@VeryWellVersed More samples could make us more confident in the wrong picture... if they're all seeing the same distorted results. What would you use to check whether that visibility rate reflects what buyers actually see?
I want to test how much of a lead problem is really an unanswered-question problem.
One service. One hesitation that sales keeps hearing. Maybe it's the cost of switching, maybe it's what the first month actually looks like.
Give that question real space on a landing page. The responsibilities, the tradeoffs, the parts that might make someone decide we're wrong for them. All the things we're tempted to save for the call... assuming they ever book one.
Then split comparable paid traffic between that and the existing page. Same ad promise. Agree with sales on what a qualified inquiry means before looking at the results.
I'd watch cost per qualified inquiry and what happens after the first conversation, not just forms. Long enough to see whether people move forward.
Maybe being more explicit costs us inquiries. The thing I want to know is whether it costs us customers... or saves both sides a conversation that was never going anywhere.
I'm not sure "bad lead" is a useful enough label for the amount of money we let it influence.
Someone asks about implementation and doesn't book. Sales marks them not ready. Marketing gets asked for better leads.
Maybe that's fair... but what if implementation was the thing they needed help understanding before they could be ready?
Wrong service area, wrong budget, unclear process. We can put all three in the same rejected bucket and then use that bucket to judge the campaign. Or decide what an acquisition system should learn from.
I'd want to pull those reasons apart with sales first.
The part that bothers me is the feedback loop. If the company is weak at answering a particular buying question, we could end up teaching marketing to stop finding people who ask it.
The numbers might even improve... while a solvable problem with the offer stays untouched.
@VeryWellVersed This could make client conversations a lot more specific... especially when the topics we're cited for aren't what the company wants to be known for. Curious what you'd dig into first with a client?
@wilreynolds@jenboland Makes me wonder how much of what we call “working” depends on what we can explain... has digging into direct changed your read on another channel’s performance?
57.5% of AI users surveyed said they'd decided against a purchase because of information from a chatbot.
That's from Exploding Topics research published by Semrush in September, using a July 2026 US survey. Self-reported behavior... not a measurement of lost sales.
Still, it makes me wonder how much of our GEO reporting is built around the wrong question.
We ask whether the brand showed up. I'd also want to know what happens when someone asks, "why shouldn't I hire them?"
A mention could put us on the shortlist. The explanation that follows could take us right back off it.
And the reason matters. Wrong information needs correcting. An honest limitation might mean the buyer is a poor fit. A recurring complaint could mean there's work to do inside the company.
Those are very different assignments... a visibility score can make them look like the same problem.
Source: https://t.co/T6ZhbtKaBE
Say someone is comparing software and keeps asking about migration. We see the question in search research, put it in a brief... write the page.
But they're worried about moving five years of data. Who handles it? What breaks? Who's responsible if it does?
If the company hasn't worked that out, what exactly are we optimizing?
This is where I think keyword research and the related questions around it can become more useful to the business. Before turning a question into a writing assignment... find out whether there's an answer the company is prepared to stand behind.
Maybe we need better content. Maybe we need the operations person in the meeting.
And if the offer needs to change, I'd want marketing involved in that conversation early. Otherwise we're spending money bringing people closer to a decision the business hasn't made either.
@finalcall000 Yeah... and that blended answer could become the expectation sales has to deal with. Would you bring it into that monthly meeting as another version of the company’s promise... even though nobody in the room approved it?”
The request to "move from SEO to GEO" is interesting to me... especially when Google's own guidance says the SEO fundamentals still apply to its AI search features.
I don't think correcting the terminology is the most useful thing we can do with that conversation, though.
Think about where a buying question goes. Price... implementation... alternatives... whether the company can actually do what it says. Those answers belong to different people. Different vendors, sometimes. All reporting on their own piece.
I'd want to use that interest in GEO to get the CMO, search team, paid team, PR and sales on one monthly call. Pick a real buying question and follow it across the company. Where do the answers stop lining up?
That's a much bigger role for an agency. And probably a harder one to earn.
Because once we start pointing out where the message breaks down, we need to be willing to help resolve it... even when the answer involves something we don't sell.
I wonder whether AI search will expose how interchangeable a lot of positioning is.
Strip away the logo, photography and animation. Give someone just the claims on the homepage. Could they tell which competitor wrote them?
That's a useful test even if no AI ever reads the page.
One way I'd judge SEO: listen to the questions on sales calls.
If the content is doing its job, people should arrive with fewer basic questions and better difficult ones. A page can earn its keep by changing the conversation, even when it doesn't get credit for the lead.
Feed an AI your winning proposals and it may learn the promises that won your worst clients.
I'd want it reading the scope changes and renewal notes, too. A signed contract tells you what somebody wanted to hear. The next six months tell you whether you should have said it.