How to Evaluate an SEO Proposal for Your Business
A suitable SEO proposal explains the problem, the deliverables, who implements them and how progress will be reviewed. Article, keyword and link counts are insufficient comparison criteria. Request a diagnosis tied to your website and a written scope covering permissions, dependencies and exclusions.
Two offers with the same service name can cover very different work. One may include implementation; another may only produce recommendations. Use the questions below to compare what your business will actually receive.
Identify the problem the proposal should address
Describe the current situation. Are important pages difficult to find through search? Are visitors reaching informational content but missing your services? Are appropriate visitors failing to enquire? These situations require different evidence and are not automatically solved by more articles.
A diagnosis should distinguish access and crawling issues, page organisation, relevance to search intent and the visitor experience. Ask for specific pages, observations and validation steps rather than a general statement that the site's SEO is weak.
- Technical evidence may include a blocked page or an incorrect destination.
- Content evidence may show a service scope that the visitor cannot understand.
- Structural evidence may involve several pages with indistinct roles.
- Business evidence may concern unsuitable enquiries or a failed contact route.
If historical data is unavailable, the proposal should explain how a baseline will be established and what remains uncertain. Missing data can be managed; it should not be concealed behind precise forecasts.
Turn service names into reviewable deliverables
Replace “complete optimisation” with a defined audit, prioritised work, target pages and acceptance checks. Recommendations require an implementation owner.
| Component | Reviewable output | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Audit | Page-specific findings, evidence and priorities | Does the scope include implementation? |
| Intent and topics | A map connecting needs with page roles | How is a primary page chosen? |
| Content | Defined pages with evidence and review | Who supplies and approves service facts? |
| Development | Developer tasks and post-change checks | Who implements the changes? |
| Links | Explained internal and external activity | What is the purpose and method? |
| Reporting | Baseline, change and next action | Which sources and limits apply? |
A deliverable is not a ranking guarantee
An audit or an approved implementation can be specified contractually. A particular search position is affected by factors outside a supplier's complete control. Google's hiring guidance warns against guaranteed first-place rankings.
Define completion. Does a content task end after writing, after CMS entry or after reviewing the public page? Does a technical task end after changing a setting or after checking the intended behaviour? These differences affect the offer's value.
Clarify which page owns each need
A service page explains the offer and how to enquire. An article helps the reader understand a problem or assess a decision. An ecommerce category groups suitable products. Sharing a topic does not make these page roles identical.
Ask the supplier to show an example from your site: how will a service page differ from its supporting article, which destination serves the campaign and what new question does the article answer?
Do not assume similar wording proves a problem. Review purpose, traffic, links and available outcomes before merging, deleting or redirecting pages. Every proposed new page should have an independent function.
An agency brief helps clarify the audience, offer and outputs before turning a topic list into production tasks.
Agree on reporting, access and ownership
Identify the source of each metric. Search reporting, visit analytics and enquiry or sales records describe different parts of performance. Increased visibility should not be presented as increased sales without supporting business data.
A useful report answers: what was delivered, what changed, what cannot yet be concluded and what should happen next? Review important service pages and relevant topics, and record the limits of the available tools.
The business should retain ownership of its website, accounts and data. Grant access appropriate to the agreed work; read access can be sufficient for an initial review. Specify who authorises changes and how reports, files and approved versions are handed over.
Cost, timing and dependencies
Separate delivery schedules from forecasts of search outcomes. Ask how developer delays or content approvals affect the work plan. Clarify whether writing, translation, CMS entry, licences and development are included before comparing prices.
Question promises that lack a clear method
A guaranteed first position, a claimed special search-engine relationship or large link quantities without source details require scrutiny. Strong language is not a substitute for explaining the work.
Google's spam policies address links created primarily to manipulate rankings and scaled page production without user value. Review purpose, quality and the checking process. Using automated tools alone does not establish a violation.
Large site changes also deserve a reason and an implementation plan. Ask for evidence before deleting pages, replacing successful messaging or changing URL paths. A case study from another sector can inform your assessment but cannot establish your future results.
A hypothetical comparison between two proposals
This is an illustrative comparison, not a Sadin offer or price. Imagine one proposal listing monthly articles and links, while another identifies service-page issues and implementation tasks. Neither description is enough to make a decision.
| Question | Insufficient answer | Reviewable answer |
|---|---|---|
| Why these pages? | The keywords are popular | Each page serves a defined need |
| What will we receive? | Complete optimisation | Named deliverables and acceptance checks |
| Who implements fixes? | The team will handle it | Named owner and development scope |
| How is progress reviewed? | Ranking report | Baseline, sources, limits and next action |
| What is excluded? | Almost nothing | Written production, licence and dependency exclusions |
A cheaper proposal may leave substantial work with your employees. A larger proposal may include work you do not currently need. Compare the total resources required to address the actual priority.
Use an acceptance checklist before contracting
- The problem is supported by examples or a defined data-gathering stage.
- Each stage has deliverables, ownership, dependencies and acceptance criteria.
- Page roles and content review are clear.
- Link methods are explained.
- Access, ownership and handover are agreed.
- Costs, exclusions and schedules are written down.
- Reporting distinguishes delivery, observed change and business outcomes.
Mark each item as clear, requiring clarification or outside scope. Connect the decision to the digital marketing plan so SEO fits the business's priorities and capacity.
Frequently asked questions
Should I accept a guaranteed first-place ranking?
Do not make a guarantee the reason for selecting a supplier. Ask about methods, deliverables and review criteria. Google warns against first-place guarantees because suppliers cannot fully control search rankings.
Is the number of articles enough to assess a proposal?
No. Review each article's independent purpose, evidence, relationship with service pages and publishing responsibility. Content volume alone does not establish that the business problem is being addressed.
When should I expect SEO results?
The starting site, competition, changes and implementation speed all matter. Agree on review stages and deliverables rather than a guaranteed outcome date, then assess the available evidence.
What should I ask about Sadin's SEO service?
Review the SEO and UX service, then discuss the diagnosis, content, development and reporting your site requires. Confirm the actual deliverables, exclusions and price directly before contracting.