deploy directly into your CMS or repository rather than through a proxy layer we would control. What you lose by stopping is the ongoing measurement and the weekly execution, not the foundations themselves. In practice the technical work keeps paying long after an engagement ends, because a readable site stays readable and structured data does not decay. Content and authority need maintenance, since engines update and competitors keep publishing, so the visibility curve tends to flatten gradually rather than collapse. Nothing we build is locked behind our own infrastructure, which is a deliberate design choice rather than a commercial one.