The SEO Services Report

/0 Comments/in /by

SEO services have evolved significantly in recent years, driven by changes in search behavior, AI-powered results, and rising competition across industries.

To give you the most accurate picture of the industry today, we’ve combined data from multiple sources, including our survey of 1,200 business owners.

In this report, you’ll learn:

  • How much businesses spend on SEO services today
  • Where companies actually find and hire SEO providers
  • What factors influence the decision to choose one agency over another
  • Why clients leave (or stay with) their SEO provider
  • Key trends shaping the future of SEO services

Let’s dive into the data.

Highlights and Key Statistics:

1. Companies spend $119.4 billion on SEO and digital marketing consulting each year in the US.

2. We found a strong correlation between higher spending and higher client satisfaction in small business SEO. In fact, clients who spent over $500/month were 53.3% more likely to be “extremely satisfied” compared to those who spent less than $500/month.

3. Most small business owners find SEO providers through referrals, Google searches, and online reviews. A small fraction of SEO clients (8%) found their current provider from online advertising.

4. When it comes to choosing a provider, 74% of business owners consider an SEO provider’s reputation “very” or “extremely” important. Monthly cost and the provider’s own Google rankings were also noted as important factors.

5. Overall, SEO client satisfaction is decidedly low. Only 30% would recommend their current SEO provider to a friend or colleague. However, we found that client satisfaction among marketing agencies was higher than that of freelancers.

6. SEO provider turnover is high. 65% of our panel stated that they’ve worked with several different SEO providers. 25% have worked with 3 or more providers.

We have more detailed and expanded findings below.

Average Monthly SEO Spend

In 2025, US organizations spent $119.4 billion on SEO and digital marketing consulting.

Our 2019 research found that small businesses spend $497.16 per month on SEO services.

However, we did discover a large range in SEO spending. Half of our respondents reported spending less than $1,000 per year on SEO. 14% spend $5k+ per year. Only 2% spend over $25k/year.

Small business SEO spending varies greatly

We also found that agencies tend to get paid significantly more than freelance SEO providers.

Specifically, agencies were 2x more likely to get paid $1k-$2k/month than freelancers, who mostly get paid in the $500-$1k per month range.

SEO agencies get paid significantly more than SEO freelancers

Agencies also tend to dominate the high-end pricing range (clients that spend $10k-$25k/year on SEO).

Agencies are 8X more likely to get paid $10k-$25k/year than freelancers

As you can see, 24% of small businesses that work with agencies spend between $10k-$25k/year, compared with 2% that work with a freelance SEO.

Sources: Infinite, Backlinko

Monthly Spend Is Tied To Client Satisfaction

When it comes to SEO, do you “get what you pay for”?

According to our data, yes.

Specifically, we discovered that clients spending over $500/month were 53.3% more likely to consider themselves “extremely satisfied” compared to people who spend less than $500/month.

Higher SEO spending is correlated with higher client satisfaction

We also found a clear relationship between dissatisfaction levels and cost.

Specifically, business owners who spent less than $500/month were 75% more likely to be dissatisfied than those who invested at least $500/month in SEO.

SEO dissatisfaction is correlated with lower SEO spending

This relationship played out whether a client worked with a freelancer, agency, or a mix of both.

Source: Backlinko

Referrals and Google Searches Are the Top Ways Businesses Are Finding SEOs

When someone wants to hire an SEO agency, where do they look?

According to our panel, most people find potential SEO service providers through word of mouth, Google searches, and online review platforms (like Yelp).

Most clients find SEO services via referrals, Google search and review sites

On the other hand, relatively few find SEO providers through online or offline advertising, or referrals from other vendors (like web designers or writers).

If you’re an agency owner or a freelancer, this is a key finding. If you know where small business owners look to find SEO service providers, you can invest resources to make sure your business has a presence in those places.

Sources: Backlinko

Reputation and Cost are Key Factors Involved In Choosing a Provider

Demand for SEO services continues to grow as search becomes more complex and harder to manage in-house. 

In fact, recent data shows that 61% of companies hire SEO agencies due to a lack of internal expertise, while others turn to external providers when they don’t have the time, resources, or results needed to scale.

Most common reasons for using SEO services:

  • Lack expertise – 26.87% 
  • Lack resources – 22.70% 
  • More cost-effective – 21.48%
  • Poor in-house SEO results – 15.48%
  • Lack sufficient time – 10.70%

But hiring an agency isn’t just about capability. Once someone finds a list of potential providers, how do they decide which one to go with?

We discovered that reputation, cost, and a provider’s own Google rankings influenced their decision the most.

Reputation and cost are key factors involved in choosing a provider

Small business owners cited client case studies and the provider’s social media presence as significantly less important.

However, even these relatively minor factors played a role in whether or not someone decided to work with a particular SEO provider. For example, 55% of our panel cited “referrals” as an important consideration.

Referrals influence more than 50% choosing a provider

Although the importance of referrals pales in comparison to a provider’s reputation (55% vs. 74%), it’s still something that influenced more than half of the people we spoke to.

Interestingly, we found that a provider’s location mattered quite a bit.

Only 51% knew exactly where their SEO provider was located.

Half of SEO clients don't know where their SEO provider is located

However, 78% of US-based small businesses stated that knowing their provider’s location was “extremely” or “very” important (with 46% stating that a known location was “extremely important”).

78% of small business owners state SEO provider's location as 'Important'

If you provide SEO services, making your location clear and obvious may help you land more SEO clients.

Here’s a great example from Siege Media, which actually includes a picture of their office on their about page:

SiegeMedia – Make location clear

Sources: Leading Edge, Backlinko

The Vast Majority of Business Owners Expect SEO Services To Increase Customers and Traffic

A recent 2025 survey found that 91% of people who used SEO services reported a positive impact on website performance and marketing goals.

As such, it’s no surprise that expectations are high when working with an SEO provider.

According to our survey, the most important expectations are “accessing new customers”, “increasing traffic”, “increasing brand awareness”, and “building trust” as most important.

SEO clients value new customers, traffic and brand awareness

“Gaining social media followers”, “increasing number of email subscribers”, and “helping to attract new talent” were cited as relatively unimportant.

In fact, even though this is a common goal set by marketing agencies, only 26% of respondents cited “getting followers on social media sites” as extremely important.

Only 26% state getting followers on social media sites as extremely important

This finding is especially key for SEO providers that are taking on new clients.

For example, a newly-hired SEO provider that says, “Our first step is going to be to get more likes on your Facebook page” isn’t speaking their client’s language.

On the other hand, kicking off the client-provider relationship with: “I look forward to helping you get more targeted traffic and customers” will likely result in a more satisfied client.

Needless to say, for the relationship to last, you need to deliver on those promises (more on that later). But it does help to understand what clients hope to get out of SEO so you can mold your services and reports based on that.

Sources: Conductor, Backlinko

SEO ROI: What Businesses Can Expect

SEO is widely regarded as one of the highest-return marketing channels, with some estimates placing the average ROI at around 22:1, meaning businesses earn roughly $22 for every $1 invested.

And around 1 in 3 qualified leads (34%) come directly from SEO efforts.

However, ROI varies significantly across industries:

Medical Device – 1,183% ROI, 13 months breakeven
Higher Education & College – 994% ROI, 13 months breakeven
Oil & Gas – 906% ROI, 10 months breakeven
Industrial IoT – 866% ROI, 7 months breakeven
Pharmaceutical – 826% ROI, 9 months breakeven
Manufacturing – 813% ROI, 9 months breakeven
Biotech – 788% ROI, 8 months breakeven
Solar Energy – 770% ROI, 9 months breakeven
Commercial Insurance – 758% ROI, 9 months breakeven
B2B SaaS – 702% ROI, 7 months breakeven
Construction – 681% ROI, 5 months breakeven
HVAC Services – 678% ROI, 6 months breakeven
IT Staffing – 612% ROI, 10 months breakeven
Legal Services – 526% ROI, 14 months breakeven
Healthcare – 532% ROI, 11 months breakeven
Financial Services – 447% ROI, 9 months breakeven
E-commerce – 317% ROI, 9 months breakeven

The rapid emergence of AI also has a bearing on SEO ROI, with 39% reporting a “moderate increase” and 29% claiming a “significant ROI increase”. Only 1% claim that AI reduces their SEO ROI.

Sources: WebsiteBuilderExpert, G2, AllOutSEO, Semrush

Overall Satisfaction With SEO Services Is Low

SEO is a long-term investment, and results often take time to materialize; many campaigns require 6–12 months just to break even. 

That slower payoff, combined with unclear reporting or misaligned expectations, can leave many businesses frustrated with the SEO services they receive.

In our study, we asked our panelists to rate their current SEO provider (or the last SEO provider they worked with) using the Net Promoter Score.

The results were markedly low.

First off, we found that only 30% of small business owners would recommend their current SEO provider.

Only 30% of small business owners would recommend their current SEO provider

Importantly, 30% of our respondents considered themselves “detractors”. Which means they would leave a negative review for their last or current SEO provider.

