If you paid for “SEO” and still cannot tell what changed on your site, the next step is not to look for a bigger promise. Ask for work you can inspect. A service label alone does not tell you whether the offer includes an audit, recommendations, implementation, or content. It also does not say who owns the accounts or how results will be assessed.
Google advises site owners to interview an SEO provider about experience in the industry and market, how success will be measured, and what changes are proposed and why. For an audit, Google recommends granting Search Console read access at first, and warns against guarantees of a first-place ranking. These are useful buyer questions; they do not replace reviewing the contract or the commercial context of the project. Google: Do you need an SEO?
Start with the problem you need to solve
Before collecting proposals, write a one-page brief: What is the website and platform? Which markets and languages matter? Which pages or services are important to the business? What problem have you observed, and what data supports it? The issue might be poor discovery of product pages, a fall in clicks, a technical migration, or unclear measurement. “We want the number one position” is not a useful brief; a provider cannot fully control that outcome.
List what your own team can deliver too. Is a developer available to implement changes? Who checks factual claims? Can you grant read-only access to Search Console and Analytics? These boundaries help providers quote comparable scopes instead of sending offers that cannot be compared.
Ask for a line-by-line scope and deliverables
Ask the provider to separate the activities below and say what is included and excluded:
| Activity | Question to verify | Deliverable you can review |
|---|---|---|
| Audit | Which pages and templates will be checked? | Page list, issue, impact, and priority |
| Research | How are queries chosen and what is the data source? | Map of page, intent, queries, and data date |
| Content | Is the work a review, edit, or new production? | Brief or edit with sources and review notes |
| Implementation | Who applies and approves each recommendation? | Change log with page, date, reason, and verification |
| Measurement | Which signals exist, and what are their limits? | Report with period, filters, source, and caveats |
| Communication | Who owns the work and how are decisions escalated? | Review dates, decisions, and named responsibilities |
Phrases such as “full management” or “complete optimization” are not a scope. Ask for a redacted sample deliverable or an example that shows the level of detail. Do not request another client’s confidential data.
Evaluate promises and measurement together
No provider can guarantee a specific ranking or stable visibility in AI answers; search systems decide what to show, and a contractor does not control them. Ask instead: What changes are proposed? Which signal will be monitored? What period and group will be compared? What other factors could affect the result?
Separate three levels in the report:
- Deliverable: an audit, content item, or technical change you can inspect.
- Search signal: impressions, clicks, or a page-level change during a defined period.
- Business outcome: an inquiry, sale, or qualified lead, attributed only when the measurement supports it.
More clicks do not by themselves prove more sales, and no immediate visible result does not by itself prove poor execution. Agree on the baseline, data source, and interpretation before work begins. State what cannot be measured clearly.
Google cautions that third-party tools and providers do not have access to its internal ranking data and cannot guarantee performance. Treat a provider’s interpretation as an analysis to review, not as “Google data” unless it is actually from a first-party report. Google’s guidance on third-party SEO advice
Review access and ownership before signing
Keep the website, analytics, search accounts, and editorial assets under the business’s control. Ask what permission is needed and why; begin with read access when that is enough for the review. Do not share a common password or grant broad publishing rights just because a provider says they are required for an audit.
Clarify who approves title changes, URLs, redirects, and indexing settings. Keep a change log and a way to restore a previous version if needed. State in the agreement what happens to working files and access when the relationship ends. If legal terms are unclear, get suitable professional review before signing.
Compare proposals with the same scorecard
Use the same fields for every provider. Write “not stated” when the proposal has no answer; do not fill gaps with assumptions.
| Comparison field | What the offer says | Follow-up question |
|---|---|---|
| Problem and pages | [quoted text or not stated] | Which pages are in scope? |
| Activities | [audit / advice / implementation / content] | Who performs each task? |
| Deliverables | [files or reports] | How will I verify completion? |
| Measurement | [metric, period, source] | What are the limits of interpretation? |
| Access | [permission level] | Would read access be enough? |
| Exclusions | [listed or not stated] | What creates additional cost? |
| Exit | [handover and access terms] | What will the business retain? |
| Price | [fee and billing basis] | Are tax, tools, and implementation included? |
Compare price only after aligning the work. An audit-only proposal cannot be compared directly with an offer that includes implementation and editorial production.
Use a small review process before choosing
Send candidates the same brief and request answers in the same format. Ask for a redacted sample of past work and see whether it explains the problem, reasoning, priority, and verification step—or simply presents a number without context. Mark every field “clear,” “needs clarification,” or “not included,” and keep the reason for the mark rather than inventing a precise score.
Ask the same follow-up questions for unclear items. Review the contract, permissions, ownership, and exit plan before choosing. If a material term remains unclear, do not treat it as included. After signing, evaluate delivery against the written scope and project evidence, not the number of promises in the proposal.
