Three agencies call themselves an 'SEO company', but their proposals are totally different — what does that term actually cover?

In B2B catalogs, faceted navigation—your filtering system—spits out thousands of duplicate URLs. That's why the second agency's technical focus is vital. But leaving content out makes it incomplete. The tech foundation paves the road, but content is what drives the search engine down it.

Did these agencies look at your search console data before sending these proposals, or did they just pitch generic off-the-shelf packages? Agencies that quote a flat fee without doing a thorough preliminary audit rarely deliver decent results.

Last year we worked with a content-only team for 2,200 dollars a month for six months; organic revenue didn't budge even 4%. Then we switched to a firm that handled technical audits and category optimization together, and our organic conversion volume grew by 180 thousand dollars in nine months.

Ask the agencies for a sample audit report and a case study showing organic growth on a similar e-commerce site. Drop the ad-pitching one immediately, and ask the other two if they can combine technical and content under a single fee.

Everyone on the market claims to be an SEO expert. Writing blog posts isn't SEO, and running ads definitely isn't. Agencies that pose as niche specialists just to package whatever work is easiest for them end up giving the whole industry a bad name.

Three clauses you must have in your contract: 1) All technical and content changes remain the exclusive property of your website, 2) Clear identification of which commercial landing pages are being optimized, not just a list of target keywords, 3) Monthly progress reporting pulled directly from search console data.

Pouring content into a site with unresolved technical issues is like building extra floors on a cracked foundation; both need to be handled by the same hands.

How did you solve this? Changing habits is harder and more expensive than setting up a system.

Hope this helps.

Saved. If you don't write this down from the start, it leads to arguments later.

Solutions that work at a small scale collapse when you grow; I learned this late. Of course, it varies if your situation is different.

I can't fully agree with this. When we decide without measuring, we always end up in the same place.

Everything goes well for the first three months; problems arise in the fourth.

I was thinking the same thing. When making a decision, first look at what data you have on hand.

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

There's a part I don't understand. Calculate how many months you can survive without revenue, then halve that number.

Look where the bucket leaks; pouring water on top doesn't solve it. If I were you, I'd go this route.

I completely agree. The real issue isn't the number, but what it's based on.

Of course, it varies if your situation is different.

the opposite happened to me that's why I'm writing then splitting your budget without knowing where you're losing users is just throwing money in the dark.

i'm also curious if anone does it differently.

I was thinking the same thing. Don't hesitate to ask; those who don't ask always pay more.

If you post the result here, it will help others too.

Thanks that was the answer I was looking for. When we decide without measuring, we always end up in the same place.

I'm also curious if anyone does it differently.

I felt relieved reading this answer, so it's not just me. Trying to do this alone is the most expensive way.

The answer varies greatly by industry; there is no one-size-fits-all rule. That's all sorry if I went on too long.

My question might sound amateurish, sorry about that. When making decisions, write down the worst-case scenario too, not just the best.

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