In fact, the SEO services industry as a whole has an NPS score of 0, which is considered “not likely to recommend”.

The SEO services industry has an NPS score of 0

When we broke down the NPS scores among agencies, freelancers, and a combination of freelancer and agency, we discovered that agencies had a higher average NPS score than freelancers.

Agencies had a higher average NPS score than freelancers

However, all three types of services had fairly low NPS scores.

Sources: AllOutSEO, Backlinko

Clients Cite Lack of Education and Resources as Top Reasons for Low Satisfaction Levels

Delivering effective SEO requires significant investment in talent, tools, and ongoing strategy, something many businesses underestimate when hiring a provider.

Building comparable in-house capabilities can cost $150K–$250K+ for senior talent plus thousands per month in tools, which helps explain why expectations often exceed what lower-cost or under-resourced SEO services can realistically deliver.

NPS is a helpful benchmark. However, NPS can only tell you so much. In other words, it’s difficult to understand why SEO services have such low levels of satisfaction.

That’s why we decided to dig deeper into this finding.

And when we dug a bit deeper to understand more about what’s happening, we uncovered a few surprising insights.

First, many unhappy SEO clients fully or partially blamed themselves.

Specifically, 50% stated that “I feel like I need more training to fully benefit from what SEO offers”, and 28% told us that they “do not have the staff resources to properly benefit from SEO”.

Many unhappy SEO clients cite 'training' and 'lack of resources' as reasons for leaving an SEO provider

This means that low satisfaction levels aren’t solely due to poor quality work. In fact, many clients are simply not in a position to benefit from SEO due to a lack of resources.

Plus, even clients with resources may not make SEO a priority because they don’t have the training to fully understand how SEO benefits them.

For example, let’s say an SEO provider wants to change a title tag on a client’s site. But it doesn’t happen because their developer is swamped with a website redesign. Also, this client may not understand that this simple change can increase their Google traffic due to a lack of training. So they don’t make that change a priority. And progress stalls.

Which leads us to our second interesting finding, the importance of reporting and transparency.

27% of the clients we spoke with agreed with the statement: “I find SEO to be confusing and unclear about what services they offer.” 25% said that “I am not sure what I am really paying for with SEO.”

Many clients are unclear on how SEO benefits them

In other words, many clients are confused about what their provider is doing for them or what they’re getting out of the arrangement.

These are two points that could be remedied with better reporting and increased transparency.

I should point out that a fair number of clients stated that “I feel like SEO companies are very unreliable” and “I don’t think SEO is worth the money for my business.”

A small but significant percentage of small businesses consider SEO companies unreliable

Which means that a simple lack of results and ROI is often the culprit behind low client satisfaction levels.

However, as you just saw, there are usually non-performance-based factors at play as well.

Sources: Passionfruit, Backlinko

Turnover In the SEO Services Industry Is Extremely High

Likely due to low global satisfaction levels, we found high levels of turnover in the SEO services industry.

Specifically, we found that 65% of small business owners have worked with at least one SEO provider before:

65% of small businesses have worked with multiple SEO providers

We also found that 1/4th of our panel have worked with 3 or more providers:

25% of small business owners have worked with 3+ SEO providers

However, our data suggests that most clients don’t switch between SEO providers without careful consideration.

In fact, the clients in our panel have been working with their current SEO service for an average of 3 years. And lapsed clients give their service provider an average of 2 years to deliver before moving on.

Both existing clients and lapsed clients stay with SEO providers for 2+ years before switching

That said, we did discover a small subset of clients that do rapidly switch between different providers.

These “rapid switchers” tend to hire and fire SEO companies at a fever pitch.

For example, we classified 10% of our panelists as “rapid switchers” (worked with 3 or more SEO providers over the last year).

10% of people have worked with 3+ SEO providers over the last year

Source: Backlinko

Most SEO Clients Leave Due to Lack of Results and Cost

We wanted to know why people decide to leave their current SEO provider or switch to another company.

We referred to people who worked with multiple SEO providers as “lapsed clients”. And we asked this subset of lapsed users what went into their decision.

Here were the results:

Reasons that people switch from current SEO provider

Not surprisingly, 82% of our respondents cited “Dissatisfaction with business results” as a factor in their decision. 81% reported that cost played a large role as well.

This suggests that clients don’t look at results in a vacuum. They also pay attention to the ROI that they’re getting from SEO. In other words, delivering results for clients is one thing. But it’s also important to demonstrate the ROI that SEO has on their business. Otherwise, they may leave.

Although lack of results and cost were the two largest factors, they weren’t the only reasons that clients decided to stop working with an SEO provider.

In fact, 80% of lapsed clients stated that they found a better option on their own, which suggests that clients are happy to shop around for an alternative to their current SEO provider.

80% of lapsed clients say they 'Heard about a better option'

And 34% cited poor “customer service/ responsiveness” as a factor in their decision.

However, relatively few clients cited “pitched by a competitor” as a reason for leaving. In other words, as long as you can keep your clients happy, they’re not likely to leave. This remains true even if a competitor attempts to poach your client with a better offer.

We also asked our “lapsed clients” panelists to describe to us why they decided to stop using an SEO service. Here’s a sample of those responses:

Quotes from clients that stopped using an SEO service

We also asked a group of users who were happy with their SEO service (“existing clients”) what they liked about it. Here’s what they told us:

Quotes from clients that are happy with their SEO service

Source: Backlinko

Existing Clients are 2x More Likely to Be Web Savvy Than Lapsed Clients

We asked our panel to self-report their level of “web savviness”.

Here were the results:

Self-reported web savviness among SEO clients

As you can see, 37% of SEO clients consider their web savviness as “somewhat” or “not very”.

The upshot here is that many clients simply don’t have the web savviness to understand key digital marketing terms, like “title tags”, “CSS”, and “backlinks”. This suggests that SEO companies should largely avoid this sort of jargon in favor of terms like “leads”, “sales”, and “first page Google rankings”.

In fact, this is backed up by another finding from our panel: that lapsed clients are significantly more likely to consider themselves not web savvy.

Specifically, we found that existing clients were 2x more likely to consider themselves “extremely web savvy” than lapsed clients.

Existing clients are 2X more likely to consider themselves 'Extremely web savvy'

This suggests that web-savvy users are in a better position to understand how their SEO service is helping them. So they decide to stay. On the other hand, clients who aren’t web savvy may not fully understand what they’re getting from their SEO provider. So they decide to leave.

Source: Backlinko

Conclusion

I hope these findings helped you get a better feel for the SEO services industry.

I’d like to thank Northstar Research Partners for helping me design and conduct the survey that formed much of this report.

And if you’d like to learn more about how this survey was conducted, here’s a PDF of our study methods.

The post The SEO Services Report appeared first on Backlinko.

Read more at Read More

Top 10 AI SEO Agencies for Contractors in 2026

/0 Comments/in , /by

The best AI SEO agencies for contractors combine engineering-level technical infrastructure diagnosis with AI Search Optimization methodology that makes contractor […]

The post Top 10 AI SEO Agencies for Contractors in 2026 appeared first on Onely.

Read more at Read More

The April 2026 SEO Update by Yoast recap

/0 Comments/in , /by

Each month, we host an SEO update covering the latest in search and AI. During this month’s edition, our SEO experts Carolyn Shelby and Alex Moss, cover everything from the latest advances in Agentic AI to Google’s spam and core updates and why simply publishing more content is no longer enough and in many cases actively works against you. Read this recap for the highlights or watch the April 2026 SEO Update by Yoast to delve into the latest news.

Watch the full recap on YouTube to dive deeper into these topics, hear some examples and hear the answer to audience questions.

SEO and AI news from April 2026

Google introduces new AI agent signals and infrastructure

Google added a new Google-agent user agent, signaling more explicit support for AI-driven crawling and interaction. At the same time, proposals like WebMCP aim to standardize how AI agents interact with websites, while Google leadership suggests search is evolving into an AI agent manager.

Why it matters: The web is being restructured around agent access, not just human browsing.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Ensure your content is accessible and understandable for both traditional crawlers and emerging AI agents.

Google continues expanding AI capabilities and efficiency

Google introduced TurboQuant, a new approach to AI model compression that significantly improves efficiency. At the same time, Google is expanding task-based features in AI Mode and refining how users interact with AI-driven search experiences.

Why it matters: As AI becomes faster and more integrated, user expectations and search behavior will continue to shift.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Focus on making content easy to extract and act on within AI-driven workflows.

Structured data and documentation evolve for AI-first search

Google added AI bot labels to forum and Q&A structured data, helping distinguish between human and AI-generated contributions. Google also updated its documentation with “read more” deep link best practices.

Why it matters: Search engines are adapting their systems to better interpret and label AI-generated content.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Use structured data and clear linking practices to improve how your content is interpreted and displayed.

