GEO In-House or With an Agency? A Decision Guide for UAE Businesses

Somebody has to do this work, week after week, and at some point you have to decide who. GEO, generative engine optimisation, is that work: making a business findable, readable and correctly described when the answer comes from an assistant instead of a list of blue links. The question is whose desk it lands on, and it lands on more than one: GEO is nine separate jobs, and they do not all have to go to the same place. This article splits the work into those nine jobs and asks what each one demands of the person doing it. Then it names the four resources that settle where each job goes, and six conditions under which hiring somebody is the sensible call. Every criterion here is a fact about your business, because those are the only facts you can check for yourself.

The short version: doing GEO in-house or with an agency is not a choice between two packages. It is an allocation of nine jobs. Four resources decide where each one lands: somebody who owns it with protected time in their week, access to the site and the analytics at the level the job needs, continuity so the work survives that person being away, and the discipline to keep asking the same questions the same way. If you have all four, you can do much of this yourself, and this article tells you how to start; Google's own guidance says a small local business "can probably do much of the work yourself". If one is missing, that gap is the thing to buy, and it is usually narrower than a full engagement. The ceiling is the same either way: nobody, in-house or outside, can make an assistant recommend your business.

AI Visibility is owned by Lunasol.

Read that line before the rest. Lunasol is a Dubai agency that sells the work this article is about, and it owns this publication. That puts us on one side of the question we are supposed to be answering for you, so here is what we did about it. The in-house half is written to be used, not dismissed: a reader who decides to do all nine jobs themselves should finish this page with everything they need to start, and the guide half stands on its own without the promotional section. The evidence that a business can do much of this itself is quoted from Google rather than asserted by us. The promotional part is one section, near the end, under a heading that says so. And the only statement here about providers as a category is a quotation from Google, attributed to Google. What to do with that: treat the promotional section as advertising for the owner of this publication, check any claim we make about ourselves against the page we cite, and take an independent view before engaging any supplier, this one included.

Can a UAE business do GEO in-house? What Google's own guidance says

Start with the one neutral party in this conversation. Google publishes a page on whether you need to hire search help at all, and it puts the do-it-yourself option first. "If you run a small local business, you can probably do much of the work yourself," it says, and it points readers at its own starter guide before it discusses hiring anybody (Google Search Central).

That same page also lists what this kind of provider can be hired to do, and the list is worth reading carefully, because the last item on it is "Optimizing for generative AI". Google's hiring page treats optimising for generative AI as one service on a list that also includes "Review of your site content or structure", "Technical advice on website development: for example, hosting, redirects, error pages, use of JavaScript", "Content development", "Keyword research", "SEO training" and "Expertise in specific markets and geographies". Whatever else that tells you, it tells you that Google lists the skills involved alongside skills a marketing person may already recognise.

The starter guide is blunter still about how much of the machinery you have to touch. "You usually don't need to do anything except publish your site on the web," it says of getting listed at all, and on writing page titles, "If you use a CMS, you might not need to do anything technical to your titles, beyond just focusing on writing good titles" (Google Search Central). For the AI surfaces specifically, Google states that "There are no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary" and that "You don't need to create new machine readable files, AI text files, or markup to appear in these features" (Google Search Central).

Now the honest limits on all of that. Google's hiring page also says the decision "can potentially improve your site's visibility and save you time, but you can also risk damage to your site and reputation", so it is not treating the work as trivial. It names a specific moment when hiring is worth considering: "a great time to hire is when you're considering a site redesign (the earlier, the better), or planning to launch a new site". And on the speed of any of it, the starter guide says only that "Some changes might take effect in a few hours, others could take several months". Google will not put a date on it. Plan on that basis.

So the reasonable reading is this. A UAE business with a person who can edit the website, a few hours a week and some patience can do a real share of this. Willpower will not supply a skill nobody has or access nobody holds. It will not find hours nobody has been given either. The rest of this article is about telling those three apart.

