The £400 AI Visibility Sprint

Because most Cambridge founders and marketing leads have been burned by vague SEO promises before, an invoice with no clear idea of what was actually done for the money. The Sprint's entire structure exists to remove that ambiguity: a fixed number, a fixed timeframe, and a table you can independently re-verify yourself, since the questions asked and the AI platforms tested are all stated plainly in the report.

The £400 AI Visibility Sprint is the deliberate low-commitment starting point: a fixed fee, seven day engagement that produces a dated, cited-or-not-cited table for the real questions your own investors, partners, and candidates would ask, five shipped fixes, and a re-check date so any change is verifiable rather than asserted. The ongoing Search + AI Visibility retainer exists for companies that want that citation table re-run and acted on every month, rather than treated as a one-off audit.

Below is an illustrative example using placeholder queries. Your actual sprint report is built from your real company and the real questions your buyers would ask.

1. Days 1 to 2: Baseline citation test

   Ten to fifteen real buyer, investor, or candidate questions are tested across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, and Google AI Overviews, recorded in the dated table, alongside a technical scan of robots.txt, schema, and llms.txt status.

2. Days 3 to 5: Five fixes shipped

   The five fixes with the highest likely impact are chosen from the baseline scan, typically structured data corrections, an llms.txt file, robots.txt access rules for AI crawlers, and rewriting a key page's opening paragraph to be directly extractable.

3. Days 6 to 7: Report and re-check date

   You receive the completed table, a plain summary of what was fixed and why, and a suggested re-check date, usually four to eight weeks out, allowing AI platforms time to recrawl and reprocess the changes.

The Sprint is scoped to be deliverable in a week for a fixed fee, so it does not include a full content rebuild, ongoing monthly reporting, or link building. Those are retainer-level activities, covered on the pricing page. If the audit surfaces a larger technical issue, for example an indexation problem tied to a past site migration, that gets flagged clearly rather than quietly worked around inside the sprint's scope.

Two kinds of Cambridge company get the most from it. The first has never had a proper technical SEO audit, and the Sprint doubles as an accessible way to find out what is actually wrong before spending more. The second already does some SEO but has never specifically checked AI citation status, a distinct question from normal keyword rankings that most existing SEO reporting does not cover at all.

It is a poor fit for a company expecting an overnight transformation or a guaranteed number of new enquiries within the week, since no honest engagement can promise that. What it reliably delivers is clarity: a documented, dated answer to where you stand today, in both Google and AI answers.

Usually not much. Read access to the site's content management system or a working relationship with whoever maintains it is enough for most fixes, along with the actual business detail needed to write accurate content: what the company does, who it sells to, and what makes the offering distinct. No advertising account access, analytics platform login, or existing SEO tooling subscription is required to run the sprint itself, though sharing them, where they exist, can make the baseline scan faster.