Why do you look at the result page before writing?

Because the result page tells you what kind of page Google has decided the question deserves, and writing a different kind is the most common reason good writing never ranks. The same word can produce shopping results, a troubleshooting guide or a map with three businesses on it. Fifteen minutes of looking prevents a week of writing the wrong thing, and it is why briefs here start with a screenshot rather than a keyword.

Do you guarantee the article will rank?

No. What we commit to is the work — the intent read, the brief built from your own Search Console queries, the draft, the internal links added on publication, and a review of clicks and impressions once the page has been crawled and had time to settle. Position is decided by Google against competitors we do not control. Any writer promising a position is promising something outside their hands.

How long should each article be?

As long as the question needs and no longer. We do not write to a word count taken from a content-scoring tool, because those tools reward matching whatever currently ranks and quietly train you to pad. Length gets set by the sub-questions the query data shows people actually ask. Some of those are answered properly in six hundred words and stretching them to two thousand makes the page worse.

Will you use AI to write it?

For structure, for analysis of query data and for a first pass, yes, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. What never survives is an unchecked number. Ask a model for search volumes or statistics and it will produce a confident, well-formatted table that is invented. Every figure in a finished piece traces to a source you can open, and where a subject needs first-hand knowledge we get it from you rather than generating something plausible.

We already publish a lot. Why is nothing improving?

Frequently because you have written about the same thing several times and your own pages are competing with each other for one query, which leaves all of them weaker than one strong page would be. Before commissioning more, it is worth checking. The usual fix is to merge the best material into a single page and permanently redirect the others, and that often produces more movement than the next three new articles.

Who chooses the topics?

You approve them, we propose them from evidence. Priority goes to queries where you already appear at positions eight to twenty with impressions in the data, because demand there is confirmed and the gap is small. Big head terms where you sit past position forty are usually a way to spend months for nothing, and questions a single sentence answers are worth skipping however large the volume looks.

SEO & Organic Growth

Articles written for the search result that actually exists

Every piece starts by reading the live result page for its query and the queries your page already appears for, not by filling a keyword into a template.

From: $40–$300/article
Typical time: ongoing
Usually bought by: Content marketers

Why publishing more has stopped working

The shortage that brings you here is not content. You have a blog with three years of posts, a writer who delivers on time, and a chart that will not move. The problem is rarely the prose. It is that the pieces were commissioned against a keyword and a word count, without anyone establishing what kind of page the question was asking for, or whether that question was worth a page at all.

Two things decide that, and both are visible before a word is written. The first is intent — what the person typing actually wants. Someone typing a product name wants to compare and buy. Someone typing that product name followed by a fault wants a fix. Someone typing it with a city name wants a supplier near them. Google shows a different kind of result for each, and an article written for the wrong one will not rank however well it reads.

The second is whether a click is still available. On questions a paragraph settles, the answer increasingly appears above the results and the visit never happens. A large monthly volume on a question of that shape is not an opportunity, it is a page that will be read on the results screen and never opened. That judgement belongs at the commissioning stage, because no amount of editing rescues a topic that had nowhere to send anybody.

How a piece gets made

Read the demand before choosing the topic. Search Console first, sorted by impressions, looking for queries sitting at positions eight to twenty where demand already exists and the distance is short. Then the live result page for each candidate, in a clean window, to see what Google is rewarding and whether an AI answer is occupying the top of the screen. Half a day per batch of topics.
Write the brief from evidence. The dominant query the page will serve, the sub-questions drawn from the query list and the People also ask box, the angle, the specific facts or examples you need to supply, and the pages it will link to and from. A brief without the query data in it is a guess with a deadline attached. Two to three hours per piece.
Draft, then check every fact against a source. Structure first, then prose. Any figure, date or claim gets traced to something openable — a regulator, a manufacturer, your own records. Nothing invented, nothing generated to fill a gap, and where the piece needs first-hand experience we ask you for it. One to three days per piece depending on research depth.
Edit against the result page, not against a score. The draft goes back next to the result page it was written for. Does it answer the question in the shape the query implied? Is the answer complete before the reader has to scroll? Is the title one a person would click, rather than one repeating the keyword three times, which lowers click rates without improving anything. Half a day per piece.
Publish, link and re-check. Internal links added in both directions with descriptive anchor text rather than click here, indexing requested, and a check six weeks later on impressions, clicks and position for the page in Search Console. That last step is where commissioning decisions for the following month come from. Two hours at publication, one hour at the six-week check.