Should GEO be in-house or outsourced? The real decision is which of nine jobs goes where

GEO is not one purchase. Wherever some of it is bought, the rest stays with the business, whether or not that has been noticed. The useful version of this decision is a list of jobs with a name next to each, and it is the list to hold any proposal against. You will also see this work sold under AEO, answer engine optimisation, which aims at direct answers instead of at what an assistant says about you in general. The labels get used loosely, so read what a page lists and not which of the two words it puts in the heading. Lunasol publishes a list for each, quoted in the promotional section near the end.

Here are the nine, in the order they usually have to happen.

1. Decide the questions you will be judged on. The list of customer questions you want to be named in. This is a judgement about your buyers, not a technical task.
2. Fix the competitor set and take a baseline. The named list of businesses you get compared against, and a first recorded reading against it.
3. Check what the assistants actually say, on a cycle. Ask the same questions the same way, record what came back, repeat.
4. Make sure the site can be reached and read. Whether the crawlers behind these answers can fetch your pages at all.
5. Publish the company facts, consistently, everywhere. Name, address, contact, hours, what you do, matching across every place they appear.
6. Rewrite the pages that have to answer. Service pages, and product pages if you sell things, written so a machine can lift a correct statement out of them.
7. Add and maintain structured data. The labelled version of those same facts, written into the page's code so a machine reads them as facts rather than as sentences. It is usually added once to a template, meaning the shared layout that every page of one kind is built from, so one service-page template covers every service page on the site.
8. Do the second language properly, if you have one. English and Arabic as two jobs rather than one translated one.
9. Measure what it brought in, and report it. Sessions, enquiries, and the honest gaps between them.

Each of those has been worked through in its own article in this series, so this one does not repeat the method. What it does instead is ask a different question of each: what does this job demand of the person who has to do it?

What skills and access does each GEO job need?

In-house GEO needs four things a team either has or does not: a writer who can take a page to publication standard, edit rights on the website and its templates, someone at ease with a robots file and with markup, and analytics and Search Console access at the level the job needs. If you publish in two languages there is a fifth, a writer who works in the second one to the same standard. This table lists demands, not difficulty. A job is hard for you if you lack the thing it demands. Easy if you have it. So two businesses can read the same row, reach opposite conclusions, and both be right. The time column is our own rough order of magnitude rather than a measurement, and it is there so you can add it up before you put this on somebody's desk.

Three things fall out of that table, and they matter more than the individual rows.

The jobs nobody else can do for you are at the top. The questions you want to be found for, and the list of competitors you accept being measured against, are judgements about your business and your market. A supplier can write them down with you, and a good brief will have them drafted before anybody is hired, but they are your answers, and you should be in the room when they are written. Our article on how to check what AI says about your company covers how to build a question list and record it so it survives.

The jobs that need somebody else's permission are in the middle. Editing the site, adding markup to a template, reading a robots file: every one of them needs a level of access that somebody in your business either holds or does not. This is the blocker that is easiest to miss, and the next section deals with it on its own.

The recurring jobs are the ones that quietly fail. Two of the nine never end. A check that happens once tells you about one day. An enquiry question stops producing answers as soon as people stop asking it. Whoever owns those two has to have the time protected, and that is a management decision before it is a marketing one.

What do you need in-house to do GEO? The four resources that decide it

Four things settle where each job goes. Test yourself against all four before you decide anything, because a business that fails one of them and passes three usually needs to buy that one thing, not a whole programme.

One: a named owner with protected time. Not a department, not "marketing will pick it up". A person, with a recurring slot in their week that survives a busy month. The test: name them out loud, then ask what they would drop to make room. If the answer is nothing, the work has not been resourced, and adding a supplier will not fix that, because the decision and the record still have to belong to a person inside your business.

