Measurement series
The same prompt set at a fixed interval, every run dated and with raw data.
Monitoring repeats the same questions in the same systems at a fixed interval. That is what lets you tell whether your visibility moved or a provider simply changed something.
Difference
The audit answers “where do we stand?”. It is a project with a start and an end. Monitoring answers “what is changing, and why?”. It runs for as long as you want the view.
The reason for the split is practical. After the audit many clients know enough and get on with implementing. Repetition only becomes interesting once measures are running, because that is when something can actually move.
The reverse also holds: monitoring without a baseline produces numbers with no reference. So we only start it on top of an audit, or we capture the baseline in the first month.
What you get
The same prompt set at a fixed interval, every run dated and with raw data.
A message when a mention disappears or a new competitor enters the set. Not on every fluctuation.
Trend, interpretation, recommendation. And which measures produced nothing.
One meeting per quarter to settle questions and agree the next steps.
Honestly
If nothing is being implemented, you are only measuring provider noise. Monitoring pays off when work runs alongside it, otherwise it produces reports nobody needs.
With very small question sets the benefit is limited too: too few questions mean large swings, and then every fluctuation looks like a trend. Where that applies, we say so before any contract.
Common questions
Difference
Not a judgement on individual agencies, but a description of two approaches. The right column is checkable, because this website itself is built that way.
| Difference | Usual agency approach | agenticsearch.at |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | A proposal after a first call | A measurement with a date, before anything gets recommended |
| Basis | Keywords from classic search | A question set of real prompts, clustered and prioritised |
| Proof of success | Rankings and a visibility index | Mentions per question and system, with the raw data |
| Reporting | A monthly dashboard with curves | The same measurement repeated, change called only after three runs |
| When unsure | Try it and see what happens | We say what is not evidenced, and write it on the page |
| Tooling | Agency licences, access ends with the contract | The question set and the data are yours, afterwards too |
| Scope | As many channels as possible from one supplier | A capped number of concurrent projects, otherwise we turn it down |
Your guides
You know your business, your customers and your offer better than any agency does. What is usually missing is solid numbers on how AI systems talk about it, and an order in which to tackle that.
The number of concurrent projects is capped. When a piece of work needs more capacity than exists, we turn it down rather than take it on.
01
It starts with a measurement, not a proposal. You see in black and white which AI answers name your company and which do not, with a date and a question set.
02
Instead of a list of everything, you get an order. Every step has a result you can verify yourself, including without us.
03
Your offer and your positioning stay yours. We tell you what stands in the way of visibility and take on the technical part of it.
Next step
One conversation, 30 minutes, no sales pressure. You leave with an honest read on whether this is worth the effort for you.