Short-video script: Compare the work, not the headline
Opening: “An SEO proposal says ‘full service.’ What will the provider actually deliver?”
Scene 1: Show a scope divided into audit, recommendations, implementation, content, and measurement.
Voice-over: “Ask which pages are included, who implements changes, what access is needed, and how each deliverable is verified.”
Scene 2: A first-place guarantee is crossed out; a change log and baseline appear.
Close: “Compare the work, access, evidence, and price on the same brief. A ranking guarantee is not a deliverable.”
Educational carousel: Eight checks before signing an SEO contract
- Cover: Do not compare two prices before matching their scope.
- Name the problem: Which pages, market, or stage needs attention?
- Separate the service: Audit, advice, implementation, content, measurement—what is included?
- Ask for proof of delivery: A redacted sample, page list, and change log.
- Ask about measurement: Which source, period, and comparison group?
- Review access: Start with the minimum permissions needed; keep account ownership.
- Check guarantees: A fixed ranking or guaranteed AI answer is not under a provider’s control.
- Decide with evidence: Compare clarity, fit, and price after resolving unknowns.
Field experiment thread: Test whether proposals are comparable
This is a buyer’s review plan, not research proving the quality or results of any provider.
1/ Send the same brief to each candidate: site, platform, market, problem, and priority pages.
2/ Request a shared response format: activities, deliverables, responsibilities, permissions, measurement, exclusions, and price.
3/ Ask for a redacted prior deliverable. Check whether it explains the reason and next action or shows a metric without context.
4/ Mark each field “clear,” “needs clarification,” or “not included.” Keep the reason; avoid a numeric score that suggests false precision.
5/ Send the same follow-up questions to each provider and record what changed in the answers.
6/ Review contract terms, permissions, ownership, and exit steps before selecting. Treat an unclear material term as unresolved, not included.
7/ After engagement, compare actual delivery with the agreed scope and project evidence rather than the quantity of promises.
Tool-neutral prompt pack: Review an SEO proposal without guessing
Extract scope:
Extract only the activities explicitly stated in this proposal. Classify them as audit, recommendations, implementation, content, measurement, and communication. Attach supporting text to each item; write “not stated” when evidence is missing. Do not infer that a service is included from a package name. [Proposal]
Build follow-up questions:
Using this proposal and brief, write neutral questions about pages in scope, deliverables, responsibilities, permissions, ownership, measurement, and exclusions. Do not label the provider trustworthy or fraudulent without evidence. [Brief] [Proposal]
Audit performance claims:
For each promised outcome, extract the outcome, period, data source, and what the provider controls. Classify it as an inspectable deliverable, a search signal, or a business outcome. Flag absolute guarantees. Do not invent a forecast or improvement percentage.
Compare two proposals:
Compare these two offers using the same fields. Show only confirmed differences, and write “not comparable” where scopes differ or information is missing. Do not choose a winner before identifying the follow-up questions needed. [Proposal A] [Proposal B]
Use proposals with confidential client details removed. Have a person verify any extracted terms against the original agreement.
Stop-doing swipe file: Replace guarantees with reviewable work
- Stop: “We guarantee the number one position in a month.” Ask: Which work, pages, and queries are in scope; what will be measured; what factors are outside the provider’s control?
- Stop: “Comprehensive audit” with no page list or output. Request: A redacted sample showing issue, impact, priority, verification, and proposed owner.
- Stop: “We need full access before we can start.” Ask: Which task requires each permission? Would read access be enough for the audit? Who approves changes?
- Stop: “We will increase traffic” without a period, source, or interpretation. Request: A metric, page group, dates, baseline, and separate counts for clicks, inquiries, and sales.
- Stop: Reports and accounts held only by the agency. Specify: The business owns its accounts and assets; permissions are scoped and the handover is documented.
- Stop: Choosing by fee before understanding what is included. Use: A matched scope, named deliverables, exclusions, and total cost.
Hook–Value–Template: Buy a scope you can inspect
Hook: A lower-priced SEO package may be audit-only, while another includes implementation and content. The price alone does not make them comparable.
Value: Break the offer into work, deliverable, responsibility, measurement, permission, and cost. Put “not stated” beside every gap and ask for a written answer before comparing.
Request-for-proposal template:
We need to address [problem] on [site and platform] for [country and language], with priority on [pages or services]. Please separate the audit, recommendations, implementation, content, and measurement. For each item, specify what is included, the deliverables, responsibilities, permissions, account ownership, exclusions, and additional fees. Explain the data source and period for each metric and its interpretation limits. We are not requesting a ranking guarantee; we need a reviewable plan and a log of changes.
Example: If Proposal A covers an audit only and Proposal B includes implementation, request pricing for a matched scope before comparing totals.
This is a buyer’s checklist, not an accusation against any agency or a guarantee of SEO results.