Core updates, spam policies, and enforcement continue to tighten

Google completed its March 2026 spam update and core update, while also introducing updates to spam policies addressing tactics like back button hijacking and improving spam reporting tools.

Why it matters: Enforcement is becoming more granular, targeting both technical manipulation and low-value content.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Review your site for outdated or risky tactics and ensure a strong focus on quality and user experience.

Platforms and tools expand AI-driven workflows

Elementor launched Angie, an agentic AI for WordPress, while Cloudflare introduced EmDash as a WordPress alternative and continued work on agent readiness standards.

Anthropic released Claude Design and previewed Mythos, while OpenAI tested an AdsBot and introduced a ChatGPT ad manager interface.

Why it matters: AI is increasingly embedded directly into content creation, workflows, and monetization systems.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Evaluate how AI tools fit into your content and operational workflows, not just your marketing strategy.

Authority, trust, and content quality remain central

Google reinforced that commodity content does not perform well, while broader analysis highlights the importance of authority, freshness, and first-party signals.

Why it matters: As AI systems synthesize answers, they rely more heavily on trusted, differentiated sources.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Invest in original, high-quality content and consistent brand signals across channels.

Measurement and reporting begin shifting toward AI visibility

Bing previewed AI Citation Share, and new dashboards are emerging that map how AI systems ground answers in source content. A temporary Google Search Console glitch also highlighted how dependent SEOs still are on traditional metrics.

Why it matters: Visibility is moving beyond rankings into citation, inclusion, and influence within AI-generated responses.

Actionable takeaway:

  • Start paying attention to how your content appears in AI systems, not just where it ranks.

Also in the news…

Several additional developments are worth watching:

Yoast news

Sign up for the next SEO Update by Yoast

The next SEO Update by Yoast is on May 21, 2026, at 4:00 PM CET (10:00 AM EST). Sign up to join the live discussion or get the recording.

The post The April 2026 SEO Update by Yoast recap appeared first on Yoast.

Read more at Read More

Best Content Marketing Agencies of 2026

/0 Comments/in /by

Key Takeaways

  • Content agencies often specialize in certain industries or subsets of content marketing, such as technical SEO or conversion-focused content.
  • Our list of some of the best content marketing brands in the business covers a range of services and specialties.
  • Check out their client lists and portfolios to see if their work aligns with your expectations and preferences.
  • Knowing what to look for in a content marketing company and the right questions to ask can help you identify the ones with the abilities and capacity to help you expand and improve your content strategy and reach your marketing goals.

The content world is changing, but people still know its value. A 2023 survey from the Content Marketing Institute showed that over three-fourths of marketers indicated that content marketing generates demand and leads. 

This is no surprise when you realize 70 percent of people would prefer to learn about a company through an article rather than advertising. 

Content marketing can generate huge amounts of traffic, leads, and sales for your business. If you’re a company looking to get started with content marketing, it can be tough to find the resources and expertise you need. 

What kind of content do your customers want from you? Is that the same kind of content that creates revenue for your business? Today we’ll take a look at the best content marketing companies in the industry to help you answer those questions and more.

Agency  Best For  Ideal For  Notable Clients  Standout Approach 
NP Digital  Immediate and consistent revenue growth  Broad (B2B, e-commerce, SaaS, finance)  CNN, Adobe, Western Union, SoFi  Revenue-focused content with technical SEO built into every campaign from the start 
Seer Interactive  Big data search and content  Competitive industries like finance, banking, and mortgages  Asos, Intuit, SendGrid, Terminix  12,000GB proprietary data warehouse surfaces hidden customer trends competitors can’t see 
Brainlabs  Technical SEO  Not specified  Formula 1, Estée Lauder, Capital One, Polaroid  Built on a team of mathematicians, scientists, and programmers driving data-backed automation and testing 
Fractl  In-depth, research-heavy content  Research-intensive industries  Porch, Fanatics, Superdrug, Healthline  Research published in Harvard Business Review, The Economist, and the NYT, with a dedicated client growth division 
Column Five  Data and content visualization  Not specified (broad enterprise client base)  Deloitte, JP Morgan, Dell, Harvard University  Visual storytelling specialists covering infographics, video, interactive motion graphics, and exhibition design 
Single Grain  Conversion-driven content marketing  Businesses needing rapid turnaround or growth  Lyft, Warby Parker, Semrush, Nextiva  Entrepreneurial approach to flipping underperforming businesses through aggressive conversion optimization 
The Content Bureau  B2B content marketing  Technology, venture capital, and financial sectors; global corporations  American Express, PayPal, Microsoft, Cisco  Woman-owned agency with 80 percent of staff at 10+ years tenure, offering premium, high-attention client service 
Webprofits  Growing challenger brands  E-commerce, consumer, and retail brands scaling fast  Logitech, Philips, Nespresso, HP  “Fluid marketing” methodology blends digital strategy and performance marketing to find hidden growth opportunities 
Siege Media  Scalable SEO content  Fortune 500 companies down to small startups  Zillow, Airbnb, TripAdvisor, Asana  Passive link generation through content, backed by a proprietary link management tool maintained monthly 
Directive  Performance marketing for tech companies  Tech companies of all sizes  Amazon, Bill.com, Matillion, SentinelOne  Generated $10B+ in client revenue by acting as an embedded extension of in-house marketing teams 

1. NP Digital – Best for Immediate and Consistent Revenue Growth

The NP Digital website.

NP Digital is my content marketing company. We created NP Digital in 2017 to serve the millions of people who needed help with their content marketing to grow revenue. 

Rankings are important, but many marketers still focus obsessively on keywords and content that doesn’t lead to revenue. I’ve always focused on helping readers build a business that generates traffic, leads, and, most importantly, revenue. So we have a big focus on developing high-quality content that ranks high and converts visitors into customers by aligning with user intent.

Today, we’re one of the top content marketing brands in the business. a powerhouse global agency with one of the top 100 blog destinations in the world.

Another thing that’s different about NP Digital is the fact that we incorporate technical SEO into our content marketing planning. SEO — technical, on-page, off-page, local, etc.— it’s always a package deal with content marketing. Our status as one of the top SEO agencies means you get the best of both worlds.

We stay on top of Google’s updates and algorithms and adjust our strategies accordingly. This means the content we create for our clients automatically performs well with Google. here’s no extra work required. 

NP Digital is my way of helping everyone achieve the revenue and growth they deserve in their business. 

NP Digital’s client list includes:

  • CNN
  • Adobe
  • Western Union
  • Brightside Health
  • SoFi
  • LiquidWeb
  • ConnectWise
  • ModKat

2. Seer Interactive – Best for Big Data Search and Content

The Seer Interactive agency website.

Wil Reynolds founded Seer Interactive, which got its start as a search engine optimization company. What makes Seer one of the best content marketing companies on our list is its focus and emphasis on big data. 

Using a combination of in-house and third-party tools, they’ve built a massive data warehouse with almost 12,000 gigabytes of data they can analyze to identify new, hidden, and unexpected customer trends. 

If you’re in a competitive or cutthroat industry (e.g., finance, banking, or mortgages), this data is what you need to stay ahead of your competitors.

With Seer Interactive, their approach is SEO-heavy. That should be an important priority for every company, whether you’re big or small, but not every company is ready for Big Data.

Seer Interactive’s client list includes:

  • Asos
  • Intuit
  • SendGrid
  • Terminix
  • Think Company
  • Time Inc.

3. Brainlabs – Best for Technical SEO

The Brainlabs website.

Brainlabs was founded by Daniel Gilbert in 2012. Understanding that marketing was becoming all about data, he took the unusual tactic of hiring mathematicians, scientists and programmers to support automation and data-driven insights.

His approach paid off: Since 2020, the agency has expanded its services by acquiring other marketing companies, including the SEO-focused Distilled, a leader in the space. 

Today Brainlabs is known as one of the top content marketing agencies for technical SEO and helping companies evolve in an increasingly competitive SEO landscape. They are constantly experimenting and testing to improve conversion rates.

Brainlabs’ client list includes:

  • Formula 1
  • Estée Lauder
  • Capital One
  • Polaroid

4. Fractl – Best for In-Depth, Research-Heavy Content

The Fractl Website.

Fractl is a research-heavy, data-driven content marketing company. They’re focused on rapid, organic growth that’s driven by content marketing, data journalism, digital PR, and search engine optimization. 

Research makes Fractl unique. 

They’re always researching industry-related topics, and they share their understanding of the art and science behind newsworthy content. They share their research in top publications, leading market resources, scientific journals, and authoritative conferences around the world.

Their research has been published in MarketingProfs, TNW, The Economist, Time, the Harvard Business Review, the New York Times, Pub Con, and many other publications and journals.

If you’re in a research-heavy industry and you’re looking for a high-growth content marketing company, Fractl is a good choice. Aside from being one of the best content marketing brands, they’re one of the few companies that have a division dedicated to client growth.

Fractl’s client list includes:

  • Sapio
  • Porch
  • Fanatics
  • Travelmath
  • College Finance
  • Alcohol.org
  • NVISION
  • Superdrug

5. Column Five – Best for Data and Content Visualization

The Column Five website.

