Item by item, what search work actually consists of — so you can compare two proposals on the same terms.
Speed, indexing, structure, redirects, structured data — finite work, mostly done early
Pages that answer real questions; the largest ongoing cost and the first thing dropped from a cheap quote
Mentions that would plausibly exist anyway — slow, unremarkable, and never bought
Business profile, consistent details and reviews — decisive for searches that include a town
Action, effect, next step; a chart on its own explains nothing and hides a lot
Search Console and server data alongside analytics, because consent removes part of the picture
Technical fixes first — content on a site Google struggles to read is wasted.
Content and campaigns, reported separately from each other.
Enquiries into the CRM, so the effect is countable at all.
Correct measurement before the changes, not after.
A review that says which blocks you actually need.
Usually because content writing has been left out. It is the largest ongoing cost and the easiest line to drop without it being obvious. The cheaper proposal is not dishonest by definition — but it is a smaller scope, and the difference shows up in month four.
Only where mentions would plausibly exist anyway: trade press, associations, suppliers, partners. Bought links breach Google's guidelines and the damage lands on your domain, not on the agency's. Five earned mentions do more than a hundred from a list.
Mostly. The bulk is front-loaded and finite, with occasional maintenance after a site change. An agency billing the same technical fee every month a year in is billing for something that finished.
Enquiries, then revenue. Positions are a leading indicator, not the point. We track search terms and enquiries side by side, so a rise in visibility that produces nothing is visible as such rather than presented as progress.
Send us your site and we will come back with the blocks that apply to you — including the ones you can safely skip.