Two: access, at the level the job needs. This is more specific than it sounds, and it is where in-house plans quietly stall. Search Console publishes its permission levels and they are not interchangeable. An owner "has full control over properties in Search Console" and can "add and remove other users, configure settings, view all data, and use all tools". A full user "has view rights to all data and can take some actions", and a restricted user "has simple view rights on most data". The rule underneath is the one that catches people out: "You must be a property owner (or an owner of a parent property) to add or remove another user", and "A property must have at least one verified owner, or no users will have access to the property" (Search Console Help).

Your property here means your website as registered in Search Console, and Search Console keeps the list of who holds what in that property's settings. If the only verified owner is a developer who has left the business, nobody inside your business can grant anybody anything. The way back is for somebody inside it to verify the property again. Google lists six ways: an HTML file upload, an HTML tag, an existing Google Analytics installation, an existing Google Tag Manager installation, a Google Sites or Blogger account, or a record with your domain name provider (Search Console Help). On our reading two of those go through an analytics or tag-manager account and the other four need somebody who can change the website or the domain, so the first call is to whoever controls those. Solve it before you decide anything else, because it blocks both routes equally.

Analytics works the same way with its own ladder. An administrator has "Full control of Analytics" and can "manage users (add/delete users, assign any role or data restriction)". An editor has "Full control of settings at the property level" but "Can't manage users". Below them sit marketer, analyst and viewer roles, each with a narrower set of actions, plus two data restrictions, "No Cost Metrics" and "No Revenue Metrics", which remove those numbers from "reports, explorations, audiences, insights, and alerts" (Google Analytics Help). Analytics keeps its equivalent list under access management. Work out which level each person holds, including yourself: a plan that assumes somebody can see revenue numbers, when their account is restricted from seeing them, produces a report with a hole in it, and the hole is easy to miss.

The third access question is the site itself. Can somebody in your business publish a page change without asking a person outside it? If not, every job in the middle of that table has a queue in front of it, and the length of that queue is the real constraint on doing this in-house. Whoever ends up doing the work, grant the access that job needs and no more, write down who holds what, and review it when the work ends.

Three: continuity. The work has to survive the person who does it being on leave, and then leaving. Two things tend to go with them. The first is the method. Our article on running a repeatable check insists the procedure is written down, for exactly this reason. The second is the data, and there is a published deadline on that one. Google Analytics deletes your detailed data on a schedule you set, as short as two months, and "When data reaches the end of the retention period, it is deleted automatically on a monthly basis" (Google Analytics Help). The standard reports survive that; the explorations and funnel reports you build yourself inside Analytics do not. So if your only record of a year's progress lives in an exploration nobody has exported, it has an expiry date. Search Console limits you differently: data is "normally" available in "2-3 days", and "To protect user privacy, the Performance report doesn't show all data" (Search Console Help). None of this is a reason to hire anybody. It is a reason to export on a schedule, whoever does the work.

Four: the discipline to hold the method still. This is the resource people assume they have. The answers move on their own, so the only way a second reading means anything is if the questions, the competitor list, the platforms and the wording all stayed identical. That is a discipline rather than a skill, and it is the one most likely to go when the person doing it gets interested and starts improving the prompts. The test: find any monthly report your business has produced for more than six months and check whether the columns are still the same as in month one. If they quietly changed, this is the resource you are missing. If you know your business cannot leave a process alone, that is an argument for putting the recurring check somewhere it will be left alone.

Score yourself on those four before you read any further, and score them job by job rather than once. A business can pass all four comfortably for the writing jobs and fail two of them for the technical ones. So this article ends with a split.

When should a UAE business hire a GEO agency? Six conditions about your own business

Hiring out makes sense when one of six things is true of your own business: nobody inside it can change the website, the work needs a skill nobody has and nobody wants, you publish in a second language nobody writes to publication standard, you have a catalogue rather than a handful of pages, the work has been assigned more than twice and still not done, or the record would not survive the one person who holds it leaving. All six are spelled out below, and you can check every one of them today without asking anybody. None of them is a claim about what any provider is like, because that would be a claim we are not entitled to make and you could not verify. If two or more are true, the case for buying help is strong. If exactly one is true, buy the work that gap blocks and keep the rest, because a single true condition is an argument for a piece of work and not for an engagement.

