How to compare SEO and AEO agency proposals without buying the buzzwords

Different initials. Same need for a useful plan.

SEO, AEO and GEO appear in plenty of proposals. Ask each agency to explain what it means by those terms and which actual work changes because of them. A new label is not a deliverable.

Google says its established SEO practices remain relevant to AI Overviews and AI Mode; it does not require a special AI text file or dedicated schema to appear. Pages still need to be eligible, useful and discoverable. That guidance concerns Google’s features, not a guarantee about every assistant. See Google’s AI-search guidance.

Your brief should describe who is buying, what they are comparing and which existing pages help them decide. A proposal that jumps straight to a monthly article quota has skipped an important part of the work.

Ask for the work behind each promise.

Ask what is excluded. Technical recommendations without implementation capacity can sit untouched. Content without access to subject experts can sound plausible while adding little. The best proposal for your business is the one your combined team can execute.

Make the measurement plan survive a second reading.

Keep separate columns for search impressions, clicks, AI brand mentions, linked citations and inquiries. A mention of the word “carbon” is not necessarily a mention of this agency. A citation to a guide does not automatically mean an assistant recommended the agency.

For an AI sample, record the exact question, platform, region, date and result. Repeat the same set before changing it. If a query fails or the report is pending, label it unavailable. Do not silently turn missing observations into zero visibility.

Ask how the agency distinguishes a modeled estimate from observed traffic and how it handles changing answers. A single screenshot is an example, not a market-share study. Look for a reproducible method and a clear explanation of what it cannot tell you.

Compare the proposed decisions, not the article count.

Consider two fictional proposals. One offers ten new posts every month and an AI visibility score. The other proposes repairing access to an important service page, improving its evidence, adding two distinct buying guides and monitoring a fixed set of relevant questions.

The second scope is not automatically better. Ask whether the proposed fixes matter, whether the guides duplicate anything and how the monitoring will change decisions. The first scope could also be valuable if the research supports ten useful pieces and the team can supply the evidence. Volume is a production choice, not proof of relevance.

Require a content map with a purpose for each URL. A service page can explain the offer; a guide can help compare approaches; a case study can substantiate the work. Three near-identical introductions with different keywords do not create that depth.

Make the handoff part of the proposal.

Identify who owns CMS access, analytics, search tools, research files and the editorial calendar. Ask how changes are reviewed, how old content is updated and how work is handed over. Paid tools and content production should be identifiable costs rather than surprises.

At Carbon, we connect research and analytics, content and website work around the business question. A practical brief gives each discipline a job and each claim a source.

A few questions before you brief the crew.

Can an agency guarantee that AI assistants will recommend us?

No agency controls every answer or whether your page will be selected. Ask for specific work, transparent observation and commercially relevant measures rather than a guaranteed recommendation.

Should AEO replace SEO?

Treat AI discovery as part of the broader way buyers find and evaluate information. A proposal should explain shared work and platform-specific monitoring instead of creating two disconnected programs.