Column Five describes itself as a creative content agency. They’re primarily focused on the visual side of content marketing — storytelling, design, data visualization, video, interactive motion graphics, even exhibition design.

They are most known for their “child of the 90s” viral video on behalf of Internet Explorer, which launched their reputation as one of the best content marketing brands out there.

As a content creation company, Column Five is focused primarily on content strategy, content creation, and content distribution. They rely on a simultaneous mix of organic and paid distribution channels to draw attention to client content.

The company mantra is “the best story wins,” showing their commitment to developing great content that delivers big results. It specializes in content that is “inherently newsworthy,” making it more likely to get traffic, links, and media attention. 

The Column Five client list includes:

  • Deloitte
  • Cornell University
  • Harvard University
  • J.P Morgan
  • MetLife
  • ASPCA
  • The World Bank
  • Charles Schwab 
  • Dell
  • eBay
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Zendesk

6. Single Grain – Best for Conversion-Driven Content Marketing

The Single Grain website.

In 2014, entrepreneur and leading marketing expert Eric Siu made a big gamble. He bought a failing SEO agency for less than the cost of a cappuccino — $2. This wasn’t the first time he’d made a seemingly risky bet — in the past he led the growth strategy for an online education company when it had just a few months of cash left in the bank. 

“A month into it, the CEO pulls me aside,” Siu recalls, “and he’s like, ‘Eric, you know, 48 people, their families, they’re riding on your shoulders right now, and if you can’t hit numbers in the next month, we’re gonna have to let you go.’”

Did I mention he was just 25 years old at the time?

Eric leveraged his marketing know-how and entrepreneurial outlook to turn Single Grain around and take it to where it is today: solidly among the ranks of the best content marketing brands out there.  

Eric Siu and the Single Grain team can do for your business what they do best: turn it around. They know how to turn a faltering business into a successful one with an approach of optimizing for conversions and focusing on rapid growth. 

Single Grain’s client list includes:

  • WineDeals
  • Nextiva
  • Peet’s Coffee
  • Semrush
  • Warby Parker
  • Crunchbase
  • Lyft

7. The Content Bureau – Best for B2B Content Marketing

The Content Bureau's website.

The Content Bureau bills itself as a premier B2B content marketing company. This agency is woman-owned, 100 percent virtual, and their team is 90 percent female, of which a third are women of color. The Content Bureau focuses its attention on the technology, venture capital, and financial sectors, working almost exclusively with global corporations that rely on them year-round. 

Many of their clients are long-term, stable clients who prefer their premium approach, exclusive attention, and veteran workforce; 80 percent of their team have been with The Content Bureau for 10+ years. 

As an organization, they give their clients lots of handholding; they’re open and transparent with each of their clients, and they deliver amazing service with their extraordinary content.

The Content Bureau’s client list includes:

  • American Express
  • PayPal
  • Royal Bank of Canada
  • ADP
  • Unilever
  • Magento
  • Microsoft
  • Cisco
  • Atlassian

8. Webprofits – Best for Growing Brands

The Webprofits website.

Webprofits is the content marketing and advertising company that was co-founded by Sujan Patel and Alex Cleanthous. Their company focuses on challenger brands in the e-commerce, consumer, and retail space that want to grow their business fast. They’ve refined their process based on real-life, in-the-trenches experience.

In fact, Patel doesn’t think of Web Profits as an agency. He calls it a marketing “hit squad,” a team of specialists who understand your business inside and out. 

What makes Web Profits one of the top content marketing companies? They use a unique “fluid marketing” approach, which combines digital strategy with performance marketing. This enables its team of experts to identify hidden correlations and connections that can point to exciting opportunities for content marketing.

This makes the Web Profits team uniquely qualified to serve challenger brands that want to make a big impact.

Web Profits’ client list includes:

  • Logitech
  • Philips
  • Nespresso
  • Swarovski
  • HP
  • LG Electronics

9. Siege Media – Best for Scalable Content

The Siege Media website.

Siege Media prides itself on taking a “scientific approach” to scaling SEO-focused content. The agency works with a wide range of companies, from established Fortune 500 businesses to small startups.

The focus of the business is on link-building. Siege Media creates content that serves as passive link generators, a tactic they say is more effective than manual outreach. Their formula results in high-impact content that produces instant results—and it’s a cost-efficient tactic, too.

Siege’s superpower is a proprietary solution for link management. Siege maintains the tool for its clients on a monthly basis, ensuring that websites are always aligned with overall goals and updates. 

This commitment to innovation and leveraging technology for content marketing makes Siege one of the best content marketing companies for the future.

Siege Media’s client list includes:

  • Zillow
  • Quicken Loans
  • Inuit Mint
  • Shutterfly
  • Airbnb
  • Healthline
  • Casper
  • TripAdvisor
  • Asana
  • ZenDesk

10. Directive – Best for Performance Marketing for Tech Companies

The Directive Website.

CEO Garrett Mehrguth founded Directive when he was just 21, focusing on SEO. Today it works with some of the world’s most prominent tech companies, helping them become more discoverable in a dynamic and often challenging industry. Since its founding, it’s generated more than $10 billion in revenue.

The agency uses a unique data-driven methodology to generate quality leads organically across the marketing funnel. The team prefers to act as a partner rather than a vendor, serving as an extension of its clients’ in-house marketing teams.

Directive’s client list includes:

  • Amazon
  • Bill.com
  • Matillion
  • Sumo Logic
  • Eden Health
  • Vyond
  • Brooklyn Solarworks
  • ActivePDF
  • SentinelOne

4 Characteristics that Make a Great Content Marketing Company

A good content marketing company will have no problem demonstrating that they have the expertise and the resources they need to make your campaign a success. These are some qualities to expect in a high-quality content marketing agency.

1: A Stable Team of Content Creators

Content mills produce poorly written filler content that’s mainly written for search engines. Not only is that a short-sighted approach, but Google’s algorithm is more likely to ding sites that use it—especially now that it is incorporating AI. 

The best content marketing companies have a roster of regular and consistent writers on their team. Stable writers are skilled at writing, grammar, logical consistency, and storytelling. These writers can draw your readers in, creating content that moves people towards a specific goal or objective that you have in mind. 

These writers don’t need a lot of babysitting, and they’re able to figure things out, to a certain extent, on their own. They’re dependable, and they’re able to match your brand voice. 

When you contact a content marketing company, you’ll want to ask them questions about how they run their business. 

  • How many writers do you have on staff?
  • Are they freelance or W-2? Do you use a mix of both? 
  • How many of your writers are full-time? Part-time? 
  • How do you manage your team of writers? 
  • How many years of experience does the average writer on your team have? 

When you ask companies these questions, listen to their answers carefully. Look for any inconsistencies or red flags. If you spot any, bring them up immediately and ask for an answer. 

2: Access to Publishers and Influencers

According to Derek Halpern, founder of Social Triggers, you should be spending 20 percent of your time on content creation and 80 percent of your time on content promotion. The content marketing companies you work with are no different. If you’re investing a significant amount of time and money in creating an amazing piece of content, you should be spending 4x as much time on promotion to make sure your target audience sees it.

When you’re working with a content marketing company, they should already have a list of influencers and publishers in their address book. They should also have strong connections and relationships with the right people, so they’re reasonably sure they can drive traffic to your content. 

3: Specialized Knowledge About Your Industry

In an ideal world, your content marketing provider has a significant amount of experience in your space, or the ability to connect with experts who do. At a minimum, you’ll want to ensure that the content marketing company you choose can write credibly about the topics that are relevant to your business. 

The more specialized the content, the more important these criteria are for your business. 

Industries like healthcare, engineering, or finance require large amounts of specialized experience. It’s unrealistic to expect an inexperienced company to write credibly about a highly technical topic. 

Specialization requires specialists. The more technical your business, the more important it is to hire a content marketing company with experience and expertise in your field. 

4: Content Analysis and Measurement

When you’re investing in the services of a content marketing company, you’ll want to see the numbers. The agency should be able to provide you with a detailed breakdown that includes data outlining your performance as well as the KPIs, metrics, and sentiment surrounding your content.

This information should give you the answers to the following questions:

  • Does this content move us closer to our campaign goals? 
  • Does this piece of content (e.g., blog post, whitepaper, e-book, infographic) lead to enough conversions?
  • How far are people reading into your content? 
  • Where in our flywheel are we losing customers? 
  • What do we need to change/optimize to improve our conversion rates?
  • Which content marketing opportunities are we missing, and where? 

Creating content isn’t enough. The content marketing company you choose should provide you with the actionable data you need and a comprehensive strategy to create profitable content for your business. 

What To Expect From a Great Content Marketing Company

Top content marketing agencies are able to get you up to speed on their processes and provide you with a consistent and comprehensive set of deliverables. These deliverables ensure that your content marketing campaigns stay on track and that you’re able to achieve the consistent results you need.

