Direct answers about AI visibility work.

A team with 20 years in search, now in the AI era with our own tools. We do everything that changes brand visibility in AI systems: audits through our audit engine, AI markup for owned surfaces, entity alignment in knowledge graphs and directories, work with external confirmations, research with a network of 100,000+ real people, and vendor coordination across multiple language markets. One operator is responsible for the whole system, and one plan keeps the directions aligned between the client's teams and partners.

No, although our 20 years of experience come from SEO. Classic SEO agencies work with one channel — search algorithms. We coordinate a broader contour around the brand: owned surfaces, entity consistency, external confirmations, research with real people, alignment between markets — everything AI systems use to form an idea of the brand. Some projects include regular SEO partners under our coordination, but the project itself is not an SEO retainer.

Not necessarily. AI100 is a separate study with its own methodology; the full report costs $999. It is useful when an independent baseline measurement really changes the decision: before repositioning, after entering a new market, when internal teams disagree on exactly where visibility is breaking. For most projects, our $20 express audit is enough to start work. AI100 can run in parallel or after the project as a separate measurement layer.

Brands for which AI visibility has already become a real channel. Equipment manufacturers with long sales cycles, research labs, technology companies, telecom, and brands across multiple language markets. High-trust service businesses — medical technology, legal practices, educational institutions. Regulated industries — after an individual review of the jurisdiction and registration form. It works worse for small projects with one point problem — there are SEO agencies and content studios that do that better than we do.

No. Anyone who guarantees specific search positions or specific AI recommendations is selling what they do not control: these systems are constantly updated, and no operator fully controls the signals they weigh. We take responsibility for documented execution against a coherent plan, regular rechecks through the engine, and transparent reporting on what moved and what did not. We do not promise specific positions or inclusion rates in AI answers — and we say this directly if the request is phrased that way.

No. The full prohibited zone — automated activity, fake personas, inflated reviews, paid advocacy disguised as organic — is described on the "Approach and principles" page. Every participant in our programs is a real person with their own device. Material commercial ties are disclosed where the platform or the law requires it.

Sometimes. Regulated categories and jurisdiction-sensitive tasks go through manual review for each case instead of being treated as a standard service. Criteria: legality in the client's jurisdiction, no direct deception, traceability as real work, no reputational harm if the project becomes public, and the ability to document it as real work with an explainable result. We accept some requests and reject others — the rationale is documented either way. Sensitive verticals are not rejected or accepted automatically.

Programs launch only where category interpretation needs a live human layer: usually high-trust services, regulated industries, or complex products where a machine summary is not enough. We have 100,000+ real people in the network, each with their own device. Every participant is briefed, every task is documented, and quality is checked. Brand relationship disclosure — where the platform or the law requires it. Not every project uses these programs — they never replace work on owned surfaces or external confirmations.

Partly directly, partly through partners under our coordination. Fixes to owned surfaces, markup, entity work, structured data, and content production are usually handled by us or with the client's in-house specialists. Heavy infrastructure — rebuilding sites, non-standard content management systems, multi-brand platforms — goes to partners, coordinated under a shared plan and shared reporting rhythm. For the client, the seam between our part and the partner part is invisible: one operator is responsible for the result.

Yes, this is one of the most common scenarios. Existing PR teams, SEO agencies, content studios, IT vendors, or internal teams keep doing what they do well. We provide diagnosis, a plan of directions, and a coordination layer that keeps results aligned. The goal is not to replace partners the client already trusts, but to remove the gaps that appear when no one is responsible for the whole system. New partners are added only when the plan needs capabilities the client does not yet have.

Yes. Coordination across languages and markets is a core part of our model: one architecture, execution for each market, validation for each market, work with external confirmations for each market. Visibility failures often look different in different languages: a clear category in English can fall apart in Russian or German, and external confirmation sources rarely match across markets. We run each market as a separate direction, not as a translation of a shared plan.

Operational, not marketing-style. Each period produces an execution log — what was shipped, where, and based on which decision. Observable changes on owned and external surfaces — in factual wording, without promises about positions. Logic of next steps: which direction gets reviewed next and by what trigger. This is a log the next stage of work relies on, not a deck for a quarterly review.

The $20 express audit is starting small. The engine runs the site in 20 minutes, then a couple of hours go into review by a live specialist; the output is where the brand is read cleanly, where models lose it, and which step will create the fastest shift. Then the client decides: stop at the report, take a $200 specialist consultation with a work plan, or move into ongoing operations. The audit is intentionally compact and creates no obligation to continue.

The first two formats have fixed prices: express audit — $20, specialist consultation and work plan — $200. After that, it depends on the case. Ongoing operations accounts for markets, languages, vendor coordination, review of sensitive categories, and the actual scope of execution — the same type of project can differ by an order of magnitude, and a fixed list would be misleading. We give a written estimate and work schedule for a defined scope, not a guideline for an undefined one.

When the buyer wants guarantees we cannot honestly give. When the request concerns political or government advocacy — parties, candidates, election campaigns, geopolitical influence, or promotion of government narratives — we refuse without exceptions. When the real request is one point tactic with no interest in analyzing the situation, there are SEO agencies, content studios, and PR firms that do narrow tasks better than we do.