The way in
The £400 AI Visibility Sprint
Seven days, one fixed fee agreed before anything starts, and a one page report you could hand to someone else. It answers a single question: does anything out there know your business exists.
Nothing is charged from an enquiry. The scope is confirmed in writing first.
The seven days
What happens, in order
I run a fixed set of buyer questions through ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Copilot. The record captures verbatim whether you are named, whether a competitor is, and what is said instead. Everything is dated and quoted.
I check what a machine can actually read on your site: crawlability, fact placement in HTML rather than PDFs or images, and whether your company details agree across the sources these systems consult.
Not a list of recommendations. Five concrete changes made live, chosen for the largest gap between effort and effect, and logged so you can see exactly what changed and when.
One page: what was tested, what was found, what was changed, and the date on which the same tests get run again. The method is written out so you can repeat it without me.
The terms, plainly
| Price | £400, fixed in writing before work starts |
|---|---|
| Duration | Seven days from the day access is granted |
| Deliverable | One page report, dated, plus five fixes shipped live |
| Re-check | A specific date in the report, usually six to eight weeks out |
| Access needed | Search Console and analytics read access, plus a way to ship site changes |
| Commitment after | None. The Sprint stands alone |
| Who does the work | One person. The person who quotes it is the person who does it |
The numbers
total fee, fixed FIXED
No day rate, no scope creep clause, no surprise second invoice.
days from access to report FIXED
The clock starts when access lands, not when the enquiry does.
fixes shipped, not suggested FIXED
A recommendation nobody implements is worth nothing. Implementation is inside the fee.
What it is not
The limits, stated up front
The Sprint will not get you cited by an assistant in seven days and it does not claim to. Retrieval, indexing and model refresh cycles run on their own timescales. That is exactly why the report carries a re-check date instead of a result.
It is also not a full technical audit, a content programme, or a link building engagement. It is a narrow, cheap, honest way to find out where you stand before spending more.
Who it suits in Telford
Subcontract engineering and manufacturing firms whose capability detail currently lives in a downloadable catalogue rather than on readable pages. That single structural problem is the most common one I find locally.
Logistics and warehousing operators competing for enquiries that begin with a location and a requirement, where being absent from a generated shortlist is invisible until you look for it.
Any established firm that has never checked and would rather know than assume. That covers most of the businesses I speak to.
Public consultation
Common questions about the Sprint
Why £400 and not a free audit?
A free audit is a sales document and both sides know it. Charging a small fixed fee means the seven days are spent on your site rather than on persuading you to buy something bigger.
What if the Sprint finds that nothing is wrong?
Then that is the finding. You keep a dated baseline proving it. I would rather tell you that than manufacture problems to justify a retainer.
Does the Sprint commit me to a retainer?
No. It is a standalone piece of work with a fixed price and a defined end. A good number of them end there quite reasonably.
What access do you need from me?
Read access to Google Search Console and analytics, plus either edit access to the website or a developer contact who can apply changes. Without the ability to ship, only four of the five fixes are deliverable.
How is the re-check handled?
The report carries a specific date, usually six to eight weeks out, on which the same tests are run again. You can run them yourself using the method written into the report, or I can run them.
Is seven days actually enough?
Yes, for a baseline and five targeted fixes. The scope is deliberately narrow by design. It is not enough to rebuild a site or produce a content programme and it is not sold as if it were.