One: nobody inside your business can change the website. Every change goes through an external developer, a queue, or a contract. Four of the nine jobs are page changes and a fifth is site configuration. If each one waits weeks, an in-house plan produces a document rather than a result.

Two: the work needs a skill nobody has and nobody wants. Structured data is the usual example. It is the labelled version of facts already on the page, and it either goes into a template or into a plugin somebody has to configure. If you have looked at that sentence and known immediately that nobody in the building will do it, you have your answer. Our article on product information for UAE online stores sets out how much of it there is to maintain.

Three: you publish in two languages and cannot write the second to publication standard. English and Arabic are two jobs, not one job and a translation. Names transliterate several ways, questions are asked differently in each language, and the annotations that connect the two versions have their own upkeep. Our article on English and Arabic AI search works this through in detail. If nobody on staff writes the second language properly, this job is outside your business.

Four: you have a catalogue rather than a handful of pages. One page is a short job. A template is a project, and a catalogue is a project with a maintenance schedule attached to it. Count your distinct templates rather than your pages, because that count is what turns this from a task into an engagement.

Five: the work has been assigned more than twice and has not been done. This is the most reliable signal on the list, and the least flattering. It means capacity is the binding constraint, not knowledge. Sending the same person on a course will not move it, and no amount of internal enthusiasm has so far.

Six: the record has to survive one person leaving, and there is no second person. A baseline is only worth anything if the next reading is comparable, which means the method, the question list, the competitor list and the exported data all have to outlive whoever set them up. If one person holds all of that in their head, the business has a single point of failure on its own evidence.

Notice what is not on that list: the size of your company, the size of your budget, and how quickly you want results. Those come next.

What does not decide whether GEO goes in-house or to an agency

Company size on its own. A ten-person business with a person who can edit the site and an hour a week is better placed than a large one where every change needs three approvals. Size tells you how much of this work there is. It says very little about who can do it.

Having a budget on its own. Money buys the jobs in the middle of the table. It does not buy the two at the top, because those are judgements about your customers, and it does not buy the two at the bottom, because those are habits. A business that pays for everything and answers no questions gets a report it cannot act on.

Having a marketing person on staff. The question is not whether the title exists. It is how many hours of that person's week are free, and whether the two recurring jobs will still be happening in six months.

Already having a supplier for something adjacent. Whether this work is inside a scope you already signed is a question about that scope, and it has an answer written down somewhere. Our article on what determines the scope of a GEO project sets out the seven variables that any proposal answers, explicitly or by assumption, and reading your existing contract against those seven is a cheaper first move than commissioning anything new.

Wanting it quickly. Speed is not a route. Google's own guidance says only that "Some changes might take effect in a few hours, others could take several months", and Search Console's data arrives when it arrives, "normally" in "2-3 days". Hiring somebody adds capacity. It does not make the platforms respond faster.

What an AI assistant told us when we asked this question twice

A reader deciding this will very often ask an assistant first, so we did, under a protocol frozen before either run. Two questions, one tool, one day, one run each, in Google's AI Mode. Nothing here is a survey. It is what one buyer was told on one day.

The lean flipped with the phrasing of the question. Asked which route to take, the answer built a comparison table and then gave three reasons to keep the work in-house followed by three reasons to hire, plus two local factors that both pointed at hiring. Asked instead what skills a team would need to do it themselves, the answer opened with the opposite: "you do not necessarily need to hire an entirely new team. Instead, most organizations successfully expand their existing SEO and content teams." Same tool, same account, same day. Two adjacent questions about one decision, and only the wording between them had changed.

