Practical questions.
Clear answers.

Chandigarh, working remotely with businesses across India. The coverage directory lists markets we research and write for, not offices we keep. It matters in one specific way: a business with no verified address in a city has no standing in that city’s map results, ours included, and any provider telling you otherwise is describing something they cannot deliver. For everything else, research, technical work and content do not depend on where the desk is.

It depends on what is wrong, and the honest range is wide. Removing something that is actively preventing discovery can show up within weeks. Building standing for contested terms takes months and sometimes does not arrive at all. What you should expect early is not results but clarity: whether the opportunity is real, how contested it is, and what it would take. Treat a specific date from any provider as a sales figure rather than a forecast.

No, and a guarantee should worry you rather than reassure you. Nobody outside the search engines controls the result, so there are only two ways to appear to deliver one: choose terms so obscure that nothing is competing for them, or quietly redefine success as the work goes on. What can be committed to is the work itself, the reasoning behind it and how progress will be judged. The case studies page covers how to test any provider’s claims, including ours.

Every service has a published starting price on the pricing page. SEO, web design, development, ads management and maintenance each start from a stated figure, and the rest are quoted for stated reasons. Your proposal then fixes the scope and the figure before any work begins, and the number you approve is the number you pay.

There is no fixed minimum, and yes. We decline work that is too small to reach a result rather than taking the fee and letting you assume otherwise, and we decline work where search is not the real problem. Guaranteed-ranking arrangements, bought links and content nobody in your business will verify are also declined, for reasons set out under what we turn down.

More than most proposals imply, and it is the commonest reason plans stall. You will need to verify facts, approve drafts, grant access and free up developer time. Work waiting on an approval costs exactly what work in progress costs, and it is invisible until a quarter has gone. So the scope should be built backwards from the time you can genuinely give it, which is part of what our process establishes in the first week.

Either, and it should be settled in writing before anything starts rather than assumed. Some businesses have the knowledge and no time, some have neither. What never works is leaving it unassigned. Even where we write, the specifics that make a page worth reading come from you, and somebody in the business has to be able to say a claim is wrong. Content and on-page work covers how that is organised.

Yes, and it is the normal arrangement. Recommendations arrive with the problem, examples of affected pages, a priority and a way to confirm the change worked, and your team implements them on their own release process. We do not need production access to be useful, and your developers keep control of what ships. See technical SEO for what those recommendations look like.

Yes, the kind that survives scrutiny: relevance-led outreach and guest posting on sites with a real readership, quoted as a monthly scope with a placement range rather than a per-link rate. No private blog networks, no link exchanges and no bulk packages, because when those are penalised the damage lands on your domain. More on link building.

Paid ads, yes: Google and Meta campaigns on a flat monthly fee, with ad spend paid directly to the platforms. We also design and build websites and set up WhatsApp and AI automation. Organic social media management is the one thing we leave to specialists.

Search Console, analytics, and enough of the CMS to see how pages are produced. Always through individual invitations, never a shared password, which means you can revoke any of it yourself at any time without asking us. Please do not put passwords in the enquiry form or send them by email. We ask for the minimum that makes the work possible rather than everything that might be convenient.

Some of it will not, and that gets said rather than worked around. A page built to rank may not; a term can turn out harder than the research suggested. Reviews are where those are reported plainly and the plan changes. If the conclusion is that the remaining opportunity is too small to justify continuing, you should hear that from us rather than work it out yourself a year later.

Yes, and it is usually the right first step. Neither of us can size an ongoing arrangement responsibly before anyone has looked at the site, and a review that concludes an ongoing arrangement is unnecessary has still done its job. It produces a prioritised set of findings you own and can act on with anyone, including without us.

Not yet. Nothing on this site is a client story, because there are none we can publish. That is a genuine disadvantage and worth weighing against providers who can show you a track record. The case studies page sets out what we think separates credible evidence from well-designed evidence, and those tests apply to us too.

Send your website, the markets you want to reach and a short description of what you are trying to change, through the contact page. Enough context to ask sensible questions back is all that is needed at this stage. If there is an obvious answer, or an obvious reason not to proceed, you will get it in the first reply rather than after a proposal.