To do this, your content marketing provider should provide you with onboarding guidance and specific deliverables throughout the pre-launch, launch, and post-launch phases of your campaign. These should include: 

  • Content samples demonstrating your knowledge and expertise
  • The information and materials (e.g., credentials, existing content) they need from you to get started
  • A statement of work and a list of deliverables (e.g., 14 2,500-word articles each month, edits included)
  • Their process (if they’re not working with you and yours)
  • Projected campaign milestones, timelines, and calendars
  • Your point-of-contact, including their name, and contact information
  • Hours of availability
  • The best way to communicate (e.g., Slack, email, phone, chat, or text)
  • Expectations from you 
  • Their process, policies, and procedures
  • Analysis and reports, including business goals, objectives, KPIs, metrics, strategy, tactics, and risks
  • Content audits
  • Consistent updates on your campaign performance
  • Regular (weekly or monthly) calls to discuss performance
  • Consistently updated due dates and delivery timelines
  • Monthly debrief to discuss successes and failures

Here are some additional details you should also expect from your content marketing providers:

  • Good boundaries (including the ability to say no)
  • Prompt and clear feedback
  • Accurate information on various parts of your campaign, including financial, campaign, and performance data

The best content marketing companies ask a lot of questions. They make sure to provide you with the upfront information you need to vet their company and make an informed decision. Once you’ve decided to move forward, they ask you for all of the information and materials they’ll need to produce the results you want.

FAQs

What makes good content marketing?

Good content marketing is different for every business, but in general, it involves creating well-written content that provides valuable information for your target market. It also draws in qualified leads and converts them into customers at a rate that justifies your investment.

How do you track content marketing results?

Tracking content marketing results involves setting clear goals, identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) such as website traffic, inquiries, and conversion rates to use as metrics, and monitoring the results. Most content marketing agencies use analytics tools to track and measure results. 

How do you optimize for content marketing?

Optimizing for content marketing involves several steps. First, research who your target audience is and their needs. This will guide you toward topics for content development that can answer their questions and provide valuable information. Incorporate SEO to ensure your content ranks high on search engine results pages and brings in organic traffic. Finally, analyze the results to refine content topics, formats, and overall strategy.  

Which content marketing agency is best for B2B companies?

B2B companies should look for agencies that focus on long-form content, SEO, and lead generation. The best partners understand how to create content that nurtures prospects over time, not just drives traffic. Agencies with strong experience in SaaS or professional services tend to perform best here.

Which content marketing company is best for small businesses?

Small businesses need agencies that balance quality with cost. Look for teams that offer flexible packages or project-based work instead of large retainers. The goal is to get consistent, high-quality content without overcommitting your budget early on.

Which agency is best for SEO-driven content?

You want an agency that combines content creation with keyword research and technical SEO. Firms that focus heavily on search performance will build content designed to rank, not just read well. Check for proven results in organic traffic growth and rankings.

Should you hire a specialized content agency or a full-service marketing agency?

Specialized agencies go deeper into content strategy and production. Full-service agencies connect content to SEO, paid media, and conversion optimization, which can drive better overall results. If content is your main bottleneck, go specialized. If growth is the goal, full-service often wins.

How do you choose the right content marketing agency?

Start with their results. Look for case studies showing traffic growth, lead generation, or revenue impact. Then review their content quality and process. The best agencies have a clear system for research, creation, and optimization.

Conclusion

Content marketing produces more leads and revenue than traditional marketing methods. If you’re looking for a good content marketing company to help you get started, it can be tough. Use this list to identify the companies that are a good fit for your business. 

With this post, you should have a pretty good idea of the questions to ask, what to expect, and how to select the right content marketing provider. 

Invest the right amount of effort with the right company, and your content marketing will grow faster than you expect. It’s tough in the beginning, but it will take effort, push through, and keep creating really helpful content, even if it’s hard. 

You’ll see consistent revenue growth once customers realize that you’re serious about helping them solve their problems. Content marketing is the best way to show them that you understand, and you can help. With this said, combining with other disciplines is the best way to unlock your content’s true potential. Check out my lists of the best CRO agencies and top social media agencies for more information.

Read more at Read More

LinkedIn expands Event Ads beyond its own platform

/0 Comments/in , /by
LinkedIn Ads retargeting: How to reach prospects at every funnel stage

LinkedIn is rolling out Off-Platform Event Ads, giving marketers a new way to promote events without needing a native LinkedIn Event Page.

What’s happening. The new format allows advertisers to run Event Ads that link directly to external destinations — such as webinar platforms, landing pages or livestream sites — instead of keeping traffic on LinkedIn.

This marks a shift from platform-contained experiences to more flexible, marketer-controlled journeys.

How it works. Marketers can create an Event Ad using a third-party URL, add event details like date and format, and choose from objectives including awareness, engagement, traffic or lead generation.

Clicks send users directly to the external event page, while performance metrics remain trackable in Campaign Manager.

Why we care. Until now, promoting events on LinkedIn often meant working within platform constraints, which could fragment the user journey and limit control over registrations.

Off-Platform Event Ads remove that friction by allowing marketers to tap into LinkedIn’s targeting while keeping traffic, data and conversions on their own platforms — making it easier to scale campaigns and maintain a consistent experience.

What to watch:

  • Whether this drives higher registration rates compared to native Event Pages
  • How advertisers balance LinkedIn targeting with off-platform conversion tracking
  • If LinkedIn expands similar flexibility to other ad formats

Availability. Off-Platform Event Ads are currently rolling out globally and are expected to be available to all advertisers by May 6.

Bottom line. By opening Event Ads to off-platform destinations, LinkedIn is making it easier for marketers to scale event promotion — without forcing them to build inside its walls.

Read more at Read More

Top 10 AI SEO Agencies for Software Development Companies in 2026

/0 Comments/in , /by

AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini are intercepting the moments where developers and technical buyers discover and shortlist software tools. […]

The post Top 10 AI SEO Agencies for Software Development Companies in 2026 appeared first on Onely.

Read more at Read More

Top 11 AI SEO Agencies for Tech Companies in 2026

/0 Comments/in , /by

Your competitors show up in ChatGPT answers and Google AI Overviews. Your brand is absent or inaccurately described. Traditional SEO […]

The post Top 11 AI SEO Agencies for Tech Companies in 2026 appeared first on Onely.

Read more at Read More

The framing gap: Why AI can’t position your brand

/0 Comments/in , /by
The framing gap- Why AI can’t position your brand

Every brand holds its claims, and somewhere in the archive of its digital life, there’s proof to back them up. 

The AI assistive engine (the systems behind ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews) holds that proof too, scattered across its training data and retrieval index, alongside competitors’ claims. 

The audience has a need but no vocabulary to bridge the gap between what they want and what the brand or the engine already knows.

All three lack the same thing: a frame, the interpretive context that turns scattered information into a narrative worth transmitting (for the brand), citing (for AI), and acting on (for the user).

This is where the claim-frame-prove (CFP) process comes in. Claim and proof are mechanical, and frame is strategic.

Claim and prove are mechanical work the engine can verify. Frame is the strategic move only the brand can make.

Why AI can’t make the leap your brand needs

CFP runs claim by claim, fact by fact. The brand’s full picture is built from many CFP cycles compounding: each claim framed and proven becomes a fact in the corpus, and the cumulative weight of those facts is what positions the brand to dominate.

AI can join known facts, but it can’t leap to a new one that benefits your brand. Given Facts A and B, AI can derive Conclusion C that follows logically. That’s standard inference, and the engines do it well. 

What they can’t do reliably is the move a creative human makes constantly: looking at A and B, reaching to a non-obvious J that’s commercially beneficial, and then constructing the logical bridge so the engine can use it.

From here, I’ll use the alphabet as the scale: C is the obvious commercial reach, J is the non-obvious, and Q is the most ambitious leap a brand can sensibly make.

Two examples from my own positioning make the difference concrete.

A + B → C

  • A: I coined answer engine optimization in 2017. B: I run a brand engineering company.
  • The obvious conclusion (C) the engine produces unprompted: my work is connected to AEO implementation. True, useful, but close to the facts, and the engines will get that right without my help.

A + B → J

  • From the same A and B, reaching further. J: I’m the practitioner most likely to have learned what works and what doesn’t from a decade of operational data nobody else has. 
  • Same starting facts, completely different commercial outcome, and the engine doesn’t make this leap on its own. It needs me to build the bridge for it.

That second move — from A and B to J — is strategic claim bridging: selecting which non-obvious J benefits the brand from the space of derivable conclusions, and then constructing the logical connection from accepted facts to that chosen J so the engine transmits it as fact rather than as the brand’s opinion of itself. 

Two operations packed into one move: the strategic part is choosing J, and the bridging part is making the inference watertight.

AI won’t choose what’s best for your brand

AI doesn’t choose the J that’s good for your brand. You do. That choice, and the bridge that proves it, is the work AI has no commercial stake in, and a future (more capable) AI without your stake just produces a more sophisticated version of the same problem.