The citation behaviour flipped too. We counted outbound links on the rendered page, as we did in our article on measuring AI referrals, without clicking any of them. The first answer cited nothing at all: every link on the page was a Google one, and no source was offered for anything it said. The second carried seventeen links across five hosts, none of which was a platform's own documentation.

In the first answer, the uncited claims were the ones about the provider category. Our protocol asked us to sort every criterion into two piles. Seven were facts about the buyer: budget, team capabilities, scaling speed, whether AI visibility is core to the business model, whether there is already "a mature content and technical SEO team", whether the industry is a "Highly Specialized Niche", and whether the strategy "relies on proprietary internal data or custom API integrations". Those are checkable by the reader against their own situation, and they are good criteria. The rest of the answer was assertions about what agencies are like as a category, and not one of them carried a source. We are not repeating those here, in either direction, because you have no way to check them. That includes the cost line, which was one of them: the first answer discussed cost in words rather than numbers, and no figure of any kind appeared in either answer.

One detail worth a line. The first answer used a product label for the Google feature that appears nowhere in the Google documentation cited in this article, which calls these features AI Overviews and AI Mode. Product names here change, and a buyer reading a confident paragraph has no way to tell which parts are current.

Both answers ended the same way. Each turned the decision into a three-option multiple choice and asked for more information about the business before going further. That is the assistant conceding the honest point: the answer depends on facts only you have. The rest of this article asks about your business for the same reason.

How do you split GEO work between your team and an agency?

Run the nine jobs past the four resources and a pattern falls out, because the jobs sort themselves by what they demand and not by how hard they look. The split: keep the question list, the competitor set, the enquiry question and the decision about what you offer; hand out structured data, the crawler and server side, the second language and catalogue-scale page work; and decide the recurring check and the writing case by case. The outside option may be a freelancer, an individual contractor or an agency, and this article treats them the same, because the decision is about which jobs leave your building and not about who catches them.

Keep these, whatever else you do. The question list, the competitor set, the enquiry question you ask every new customer, and the decision about what the business offers. All four are judgements about your market that nobody outside it can make for you. Settle them inside the business and every conversation that follows, internal or external, starts from your answers instead of somebody's assumptions.

Hand these over if you are short on access or skill. The same four: structured data, the crawler and server side, the second language, and page work at catalogue scale. These are the jobs where a missing skill or a missing permission stops everything, and where the person doing them does not need to understand your customers to do them well.

Decide these two deliberately. The recurring check, and the writing. Both can sit either side. The check goes outside if your business cannot leave a process alone, and stays in if somebody will protect an hour for it. The writing goes outside if nobody in the business can write well enough to publish, and stays in if somebody can, because the page has to state what the business offers, and that is a fact the business holds.

Then write the boundary down, because this is where split arrangements fail. The boundary document is four columns wide: the job, who owns it, what access that person holds, and where the output lives. Copy this table, fill the blanks, and circle any row with no name in it.

The last two rows are the easiest to leave blank, which is why they are rows rather than a note. If nobody owns a row, that row is not happening, and finding that out on paper costs you nothing.

One more thing belongs on that page. Whatever route you take, the things you should be handed at the end are the same eight, and our article on what an AI search audit should include lists them in full. Read that list before you start, and ask of each item whether your team would produce it without being asked. An in-house programme has to produce the same eight for itself, so ask it of your team before you compare anything else.

What this article cannot tell you

It cannot tell you whether your particular person has the hours. That question often decides the whole thing, and the answer sits in one diary in one company.

Nor will you find anything here about what other providers are like. We sell this work, so any statement we made about a competitor would be worth nothing to you.

It carries no price of any kind, ours or anybody's. The time estimates in the table above are rough orders of magnitude for effort, not a costing, and nothing in this article should be read as one. What a piece of this work costs depends on how much of it there is, and our article on what determines the scope of a GEO project sets out the seven variables that decide that.

Hiring a person or engaging a supplier in the UAE has a legal and administrative side, and we have kept off it on purpose. That is a question for a qualified adviser.

