Should you hire a content agency or an AEO specialist?

Which gap is holding your team back?

Your first job is to name the work that is missing. A content agency can help when your team knows what to say but cannot get enough useful work out the door. It may write, edit, and help publish pages. I would make clear what the agency owns and what my team must supply. A plan for more pages only helps if those pages answer questions your buyers actually ask.

An AEO specialist focuses on whether your business can show up in answers from AI search. AEO means answer engine optimization: making your business easier for AI tools to find and name in their answers. I would look for evidence of the gap and a clear way to judge change. A publishing plan and an AI search plan solve different problems, even when the same team offers both.

A useful review starts with a real buyer question and the answer a search tool gives. Look at whether the business is named, whether a source is linked, and whether the answer describes the service correctly. Our guide to what Gemini checks before citing a business explores what buyers can review when they examine an AI answer.

Neither label tells you what a contract includes. Some teams offer both kinds of help. I would have each bidder map its work to the gap, then show a work product I could review. A writing sample helps you assess a content agency. For an AEO specialist, look for the actual buyer question and the dated AI answer behind a result, including the name and cited source.

What questions reveal the real gap?

Start with the questions a buyer asks before choosing a firm. Write down the service, place, and need in each question. Then look at your own pages. Can a reader find a clear answer, see who provides the service, and tell whether it fits? If the facts live only in staff notes, the gap may be the page itself.

Next, look at a sample of answers in the AI tools your buyers use. Save the question, tool, date, and answer. Note whether your business is named, whether the answer links to you, and whether the facts are right. Repeat the same questions over time so you can compare the answers on the same terms.

For a business serving several cities, check whether each market page makes its services clear. A writer can help put those facts on the page. An AEO specialist can help assess whether the page is eligible to appear as a source and whether answers name the business. Choose the work that addresses the missing piece first.

Keep missing pages apart from missing names. If no useful page exists, you may need someone to create one. If a sound page exists but is hard for a search system to access, more copy alone may not fix the issue. If a tool names you but gets your service wrong, the issue is the accuracy of the answer as well as the mention.

You also need a business test. Ask sales what a useful inquiry looks like and ask the site owner what a visitor can do next. If the issue is weak page copy, review a writing sample. If the issue is AI visibility, review a dated answer to a buyer question. A dated record of each answer should include any source link. Review the same set monthly.

What should an AEO specialist be able to explain?

I would start with plain answers about access. Google says a page must be indexed and eligible to show a snippet in Search to be a supporting link in its AI features. A snippet is the short preview that can appear with a search result. Google says there are no extra technical requirements for those features. The bidder should identify the page and its status.

OpenAI says a site that opts out of OAI-SearchBot will not appear in ChatGPT search answers, though it can still show up as a navigational link. That is a distinct setting from the one for its training crawler. The bidder should explain any access issue in terms your web team can act on. The owner of the site should approve a change and understand its tradeoffs.

When a site rule keeps a search crawler out, ask your web team to review the rule and its purpose. A new article alone will not resolve that access issue. The specialist should explain the finding to the person who owns the site and identify the change that person would need to consider.

Get a list of the questions and tools in scope. A broad claim about every AI answer is too hard to check. The provider should explain what it can observe, how it will record a result, and what it cannot control. You should be able to see the actual questions and responses behind a report.

Find out what the provider will report when an answer names your firm and when it links to your site. These are separate observations. Choose the questions that matter to your buyers and request the actual responses behind the report. For ChatGPT search, include an OAI-SearchBot access review in the discussion.

How should you judge a provider’s proof?

I would choose proof that matches the problem I need to solve. For more pages, look for writing that makes a hard topic clear. Find out who checked the facts, who approved the work, and what happened after the draft was delivered. For AI search help, review the buyer questions, dates, and actual answers behind a claimed result.

A founder’s result can show what happened in one case. Look for evidence that matches your own goal, whether that is a clear page, an AI answer, or a business result.

When a bidder shows a screen capture that names a client in an AI answer, ask what question was used and when it was run. The record should show whether the answer included a source link and whether the firm approved use of the example. Review the capture alongside the provider’s written claim so you can see what the evidence actually supports.

Look at the starting point as well as the end point. Request the evidence behind a claimed change and identify the result you are buying: a useful page, a name in an answer, a source link, a visit, or a sale. If revenue is the claim, ask for evidence connecting the result to revenue.

The FTC has guidance on ads that present a customer result as typical. A useful case study explains what its result represents and what a buyer should expect. Google says no one can guarantee a first-place search ranking. Use that rule when a bidder promises a fixed position, and ask to see the dated evidence behind its claims.

What should go into the scope of work?

Put the goal in words that both sides can test. Name the buyer questions, the markets, the pages or brands in scope, and the people who can approve changes. State what the provider will deliver and what your team must provide. A strong scope lets a new stakeholder tell where the work starts and stops.

For work across several brands, name the people who approve public claims and the staff who know which services each office offers. A clear review path helps each team see its part in getting a page or site change approved. Compare the proposed owners across bids before you choose.

For content work, I would set out how many drafts are planned, who owns edits, and what counts as a finished page. Agree on how facts will be checked and how old pages will be handled. Check whether the writer can use your experts and what happens when an expert disagrees with a claim. Keep the right to review the final words before they go live.

For AEO work, name the buyer questions and answer tools in scope and what the report will show. Set ownership for inaccurate answers and access issues. If another team must make a change, name the handoff owner. The specialist should be able to explain how an OAI-SearchBot restriction affects ChatGPT search answers.

Cost depends on the work you ask for. More brands, markets, pages, reviews, and handoffs can change the scope. Compare bids by deliverable and ownership, not by the lowest total alone. The bid should make clear what is included and what is extra. Use Google’s hiring questions about expected results, timing, and measurement to compare the proposals.

A scope is easier to compare when each bidder uses the same buyer questions and markets. Look at the proposed work beside the people who must review it. If the provider needs your team to supply facts or approve changes, those steps belong in the plan. This gives both sides a clear record of what is included and who will act on it. Include OAI-SearchBot access in the scope when ChatGPT search is part of the work.

How will you know whether the work helped?

I would have each bidder show how it will report against my goal. A writing provider can show completed pages and approvals. An AEO provider can show the buyer questions, tools, dates, and answers it reviewed. Choose the record that will let your team judge the work it is buying.

Google and OpenAI provide reporting clues, though neither captures every way a buyer finds you. The bidder should explain the limits of each source alongside the business outcomes you want to review.

Decide who will give your sales team a useful view of inquiries and who will own the site data. A provider should explain which records it needs from your team, what it will deliver, and how it will flag an answer that gets your business facts wrong. That makes reporting part of the hiring decision.

Agree on what makes an inquiry a fit and who checks it. Share that definition with both the provider and the sales team. When you compare bids, look for a provider willing to use your business goal rather than only a count of pages or mentions.

Choose the provider whose evidence fits the job. If you need publishing capacity, inspect a finished page and its approval path. If you need visibility, inspect a dated answer and its source.

Keep the first record with the later reports. It gives your team a starting point when you review the same questions again. A name in an answer, a link to a page, and an inquiry are different results, so review each against the goal you set. If an answer gets a service wrong, include that detail in the review as well. Review the agreed buyer questions monthly.

What should you ask before you sign?

• Name the buyer questions and markets in scope
• Review work and the evidence behind each result
• Set the roles for facts, approvals, and site changes
• Agree on a starting record and a useful lead
• Review what the report can and cannot show
• Check terms for changes, ownership, and exit; include OAI-SearchBot access when relevant