Agency is pitching generative engine optimization to win AI searches—real deal or hype?

Don't tie up 4,500 dollars a month in any service you can't measure. Just ask the agency, "Which parameter in the analytics dashboard will you use to prove a purchase came from an AI overview?" They'll start stammering, because no official tool cleanly breaks this out as a separate source.

Here are the points you should question when evaluating this proposal: 1) What technical interventions will they perform beyond on-page structured data markup? 2) On which platforms will they publish content to build industry authority? 3) As a success metric, will they provide actual clicks or just screenshots of manual queries?

We paid 3,800 dollars a month for three months on a similar promise for our Florida logistics software. In the reports, they showed five queries where bots cited us as a source, but referral traffic from those queries was zero. We just ended up losing that money, and our traditional organic rankings didn't budge either.

whenever a new buzzword pops up in the industry agencies immediately package it up and sell it. what theyre talking about is just basic schema markup and clearly written faq blocks. anyway absolutely no need to throw an extra 2500 dollars at this total waste of money.

Does the contract they offered include any performance commitments or traffic guarantees? Or are they just planning to invoice you automatically every month saying "x amount of semantic content will be produced"?

You have to understand how AI models read web pages. Models prefer clear technical specs over vague marketing slogans. For example, instead of writing "highest quality box" on your packaging page, if you provide weight capacity, corrugated flute type, and an exact dimensions table, you'll naturally stand out in AI search.

The bottom line is this: structuring content for AI is the future, but right now it's not a standalone, premium service. Having schema markups and clear product tables integrated into your existing technical SEO work is completely sufficient at this stage.

I feel the same way. Most time waste accumulates in tasks waiting for approval.

I'm curious too.

This approach has a cost, which isn't discussed. When you try to change everything at once nothing settles.

Hope this helps.

quick summmary for newcomers: Just because everyone does it doesnt mean its right.

this is my opinion, I'm not claiming it's absolute truth.

Here's how it went for us. Updating an existing page yields faster results than creating a new one.

If I were you, I'd go this route.

We experienced almost the exact same thing last year. If rankings stay the same but clicks drop, the issue isn't your page, but the search result appearance.

Proven by experience.

You're right, I've been down that road too. The real issue isn't the number, but what it's based on.

Hope this helps.

How did you solve this? A page with low traffic might be reaching the right people. Look at where sales come from.

Hope this helps.

The opposite happened to me, that's why I'm writing. Ranking is the result, search intent is the input. Look at intent first.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quick summary for newcomers: Ranking is the result search intent is the input. Look at intent first.

If I were you, I'd go this route.

Good call starting this thread. Most time waste accumulates in tasks waiting for approval.

Just leaving this note, it might be useful.