What neither in-house GEO nor an agency can buy

The ceiling is not a function of who does the work, and this is the part to read twice before you accept any statement about what a result will be.

Google states plainly that "No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google" and warns about providers who "claim to guarantee rankings, allege a 'special relationship' with Google, or advertise a 'priority submit' to Google" (Google Search Central). For its AI surfaces specifically, Google says "There are no additional requirements to appear in AI Overviews or AI Mode, nor other special optimizations necessary" (Google Search Central). OpenAI states that "Placement is not guaranteed" and that "Search results and citations can be incomplete, outdated, or incorrect" (OpenAI Help Center). Our article on whether anyone can guarantee a ChatGPT recommendation goes through the full position.

So neither route buys a placement. It does not buy certainty about why an answer named somebody, and it does not buy a complete view of the data: Search Console's performance report "doesn't show all data", by design, "To protect user privacy". Stability is not on offer either. The answers move between two runs of the same question, which is the finding our article on checking what AI says about your company was built on.

What you get from either route is your side of it correct, published, consistent and measured often enough that you would notice a change. Both routes stop there.

Common questions about doing GEO in-house or hiring an agency

Can one person handle GEO on their own? Yes, all nine jobs, if that person can edit the website, has a protected slot in their week, and will keep the method still. Google's own hiring page says a small local business "can probably do much of the work yourself". What it does not say, and what nobody can tell you, is whether your particular person has the hours.

Do I need to hire a specialist to do GEO in-house? Not necessarily, and Google's list of what this kind of provider does puts "Optimizing for generative AI" alongside content development and keyword research rather than in a category of its own. The assistant we asked reached the same conclusion when we put the skills question to it directly, opening with the line that most organisations expand their existing teams instead of building a new one. Treat both as a reason to look at the people you already have before you assume a new one is needed.

What can an agency do that we cannot do ourselves? In principle, every one of the nine GEO jobs is one your own team could hold. What buying help buys is capacity, plus a skill or a permission that is not in your building: structured data on templates, the crawler and server side, the second language, and page work at catalogue scale. The two judgement jobs, which questions you want to be named in and which competitors you accept being measured against, stay yours whoever else is involved.

What is the minimum GEO work worth doing? Ten questions, three competitors, one tool, one recorded run, repeated monthly. Monthly, if you are running it yourself: you notice a change sooner, and one sitting covers it. If somebody else runs it, the interval is whatever the scope you signed says, so check it. If that is all you ever do, you will still have a record that means something twelve months from now.

Can a small business do AI search optimisation itself? Most of it, yes. GEO breaks into nine jobs, and a person who can edit the website and has an hour a week can hold the judgement jobs, the recurring check, the company facts and the page writing. The rest, the technical end and the second language, is the part that usually gets bought in. Work out which of those you can cover yourself and you have most of your answer.

How much time does GEO take each week? The recurring part is about an hour: ask the question list, record what came back, note what it cited. The one-off jobs, the page rewrites, the structured data, the second language, are project work that ends. In-house programmes rarely break on the hour itself. They break because the hour never gets protected.

How do I know if my current agency is already doing GEO? Read the scope you signed against the seven variables in our article on what determines the scope of a GEO project, and ask which of them your contract answers. Match each line of the scope to a row in the demands table above, because the naming varies and two scopes that look different can cover the same work. The answer is in a document you already have.

We already have an SEO retainer. Is this different work? Partly. Our article on the difference between SEO, AEO and GEO sets out where they overlap and where they do not, and the overlap is larger than most people expect.

Should we train somebody or hire somebody? That depends on which of the four resources you are missing. Training fixes a missing skill. It does not fix missing hours, missing access, or a business that cannot leave a process alone, and those three are more often the real constraint.

What if we start in-house and it stalls? Then you have learned something specific and cheap: which of the four resources you were missing. A supplier can work from that. Guessing at the outset gives them nothing to work from.