What sets the price

The range is $40–$300/article, and pieces sit at different ends of it for reasons worth being explicit about.

Research depth. A clear explanatory piece on a subject with public documentation sits at the lower end. A piece requiring a specialist interview, primary sources, or reconciling figures that disagree across sources takes several times as long and costs accordingly.

Accountability of the subject. Health, legal, financial and safety topics need a named author with real credentials, visible sourcing and contactable ownership. That is a slower production process with more people touching it, and it is not optional in those categories.

How much of publication is included. A delivered document is one price. A piece taken through your CMS with headings, internal links added across existing pages, structured data and indexing checked is another, and it is usually the better purchase because articles that land without internal links have to be discovered from scratch.

The three ways content budgets get wasted

A topic is chosen for its volume when its answer is one sentence. The tool reports a large monthly number, the article gets commissioned, and the question turns out to be the kind that is settled on the results screen. Nobody arrives. The check takes two minutes — search the query and look at what occupies the top of the screen before agreeing to write about it.

A new article is published on a subject you already cover. Two or three of your own pages end up competing for one query, the signal splits, and each is weaker than a single page would have been. This gets worse with volume, so the sites publishing hardest suffer most from it. The fix is not another article. It is merging the strongest material into one page and permanently redirecting the rest.

A confident, invented number reaches you. Ask a language model for search volumes, market sizes or study results and you get a complete, well-formatted table where every value looks certain and none of it is real. It is the fastest way to lose your trust, because the one number you happen to know is wrong takes the credibility of everything else with it. Volumes come from Keyword Planner, Search Console or a paid tool. Facts come from sources. The model gets structure, analysis and drafting, never figures.

See where the site stands before you brief anyone.

If the site is already live, start from what it scores rather than from a guess. The audit reports what it checked, what it found, and — the part most tools leave out — what it could not check, and why.

See the website audit Talk about this work

Questions people ask before they commit.

Why do you look at the result page before writing?: Because the result page tells you what kind of page Google has decided the question deserves, and writing a different kind is the most common reason good writing never ranks. The same word can produce shopping results, a troubleshooting guide or a map with three businesses on it. Fifteen minutes of looking prevents a week of writing the wrong thing, and it is why briefs here start with a screenshot rather than a keyword.
Do you guarantee the article will rank?: No. What we commit to is the work — the intent read, the brief built from your own Search Console queries, the draft, the internal links added on publication, and a review of clicks and impressions once the page has been crawled and had time to settle. Position is decided by Google against competitors we do not control. Any writer promising a position is promising something outside their hands.
How long should each article be?: As long as the question needs and no longer. We do not write to a word count taken from a content-scoring tool, because those tools reward matching whatever currently ranks and quietly train you to pad. Length gets set by the sub-questions the query data shows people actually ask. Some of those are answered properly in six hundred words and stretching them to two thousand makes the page worse.
Will you use AI to write it?: For structure, for analysis of query data and for a first pass, yes, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. What never survives is an unchecked number. Ask a model for search volumes or statistics and it will produce a confident, well-formatted table that is invented. Every figure in a finished piece traces to a source you can open, and where a subject needs first-hand knowledge we get it from you rather than generating something plausible.
We already publish a lot. Why is nothing improving?: Frequently because you have written about the same thing several times and your own pages are competing with each other for one query, which leaves all of them weaker than one strong page would be. Before commissioning more, it is worth checking. The usual fix is to merge the best material into a single page and permanently redirect the others, and that often produces more movement than the next three new articles.
Who chooses the topics?: You approve them, we propose them from evidence. Priority goes to queries where you already appear at positions eight to twenty with impressions in the data, because demand there is confirmed and the gap is small. Big head terms where you sit past position forty are usually a way to spend months for nothing, and questions a single sentence answers are worth skipping however large the volume looks.

Often taken together.

Start with the brief, not the invoice.

Send what you are trying to achieve. You get a written scope, a price and a date — or an honest “this is not the right service for that”.

Talk about SEO content writing All SEO & Organic Growth services