Whether AI can be creative is contested ground. The narrower claim holds regardless: even when AI produces a novel-looking output, it has no commercial intent guiding which J to derive. From the same A and B, an AI could just as easily produce a damaging J as a beneficial J. It has no skin in your commercial game.

A creative marketer does both things at once: reaches imaginatively to a non-obvious J, and chooses the J that serves the brand. That’s the move AI engines can’t reach, and it’s why the frame has to come from someone placing the information online (the brand, a client, or an independent source).

The disposition that lets you see this work is what I’ve been calling “empathy for the machine,” a phrase I started using in client consulting around 2011-2012 (originally as “empathy for the beast,” retired once I got more serious about the business side of digital marketing), and first published formally in 2019. 

It’s the discipline of stepping outside your own perspective to see what the machine actually struggles with. That advice applies to anything in SEO/AAO — in this case, specifically to when it grounds, attributes, and synthesizes claims about your brand.

Unfortunately, brands all too often produce material aimed at human readers and assume the machine will figure out the rest. With a little empathy for the machine, brands design material the machine can use as its own interpretation (feed the beast).

This produces three different levels of brand-AI communication, each one building on the previous. 

Levels 1 and 2 are the foundations every brand needs in place, and Level 3 is where framing enters, and what this article is designed to change your thinking.

Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.

The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.

Start Free Trial
Get started with

Semrush One Logo

Level 1: Scattered proof of claims

Proof exists, but there’s nothing linking it to the claim. This is where most brands sit, and it leaves the engine to perform inference over whatever it can find. 

The brand publishes Claim A on its website. Proof Z exists somewhere else: a conference program, an industry database, a Wikipedia citation, and a trade publication from four years ago. The brand assumes the engine will connect the two.

To connect them, the engine has to perform inference. Can it derive the conclusion that this brand is credible for this claim, given scattered premises across different domains, formats, and varying source authority?

There’s no copy stating the connection, no hyperlinks pointing from claim to proof, and no schema encoding the relationship.

That depends almost entirely on how confidently the machine already understands the entity, and that runs on three sub-levels.

If the machine has no confident understanding of the brand, and the proof isn’t explicitly linked, no connection happens. The proof might as well not exist.

If the machine has no confident understanding of the brand, but the proof is explicitly linked, the connection happens because the link does the work that the entity resolution couldn’t.

If the machine has a strong, confident understanding of the brand, the connection happens even without the link, because a well-resolved entity shortens the logical distance the machine has to traverse (linkless links, as I’ve called them). 

The link still adds confidence (more than one path always does), but it’s no longer load-bearing as the entity carries the work.

The implication runs through the rest of the pipeline. Entity clarity in the knowledge graph isn’t a nice-to-have sitting alongside content work. It’s the variable that decides whether your content work has to carry all the weight or almost none of it. 

Any proof that isn’t explicitly linked is missed at sub-level one, caught at sub-level two, and confidently embedded at sub-level three.

When entity understanding is weak, the result is familiar to anyone tracking AI visibility: a meritorious brand appears occasionally, and when it does, the wording is hedged, and the brand sits mid-to-low-pack. The engine did the best inference it could, and, being a responsible probability engine, it hedged. 

Worse, opportunities for inclusion are throttled across adjacent queries the fact should have pulled the brand into, because the fact was never connected to the proof that would have warranted the inclusion in the first place.

What happens when Level 1, scattered proof of claims, is done well? Brand X is infrequently mentioned, unconvincingly, as a provider of Y.

Level 2: Connected proof of claims

Here, the brand explicitly connects claim to proof through a combination of copy, hyperlinks, and schema. It also closes the inference gap by providing what the engine would otherwise have to figure out. 

The brand publishes Claim A and explicitly connects it to Proof Z, with the logical thread stated in copy, anchored by hyperlinks to the proof, and encoded in schema: a fact with a significant number of supporting pieces of evidence joined to it three ways, leaving nothing for the engine to infer.

Connected proof of claims is a spectrum, not a switch. At the low end, you’ve connected some of your proof, which already beats Level 1 because the engine no longer has to figure out the connections you’ve made, but it’s still figuring out the ones you haven’t. 

If your competition has connected more of theirs, you’re still losing the comparison on the proof you left scattered. At the high end, you’ve connected all of it: every claim joined to every piece of supporting evidence, nothing scattered, and nothing left for the engine to guess at.

Most brands sit somewhere between scattered and connected simply because they’ve connected only the most obvious proof, and the AI may well have already figured the obvious ones out for itself: the links don’t teach it anything it didn’t already know.

With connected proof of claims done comprehensively for a given claim, the engine has enough corroboration to back the brand confidently, and the claim becomes fact in the corpus. Confidence transfers cleanly because there’s nothing to guess at. 

Connected proof of claims is also a great weapon for a smaller brand competing with a bigger one: a specialist accounting firm with 50 pieces of proof, all explicitly connected to a specific positioning, beats a Big 4 with thousands of unconnected pieces on that specific positioning, because connection is what turns proof into substance that the engine can transmit.

What happens when Level 2, connected proof of claims, is done well? Brand X is frequently mentioned convincingly as a provider of Y.

Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.

See terms.

Level 3: Framed proof of claims

This is where framing enters, and where strategic claim bridging earns its name. 

For each claim that matters, the brand publishes Claim A, connects the proof, and then does the thing the engine can’t do (and the audience is unlikely to do either, for that matter).

It reaches the non-obvious J that benefits the brand, and constructs the bridge from A and B to J in language the engine can transmit. Not merely “we are the leader in X, demonstrated by Y,” but the frame: 

  • Why Y matters for the specific problem this audience faces.
  • What Z signals about trust in this particular market.
  • How W translates to the outcome the prospect actually cares about at the moment of decision.

A frame is a logical inference from corroborated facts, where the brand chose where the inference would land. For example: 

  • “Jason Barnard coined answer engine optimization in 2017, made dated public predictions about how the field would unfold, and those predictions came true, his predictions about where the field is going next are credible.” 

Every component is verifiable independently, and every connection between components is logical. The J the bridge reaches to is the one I chose, not the J the engine would have generated unprompted.

One well-constructed frame makes one claim into fact in the AI’s voice. Run that across the claims that matter, and the cumulative weight is what shifts a brand from “frequently mentioned convincingly” to “almost always mentioned as the leading provider”: dominance is a stack of well-framed facts, not a single masterstroke.

The result: the AI doesn’t merely confirm, it enthuses. “Brand X leads in Y, and here is why that matters for your situation.” 

The engine transmits the frame wholesale, in the language you chose, to the audience you specified, with a reason to keep coming back. The machine didn’t generate the narrative; it relayed it warmly.

What happens when Level 3, framed proof of claims, is done well across the claims that matter? Brand X is almost always mentioned as the leading provider of Y, and dominates the space.

Each level builds on the previous: connected proof of claims requires scattered proof of claims connected, and framed proof of claims requires connected proof of claims bridged strategically.

Most brands are only halfway to framed proof of claims

The brands that think they’re at framed proof of claims are usually at framed proof of claims for humans, and scattered proof of claims for machines. Marketing and narrative work supplies frames to humans all the time, and plenty of brands do it well. 

What almost no brand does is supply frames the machine can use, and the gap between the two is where framed proof of claims is most powerful.

Some brands operate below even that and are effectively standing still: published facts at the surface, few proof connections, and no interpretive content the machine can use for any purpose. 

The signature objection from a standing still brand is the same in every consulting room: “We already do this, our website explains who we are.” The website does that. The website is doing zero work to help the machine with framing.

The cost of standing still isn’t visible until a model update or two down the line. Brands that think they’re at framed proof of claims are usually investing harder in the wrong layer (content), while the layer that matters (framing and, ideally, joining the dots) compounds for someone else. 

The gap widens every year. If you have content that doesn’t frame effectively or join the dots with links to proof, you’re leaking huge value, and pushing through connection and framing is the best return on past investment you can make right now: you’re doing the heavy lifting for the machines, and they’ll reward you for giving them this extremely valuable context on a plate.

Three structural conditions separate framed proof of claims from marketing-and-narrative-as-usual, and missing any one collapses the brand back to connected proof of claims or lower. 

The entity has to be well-established, well-resolved, and trusted, because a frame can’t anchor to a vague brand. The underlying proof has to be connected, because most brands have fluent marketing prose on top of scattered proof, which is scattered proof of claims with prettier wallpaper. 

The bridge itself has to be strictly logical, because machines read logic first and tone second, and a logically broken bridge fails, however well it’s written.

The better AI gets, the more framing matters

Smarter AI rewards better framing rather than replacing it, and the reason is the same selection pressure SEO practitioners have been operating under since the early 2000s. 

There’s a seductive and entirely wrong conclusion to draw from rapid improvement in AI reasoning: that engines will eventually figure out how to frame brands correctly without help. The opposite is true. The engine rewards the brand whose assets reduce its own workload for the same or better result.