Does any of this get us recommended by ChatGPT? No. Nobody, in-house or outside, can make an assistant recommend your business. Google states that "No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google", and OpenAI states that "Placement is not guaranteed". The section above on what neither route can buy goes through the full position.

Where to start this week, whichever route you take

If you are doing it yourself, do these four things in this order and you will have started, before you need to decide anything else.

Write ten questions a customer would type, in their words and not yours. A fit-out firm's ten would run to things like "who does office fit-outs in Al Quoz" and "how long does a Dubai office fit-out take", phrased the way somebody asks a colleague and not the way you describe your services on your homepage. Three of the ten should be the awkward ones you get asked on the phone. Name three or four competitors and stop revising the list. Then ask all ten questions once, in one sitting, on one assistant, ChatGPT or Google's AI Mode, either is fine, but pick one and stay on it. For each question record five things in a spreadsheet: the date, the exact question, whether your business was named, which businesses were named instead, and which links the answer showed underneath itself. Those links are the citations, and they matter as much as the text. Our article on running a repeatable check has the fuller recording sheet, and you will want it before the second run. Then put the same hour in the diary for a month's time.

You have now done jobs one, two and three, and they are the three that unlock the rest, because you know what you are trying to be named for and what you look like today. Take the remaining six in table order over the following month. Check the site can be reached and read, which our article on crawler access and robots.txt sets out step by step. After that, fix the company facts wherever they disagree and rewrite your two most important pages. Structured data, the second language if you have one, and measurement come after those. Each is covered in full elsewhere in this series. If you stall, note which of the four resources you ran out of before you do anything else about it.

If you are splitting it, fill in the boundary table above before you talk to anybody, including the last two rows. Bring it to the conversation and you will find out early whether you and the person opposite you mean the same thing by the same words.

If you already know you are buying help, do the same four things first anyway. They take one sitting, they are yours whichever route you take, and arriving with them turns a sales conversation into a scoping conversation. That holds for a conversation with Lunasol as much as for any other; the promotional section below quotes what Lunasol publishes, so you can read it before you send anything.

Promotional: if you hand the implementation over, what Lunasol's published scope covers

This is the promotional part of the article. Everything above was written so you could do all nine jobs yourself. This section is for the reader who has just worked out that they are missing one, and it describes what the owner of this publication does in that part of the work, using only what Lunasol publishes on its own page.

Lunasol runs the work in four steps, named on its GEO and AEO page as Audit, "The AI census"; Signals, "Build what AI trusts"; Content, "Write the way AI reads"; and Track, "Numbers, every quarter" (Lunasol). The page does not map its four steps onto anything, so the mapping that follows is ours: Audit at the baseline and the first recorded check, Signals and Content across the middle five, and Track at the recurring reading and the quarterly report. "Question research, what your customers actually ask" on the published AEO list reaches the first job too.

The GEO deliverables Lunasol lists on that page are an "AI visibility audit, what ChatGPT says about you today", "Entity and brand signal building", "Content structured for AI citation", "Presence in sources AI models trust and quote", "Schema and structured data implementation" and "Quarterly AI visibility tracking". Alongside them sits an AEO list covering "Question research, what your customers actually ask", "FAQ and answer-block content structure", "Schema markup, FAQ, HowTo, and more", "Featured snippet targeting for money queries", "Optimization for Google AI Overviews" and "Tracking of answer placements won". Those are the names of the deliverables and the steps as published on that page, quoted as published because they name work rather than results. They are the whole of what we will tell you here, because the shape of a result depends on facts about your business that this page does not have.

Read against the split above, the useful way to buy this is with the top four jobs already in your hand. Bring your question list and your competitor set, or expect the first part of any engagement to be spent producing them with you. Keep the enquiry question in your own business, because it runs at your counter and not at ours.

On access, settle the question in the section on resources before any implementation work starts: somebody in your business has to be the verified owner of the Search Console property, because a property "must have at least one verified owner" and only an owner can add anybody else.

