We Ran the GEO Audit on Our Own Agency First

There's a particular kind of credibility risk in telling other businesses they should measure their AI search visibility while not having done it yourself. So before CCG started offering the GEO Visibility Snapshot to clients, we ran it on ourselves first.

I want to walk through what that looked like, including the parts that weren't flattering, because I think the process itself is instructive, regardless of what the specific results were.

The test

We ran the same test we now offer clients. A series of queries across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini, built around how a prospective client might actually search. Things like "marketing agencies for faith-based organizations in Southern California," "AI marketing strategy for small businesses Temecula," and several variations on those themes.

We documented every result. Did CCG appear, in what context, how favorably, and who else appeared alongside or instead of us.

What we expected versus what we found

Going in, I'd have guessed we'd score reasonably well. We're a relatively new agency, but we've been deliberate about positioning, we publish content, and we're active on LinkedIn. I expected moderate visibility with some gaps.

What we actually found was closer to the lower end of the range we now tell clients is typical for a first audit. A real, but inconsistent, presence. In some query variations, we appeared, sometimes favorably described, sometimes just listed. In others, we didn't appear at all, and competitors with what I'd consider comparable or even less developed offerings did.

The inconsistency was the most interesting part. It wasn't "we're invisible" or "we're highly visible." It was "it depends which AI tool, which exact phrasing, and which day." That's actually a very common finding, and it points to exactly the kind of entity clarity gap I've written about elsewhere. Enough presence to sometimes register, not enough consistency to register reliably.

The uncomfortable part

Here's the part that was genuinely useful, if not entirely comfortable. When we ran competitor comparisons, testing the same queries against a few other agencies we're aware of in adjacent markets, some of them appeared more consistently than we did, despite (from what I could tell) less specific positioning and less published content.

When we dug into why, the pattern that emerged was about external presence. Agencies that had been mentioned in local business directories, had more consistent name-address-phone information across platforms, or had been referenced in local press or community contexts had stronger entity signals, not because their content was better, but because their footprint outside their own website was more developed.

That's not a criticism of those agencies. If anything, it's a useful data point. It confirmed something I'd been saying somewhat theoretically. GEO isn't primarily about your own content. It's about your presence in the broader conversation, and that presence can lag behind even strong content and positioning if it hasn't been deliberately built.

What we did next

Based on the audit, our own priority list looked like this. First, consistency, making sure our name, description, and category were identical across our website, Google Business Profile, LinkedIn, and any directories we're listed in. Second, FAQ schema implementation on our core pages, addressing the most common questions a prospective client would have. Third, deliberately seeking out legitimate opportunities for third-party mentions, guest content, local business associations, partner cross-references, rather than relying solely on our own channels.

None of this was dramatic. It was the same fix sequence we now recommend to clients. Foundation first (entity consistency, schema), then citation-worthy content, then distribution and external presence.

Why I'm sharing this

A few reasons. First, because I think "we tried this on ourselves and here's what happened" is more useful than abstract advice, even when the result includes "we weren't as visible as I expected."

Second, because the inconsistent, middling result we found is genuinely typical. Most businesses we've since audited land in a similar place, some presence, but inconsistent, with specific identifiable gaps. If you're worried that running this audit on your business will reveal something embarrassing, the more likely outcome is what we found. A mixed picture with clear, fixable gaps. That's useful information, not a verdict.

And third, because I think the willingness to look at your own data, even when it might not be flattering, is part of what this whole shift is asking of marketers. The temptation is to assume you're probably fine, because your SEO is fine, your content is fine, your branding is fine. The data increasingly suggests that those things, while necessary, aren't sufficient, and the only way to know is to actually look.

If you want to look at your own

The same audit we ran on ourselves is available free, for your business. CCG's GEO Visibility Snapshot tests your brand across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini, compares you to your top competitors, and identifies specific, prioritized gaps, the same process, the same format, the same honesty about what it finds.

[Get your free GEO Visibility Snapshot →]

We didn't love everything we found about ourselves. But we'd rather know than not, and I suspect most businesses, once they see their own results, will feel the same way.