Search engines reward sites that are easy to crawl, render, and classify. Knowledge Graphs reward entities that are easy to resolve. AI assistive engines reward content that is easy to ground, verify, and transmit confidently. Where the engine has to choose between two roughly equivalent candidates, the candidate that demands less computation, less inference, and less guesswork wins.

Framed proof of claims is that principle operating at the bridging layer. A more capable engine encountering this level has the bridge handed to it ready-made. It doesn’t have to figure out the frame, it transmits the bridge the brand supplied, fluently and confidently, with the engine’s full reasoning capability now amplifying rather than substituting for the framing work.

A more capable engine without a frame falls back to inference over scattered evidence, which is expensive, ambiguous, and produces hedged output. Every improvement in reasoning capability makes the hedging more detailed and the noncommittal language more sophisticated, but the underlying problem isn’t capability, it’s the absence of a frame to amplify. The engine is doing more work for a worse result, and that’s the exact failure mode the engine’s selection pressure is designed to penalize.

The gap between those two outcomes is the framing gap, and it widens with every generation. Brands implementing only connected proof of claims don’t lose ground in absolute terms, they lose ground relative to brands implementing Framed Proof of claims faster every year, because the engine increasingly rewards assets that let it deploy its growing capability productively rather than waste it on guessing and hedging. 

The selection pressure that rewarded fast websites in 1998, clean HTML in 2003, and structured data in 2015 rewards framed proof of claims now. The mechanism of gaining a competitive advantage by reducing costs for the AI for the same or better results hasn’t changed — and probably never will.

The framed proof of claims trajectory rises steeply and continues climbing. The connected proof of claims trajectory rises gently and flattens. The shaded area between the two lines is labeled the framing gap and visibly widens with each generation.

Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.

The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.

Start Free Trial
Get started with

Semrush One Logo

The bridge stays human

The bridge is human territory, and it stays human because it requires commercial intent specific to the brand that the engine doesn’t have. 

Everything the machine does well will get better: retrieval, connection, pattern extraction, and synthesis. None of that helps the brand whose evidence the machine can see but can’t bridge meaningfully to a beneficial conclusion.

Whether AI confirms your brand, overlooks it, or champions it comes down to one discipline: strategic claim bridging, claim by claim, fact by fact. It’s the last layer of brand-AI communication that won’t yield to automation, if it yields at all.

This is the 11th piece in my AI authority series. 

Read more at Read More

SEO isn’t just about being seen — it’s about being believed and chosen

/0 Comments/in , /by
Seen believed chosen

Wil Reynolds, founder and CEO of Seer Interactive, is challenging SEOs to rethink what success looks like in a world increasingly shaped by AI.

In his SEO Week session, “SEO is a performance channel, GEO isn’t. How do you pivot?”, Reynolds said many marketers are focused on the wrong outcomes — and producing work that people don’t believe.

Marketing isn’t just about being seen

Reynolds opened by pushing back on the idea that visibility alone is the goal of marketing.

“Marketing was never just to be seen or be visible,” he said. “You had to turn that visibility into something — believing something about your brand… And then they ultimately have to choose you.”

He described a progression that marketers need to focus on: being seen, being believed and being chosen.

“It’s how you take your time with people, and turn them from seeing you, into believing something about you,” he said.

“I got the ranking, job finished,” he added. “Job’s not finished.”

Reynolds also questioned the value of surface-level success metrics.

“I got a lot more followers, but they don’t pay you,” he said.

Low-quality marketing is everywhere

Reynolds pointed to common marketing tactics — including automated outreach — as examples of work that doesn’t create value.

“That’s not marketing,” he said, referring to spam-like SMS messages.

Those tactics made him reflect on his own past work, he said.

“I started looking at the stuff that I used to do… was that really marketing?” he said.

“Some of us are strategists. Some of us are loopholists,” he said. “You’ve got to make a decision today.”

The industry is producing ‘zombie content’

Reynolds criticized the widespread use of scaled, templated content designed primarily to rank.

He used broad listicle-style pages as an example.

“Why would you write content saying best restaurants in Minnesota when nobody that’s a human looks for the best restaurant in Minnesota?” he said.

He described this type of content as “zombie content.”

“That’s what we do,” he said, describing how marketers repeat what already ranks instead of doing something different.

He also described how many marketers approach content creation.

“I’m going to look at the top 10 and look at what they did slightly wrong… and I’m only going to do it slightly better,” he said.

Short-term tactics vs. long-term brand building

Reynolds contrasted short-term SEO tactics with long-term brand building.

“Some people like to win in decades,” he said. “Other people like to win quarter to quarter.”

He described how many teams focus on immediate results.

“What works this quarter to get my boss off my back long enough so I can survive the next quarter?” he said.

That approach leads to work that people don’t actually want, he said.

“You will never produce a thing that anyone wants if you continue to play that,” he said.

SEO success doesn’t translate to AI visibility

Reynolds shared an example involving “ethical jeans” to show how SEO and AI results can differ.

One brand ranked well in Google without being known for ethical practices, while another brand that invested in ethical production ranked much lower.

In AI-generated answers, that outcome changed.

“If that worked, if it was the same, that brand would be showing up in AI models,” he said. “And they showed up in none.”

He connected this to credibility.

“Nobody believed them,” he said. “Nobody chose them.”

Visibility without belief doesn’t lead to outcomes

Visibility alone isn’t enough, Reynolds said.

“If you have all the visibility in the world and people don’t believe you or trust you, then you’re not going to get chosen,” he said.

Visibility is only part of the process, he said.

“This visibility is just an opportunity,” he said. “That’s all it is. … Iit is not the job to be done.”

What people say matters

Reynolds suggested looking at platforms like Reddit to understand how people actually talk about brands.

“Go to Reddit… look at all the brands,” he said. “You find out that humans don’t believe you. And they have to pay you for you to stay in business.

He contrasted that with how brands present themselves in content.

“Not only did they not think you’re number one — they don’t think you’re number 100,” he said.

The wrong metrics are being measured

Marketers often focus on metrics that are easy to track rather than meaningful, Reynolds said.

“We’re measuring the easy stuff to measure,” he said. “The real work is in the hard-to-measure stuff.”

He encouraged comparing visibility metrics with signals tied to outcomes.

“If your visibility is skyrocketing and your pipeline is flat, that’s bad,” he said.

Watching real users changes the picture

Reynolds described research his team conducted by observing real people using AI tools.

“When you actually watch people do the job… your eyes open so much wider,” he said.

One person typed four words, while another typed more than 100 words for the same task, he said.

He also noted that AI tools often suggest additional steps or actions beyond what users ask for, and people frequently accept those suggestions, he said.

Start with your brand

Marketers should focus on how their brand appears in AI-generated answers, especially for branded queries, Reynolds said.

“You spend all this money trying to get people to know your brand… and then you don’t want to make sure that answer’s right?” he said.

AI can shape your brand narrative

Reynolds shared an example where AI-generated responses surfaced incorrect information about his company.

“So now it’s showing up everywhere,” he said.

He described responding by publishing content to address the claim directly.

“If it’s false, then I’ve got to fight that,” he said.

There is too much content

“There’s too much content out there,” he said.

He described shifting his approach.

“I’m trying to become a curator,” he said.

Rethinking performance

Reynolds shared examples of how different traffic sources perform.

“My direct converts 1.5 times better than my SEO,” he said. “My social, five times better.”

A final question for marketers

Reynolds ended by asking marketers to rethink their priorities:

“Are you willing to sacrifice a little bit of this visibility game to be more believable?”

Read more at Read More

Web Design and Development San Diego

Why more content is no longer a reliable way to grow SEO

/0 Comments/in , /by
Why more content is no longer a reliable way to grow SEO

One of the most dependable ways to grow organic visibility was to publish more content. Expanding into the long tail and creating pages around different variations of a topic often led to steady traffic growth.

Many SEO teams still operate with this mindset. Content calendars are built around search volume targets, and growth is often equated with how much new content is produced. The problem is the results no longer reflect the effort.

In many cases, adding more pages doesn’t lead to increased visibility and can even dilute overall performance. Large content libraries are harder to maintain, compete internally, and often result in fewer pages surfacing in search results.

The challenge is no longer producing more content, but understanding why much of it fails to contribute to visibility.

Why content volume worked for SEO

For a long time, increasing content volume was a rational and effective strategy. Search engines relied heavily on keyword matching and topical coverage, which meant expanding into the long tail created more opportunities to capture demand.

Competition was also significantly lower, and many queries had limited high-quality results, so publishing across a wide range of keyword variations often led to quick visibility gains. In this environment, covering more topics translated directly into increased traffic.

Publishing frequency also helped strengthen domain authority. Sites that consistently added new content signaled freshness and relevance, which improved their ability to compete in search results.

This approach was further amplified by programmatic SEO. By creating scalable templates and targeting large keyword sets, companies generated thousands of pages and captured traffic at scale.