What to do next. Lunasol's four steps and both deliverable lists are published at lunasol.ae/geo-aeo. The page carries WhatsApp and email contact and no form to fill in, so the next step is a message. Ask for the first item on the published GEO list, an "AI visibility audit, what ChatGPT says about you today", and send whatever you have of the four things that are yours either way: your question list, your competitor set, which answer surfaces you care about, and whether you need one language or two. If you have none of them yet, send the message anyway and spend that hour before the conversation, because those four are the difference between a scoped conversation and a guess.

Method, sources and notes

This article is general guidance on how to resource a marketing programme, current at September 2026. It is not legal, employment, immigration, tax, accounting or procurement advice. Hiring a person or engaging a supplier in the UAE has legal and administrative requirements, and nothing in this article describes, summarises or substitutes for them: that is a question for a qualified adviser and it is outside our scope entirely. Nothing here is a statement of what anybody charges, ourselves included, and no price, rate, salary or budget figure appears anywhere in this article. Nothing here makes a business shown, named, cited or recommended in any AI product, and nobody can promise that it will. The time estimates in this article are our own rough orders of magnitude for effort, offered so a reader can add them up before assigning the work. They are not a measurement, not a costing, and not a basis for any quotation. This article is offered as general information and not as a recommendation for any particular business, readers act on it at their own discretion, and neither this publication nor its owner accepts liability for any decision taken on the basis of it. The Lunasol scope quoted here is quoted from a public web page as it stood on the date above. It is a description of services, not a quotation, an offer or a contract, it may change without notice, and any engagement would be governed by a separate written agreement.

Who publishes this. AI Visibility is owned by Lunasol. The author writes for this publication and is not independent of its owner. The owner is a Dubai agency that sells the work described here, which means we have a commercial interest in one of the two answers to the question in the title. This article makes no claim about any other provider, named or unnamed, in any direction: no comparison, no characterisation, no market description. We have a stake in that question, so we have stayed out of it. Where the live check produced assertions about providers as a category, we reported that it had produced them and declined to repeat them. Nothing in this article is a recommendation to engage Lunasol or any other supplier, and a reader considering either route should take their own advice and carry out their own checks. The nine jobs and the four resources are this publication's own way of breaking the work up. They are not a standard, and no supplier is obliged to use them.

The live check. Two questions, one run each, one tool, one day, one connection, under a protocol frozen before either run. Neither run failed. One run each of two prompts, on one tool, on one day, is an illustration of what a buyer is told, not a survey of anything. Link counts were read from the rendered page rather than by clicking, and we opened no cited page, so what we say about sources describes what was cited and not what those pages say. We name no company, agency, publication, product, host or domain from either answer, including the newspapers the first answer named, because naming businesses we did not examine would turn an illustration into a review of them. We did not attempt a second assistant: this environment produced no usable answer from it across three earlier articles in this series, and that was decided before these runs rather than after them. The logged runs are available on request, carrying no company, product or domain name. Assistant answers vary by account, location and time, and quoted documentation changes without notice, so check the current version of any page quoted here before relying on it.

Sources. Google Search Central, "Do you need an SEO?" and the "SEO Starter Guide" and "AI features and your website"; Search Console Help on managing owners, users and permissions, on verifying site ownership, and on Search Console data; Google Analytics Help on user roles and on data retention; the OpenAI Help Center on searching the web with ChatGPT; and the Lunasol GEO and AEO page, quoted only for what it publishes.

Product and company names are used here for identification only. Neither this publication nor its owner is affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any of them, nothing here is an endorsement by us of any of them, and none of them has reviewed, approved or contributed to this article. ChatGPT is a product of OpenAI, and the OpenAI Help Center is a publication of OpenAI. Google Search, Google Search Central, Google Search Console, Google Analytics, AI Mode and AI Overviews are products or publications of Google. All are trademarks of their respective owners.

AI Visibility is owned by Lunasol.