Generative engine optimisation, measured rather than assumed

AED 8,000 to AED 30,000 covers most of what we are asked to build. The number moves on how many pages need restructuring, whether ongoing citation monitoring is included, how many languages, and how many assistants are tracked. Anything quoted before those are known is a guess. We scope first, then price, and the scope document is yours whether or not you proceed. These are market ranges rather than a fixed rate card — the proposal carries the real figure.

Work that makes your site more likely to be used and cited as a source when an AI system generates an answer. In practice that means crawler access, content a model can extract cleanly, claims specific enough to quote, and consistent information about your business across the web.

They overlap heavily and the industry uses them loosely. The distinction we use: GEO is about being a source that generative systems cite when they compose an answer. AEO is about winning the direct answer itself, whether that is a featured snippet, a voice result or an assistant's reply. Worth knowing that Google returns completely different results for the two terms, with no overlap at all in the top ten, so they are not interchangeable in practice either.

Because almost everybody searching it right now wants to understand what it means. There is not a single agency service page on the first page of results in Dubai. That is worth knowing for two reasons: nobody has claimed the commercial version of this term yet, and you should be sceptical of anyone selling a mature GEO methodology for a discipline this new.

There is no switch, and anyone offering one is guessing. What demonstrably helps: let the crawlers in, serve your content in the HTML rather than assembling it with JavaScript, make specific checkable claims rather than marketing adjectives, structure pages so an answer sits directly under the question it answers, and get mentioned in the third-party sources that already get cited in your category. Then measure, because without a baseline you cannot tell whether any of it worked.

It is a legitimate decision and it depends on your business. A publisher whose revenue comes from people visiting pages has a real argument for blocking. A services business that wants to be recommended almost certainly does not. The point is to decide rather than to discover a plugin decided for you.

No, and treat any guarantee as a reason to walk away. There is no submission process, no ranking dashboard and no direct control. What we can do is remove the blockers, make the pages genuinely quotable, and measure the outcome honestly, including when it does not move.

A fixed set of the questions your buyers actually ask, run across the major assistants on a schedule and logged. We record who gets cited and how that changes. It is a sample rather than a census, and answers vary between runs, so we look at trends across repeated tests rather than reading a single result as fact.

No, and the framing is mostly marketing. The models are largely reading the same web that search engines index, so technical health, useful content and credible mentions serve both. What has genuinely changed is that informational queries increasingly get answered without a click, which is an argument for focusing on commercial pages rather than for abandoning search.

Access fixes are immediate. Content restructuring runs over one to three months depending on how many pages. Citation change, where it happens, has typically taken us two to four months to see in the monitoring, and it does not happen on every engagement.

Yes, and we will do that at no charge. It is a few minutes of work and it is the single most common problem we find, so we would rather tell you than sell around it.