Most importantly, this strategy worked because it aligned with how search engines evaluated content at the time. Expanding coverage increased the likelihood of ranking, and more pages meant more opportunities to be discovered.

However, the conditions that made this approach effective have changed. As search ecosystems have evolved and competition has increased, the relationship between content volume and visibility has become less predictable.

Dig deeper: Content marketing in an AI era: From SEO volume to brand fame

Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.

The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.

Start Free Trial
Get started with

Semrush One Logo

Why this model is breaking down

Content saturation

Most commercially relevant topics now have dozens of established pages competing for the same queries, many with years of accumulated links and behavioral data. 

A new page enters this environment at a disadvantage because the keyword spaces it targets are already consolidated around results with existing authority and signal history.

Diminishing returns

As sites expand into adjacent keyword variations, search engines increasingly route similar queries to the same URL rather than distributing traffic across multiple pages. 

This shows up in Google Search Console as two or three URLs splitting impressions on identical queries — neither ranking strongly because neither has consolidated authority. The intent overlap that content teams treat as coverage, Google treats as redundancy.

Changes in search experience

AI Overviews now appear across a significant and growing share of informational queries. Google has confirmed continued expansion of the feature across search types and markets. Informational content is the most affected by this shift, and it’s also the type most volume strategies produce. 

A site with a large number of blog articles is therefore more exposed than one focused on a smaller set of transactional pages. More ranked pages don’t produce proportional traffic when an increasing share of visible positions no longer generate a click.

Indexing limits

Google’s budget documentation states directly that low-value URLs drain crawl activity away from pages that matter. At scale, thin or redundant content is deprioritized — meaning a significant percentage of a site’s published pages may never meaningfully enter search competition regardless of how much continues to be added.

Dig deeper: The authority era: How AI is reshaping what ranks in search

The hidden mechanics behind content saturation

What’s less understood is how content libraries behave at scale. These are system-level problems that compound over time and are difficult to reverse.

Content debt

Every page published creates an ongoing obligation. It needs to be monitored for ranking decay, updated when information changes, evaluated periodically for pruning or consolidation, and factored into crawl allocation. These costs are rarely accounted for at the point of creation.

At low volumes, this is manageable. At scale, it becomes a compounding liability. A site with 2,000 articles isn’t sitting on 2,000 assets, it’s managing 2,000 maintenance commitments that depreciate at different rates. 

Editorial resources that could strengthen existing high-performing pages are instead absorbed by keeping a growing library from becoming a liability.

The true cost of a volume-driven content strategy only becomes visible 18 to 24 months after the investment, when maintenance demands begin to outpace the capacity to meet them.

Crawl inefficiency and cannibalization

Google allocates a finite crawl budget to each domain. When a site scales content volume without proportional gains in quality or authority, Googlebot distributes that budget across a larger number of pages, many of which offer limited signal value. The result is that high-value pages are crawled less frequently, indexed less reliably, and are slower to reflect updates.

This creates a compounding problem for sites with important transactional or evergreen pages that depend on frequent re-crawling to stay current and competitive. Beyond crawl distribution, similar pages targeting overlapping intent compete for the same ranking positions internally. 

Search engines consolidate these signals rather than rewarding each page individually, meaning two pages targeting near-identical queries often perform worse combined than one authoritative page targeting both would perform alone.

Topical authority dilution

Search engines evaluate whether a site is a genuinely deep and trustworthy resource within a defined topic space. Expanding into a wide range of loosely related subtopics can erode this signal rather than strengthen it.

A site with 40 tightly interconnected, substantive pieces on a specific topic will consistently outperform one with 400 surface-level articles spread across adjacent themes. The depth and coherence of coverage within a defined area are what build the authority signal that drives durable rankings. 

Pursuing breadth at the expense of depth fragments that signal, making it harder for search engines to assign clear expertise to the domain on any individual topic, even the ones the site knows best.

Weak content and behavioral signals

Search engines use behavioral data such as dwell time, return-to-search rates, and click-through rates as quality signals at both the page and domain levels. 

When a site publishes high volumes of content that users engage with poorly, those signals accumulate and begin to affect how search engines evaluate the domain as a whole. This creates a negative reinforcement loop that’s difficult to detect and slow to reverse. 

Weak pages actively contribute to lower domain-level quality assessments, affecting the performance of pages that would otherwise rank well. More mediocre content compounds. Each low-engagement publish incrementally reduces the baseline trust that search engines extend to the domain’s better work.

Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.

See terms.

The rise of citation-driven visibility

The goal of SEO has traditionally been to rank. Increasingly, the more valuable outcome is to be cited or referenced in AI-generated summaries, pulled into knowledge panels, or sourced by other publishers as a primary reference. These two outcomes require fundamentally different content strategies.

LLMs and AI Overviews are selective about which sources they draw from. The selection is weighted toward pages with strong E-E-A-T signals, high specificity, and clear authoritativeness within a defined domain. 

A site that has published hundreds of generic articles covering a topic broadly is less likely to be treated as a primary source than a site that has published fewer, more definitive pieces with clear depth and original perspective. 

Volume doesn’t increase citation probability — it may actively reduce it by signaling that the domain is a generalist content producer rather than a reliable primary reference.

The long tail is saturated

The accessible long tail that drove content volume strategies for the better part of a decade no longer exists in the same form. Between 2010 and 2020, there were genuinely underserved keyword opportunities across most industries. 

Today, in most commercial verticals, every remotely valuable query has multiple established pages competing for it, especially from high-authority domains with years of accumulated signals.

New content entering this environment doesn’t find open space. It enters a war of attrition against incumbents with advantages it can’t easily overcome. The marginal SEO return on a new article targeting a long-tail keyword is a fraction of what it was five years ago. 

The economics only justify creation when there’s a genuinely differentiated angle, a proprietary data point, or a perspective that exists on your page that other pages can’t offer. A keyword existing is no longer a sufficient reason to publish.

At scale, these factors turn content growth into diminishing returns rather than compounding gains. The library becomes harder to maintain, harder for search engines to evaluate clearly, and harder to extract meaningful visibility from — regardless of how much is added to it.

Dig deeper: How to keep your content fresh in the age of AI

How to shift from content volume to impact

The implication is to change what publishing is for.

Volume targets made sense when more pages meant more opportunities. In the current environment, they measure the wrong thing. The more useful question isn’t how much content a team is producing, but how much of what already exists is actively contributing to visibility, and what is quietly working against it.

For most sites, that audit reveals the same pattern. A relatively small number of pages generate the majority of organic traffic. A larger number generates little to none, and a significant portion actively drains crawl allocation, fragments topical authority, or dilutes the behavioral signals that stronger pages depend on.

You need to move from expansion to consolidation. Existing pages that cover overlapping intent are stronger merged than competing. Thin pages that rank for nothing and engage no one are more valuable removed than retained. 

The energy going into producing new content at volume is often better spent deepening the pages that already have authority and signal history behind them.

New content earns its place when it: 

  • Addresses something genuinely unaddressed.
  • Offers a perspective that existing pages can’t.
  • Targets an intent the site currently lacks. 

In practice, this means retiring a few default assumptions:

  • That publishing for every keyword variation is coverage.
  • That indexing is the same as performance.
  • That output volume is a proxy for strategic progress. 

None of these were ever true measures of content effectiveness. They were convenient ones.

Dig deeper: Content strategy in 2026: What actually changed (and what didn’t)

A new model for content-driven growth

The replacement for volume isn’t simply better content. It’s a different definition of what content is trying to achieve.

Depth over breadth

Focus coverage on a smaller number of topics and develop them thoroughly. A single piece that addresses a topic with specificity, original perspective, and clear authorial expertise will outperform multiple pieces covering adjacent variations of the same theme. 

Depth is what builds authority signals, drives engagement, and increases citation potential. Prioritize what the site can say with the most credibility.

Distribution as a multiplier

Allocate more effort to distribution. Publishing less creates capacity to deliver strong content to the right audiences. Distribution is a core part of SEO performance in a citation-driven environment.

Being citation-worthy

Create content that can serve as a primary source. Focus on clear points of view, verifiable expertise, and specific insights that other pages can’t replicate.

The goal is to be referenced in AI-generated summaries, cited by other publishers, and included in the knowledge systems search engines rely on.

Dig deeper: Content alone isn’t enough: Why SEO now requires distribution

See the complete picture of your search visibility.

Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform.

Start Free Trial
Get started with

Semrush One Logo

The uncomfortable truth

Sites that rely on frequency and broad coverage are being outperformed by sites that are clearly authoritative on a defined topic, consistently useful to a specific audience, and structured in a way that search systems can evaluate with confidence.

Prioritize depth, clarity of expertise, and consistency within a focused topic area. Treat each published page as a long-term asset that requires ongoing maintenance, evaluation, and improvement.

The content factory model is no longer effective. The approach that replaces it requires more effort, stronger editorial standards, and a higher bar for what gets published.

Read more at Read More