Hypertune SEO call agenda

1. Bobby's revised AEO plan Discuss10 min

Review of Bobby's revised AEO plan

My read: 5 out of 10, and I wouldn't buy phases 3 and 4. The document is clearer than the 13 October scope, and he stopped trying to rebuild the facts list, the analytics channel and the bi-weekly report. That's the improvement. What he is selling after that is mostly the content calendar we already run, plus a spreadsheet of questions.

The plan has seven parts. Measure 20 to 30 questions on each AI tool. Check that AI crawlers can read the site. Write pages and one FPS data report so the tools can quote them. Check answers against the approved facts. Rank directories, Reddit and YouTube by what the tools cite. Fix wrong answers at the source. Report it in the bi-weekly report.

Where it falls down from my side:

• The content hours are counted twice. "About 9 guides" and "2 a week" is the calendar we already have. If those are the same pages, AEO changes how they're written, not how many there are. His 8 hours a month for me, and 16 for him, sit on top of work that's already scheduled.
• I'm listed as the only writer. As of yesterday, Hoa writes the gaming guide and the later game pages. The plan was out of date the day he sent it.
• Austin and Vinny at 6 hours a month each won't happen. Austin signs off claims. We don't pull him into monthly reviews. One hour a month is the realistic number.
• The crawler check is already done. On 13 October the search crawlers could read the site, and training crawlers are blocked on purpose. Asking Austin for server logs isn't needed. Cloudflare already shows crawler visits.
• Reddit, YouTube and roundups are named and then not planned. Those are the sites ChatGPT and Perplexity actually cite. Measuring answers without that work won't move the number.
• No price. Setup and baseline are a one-off, then a monthly fee, and he left the rate for the call. Without it we can't compare him with doing it ourselves.

Brand Radar is the one part that is priced, and the $50 package is the right one. A check is one question on one AI tool, once. 25 questions on 6 tools, run three times a month, is about 450 checks. Every two weeks is about 900. Both fit in $50 for 2,500 checks. The $100 package is only if we track daily or add lots of phrasings. The $199 and $699 products research other brands and we don't need them. The first baseline round is about 150 checks, which the Lite plan already includes for free, so the $50 package only needs buying once regular tracking starts. Claude costs 8 checks a run, so leave it out of the weekly set.

2. AEO campaign to 31 December Decide10 min

AEO campaign, 19 October to 31 December

I'd run this in-house, and I'd cut it down. Bobby's version is about 40 team hours a month once it gets going, for measuring answers and rewriting pages we're already writing. The campaign keeps the same calendar and adds four things: a fixed list of 25 questions, the public facts page brought forward, one FPS data report, and pointing Bobby's existing directory work at the sites the AI tools cite.

On the hours, 2 to 3 extra hours a week for me is fair if Brand Radar runs the checks and I only read the gaps. The 37 to 44 hours to 31 December already include 12 hours that were on my list for the facts page, so that part isn't new work. Hoa's 20 to 25 hours is the number I'd push on. Once the 25 questions are loaded, a weekly log is closer to an hour than two or three. Austin at 4 to 6 hours is only realistic if that is two sign-offs, the facts page and the data report, not a monthly review.

On the targets, I'd hold one and treat the rest as hopes. The one to hold is no wrong price, "free" or partner line on anything we control, and I'd want that by 13 November because the yearly price changed on 16 October. "Named in a third of best game optimizer answers" and "25 paying customers a month, up from 11" both start from a baseline we haven't run. A lot of the 25 questions point at pages that don't exist yet (Valorant, Fortnite, the Cortex comparison), so those runs will be zeros until the pages are live and shouldn't sit in the headline number. The FPS data report also depends on per-game numbers we still don't have from Austin.

3. Comparison reports New5 min

These are the before-and-after reports from yesterday. Only the sections that change, with the current text beside the new text.

Homepage: hypertune-homepage-report.pages.dev

Technology: hypertune-technology-report.pages.dev