Stage · Enterprise, on one project
The project that has been on the roadmap for a year.
You do not need another agency pitching to own the channel. You need one senior team to take one thing off the list, scope it, baseline it, and report on it separately from everything else you measure. No AOR contract, no rebuild of what already works.
Influenced pipeline · one project · 4 quarters
The problem you’re living with
The work is identified. Nobody has the hours.
Enterprise teams rarely have a knowledge gap. They have a capacity and coordination gap, and the projects that fall into it are usually the highest-leverage ones on the list.
The project nobody can start.
A consolidation, a migration, a displacement campaign or a market entry has been on the plan for three quarters. Everyone agrees it matters. Everyone already owes something else this quarter.
Procurement is slower than the problem.
Standing up a full agency engagement means a vendor review, security questionnaires, legal and a quarter of onboarding. The debt compounds the entire time you are doing it correctly.
Your team has the context. Not the seniority to spare.
The people who understand your product lines and your politics are the ones already fully committed. Adding a junior resource adds coordination, not capacity.
Why it is still broken
The standard options are both the wrong size.
At enterprise the two available shapes are a full agency or another headcount. Neither one fits a single bounded project, which is why it stays undone.
Fix 01 · Run a full agency RFP
Let us find a partner for the channel.
A four-month process to award a retainer that covers everything, most of which your team already does well. The specific project that triggered the RFP ends up as one line in a scope of work nobody is graded on.
Fix 02 · Add it to the AOR scope
Our agency can take it on.
An AOR optimises for the breadth of the contract. A bounded, senior, cross-team project competes with their delivery model and usually gets staffed with whoever is available rather than whoever is right.
Fix 03 · Hire another headcount
We should own this internally.
Correct for a permanent function, wrong for a twelve-week project. By the time the role is approved, recruited and ramped, the migration you were protecting has already shipped.
Fix 04 · Defer it another quarter
We will get to it after the roadmap.
The two projects most often deferred are consolidation and migration protection, and both get more expensive with every month of delay. Deferring is a decision to pay more later.
How this works at your size
One project. One owner. One number on the report.
At your size the failure mode is never capability. It is ambiguity. A vendor arrives with a broad scope, overlaps the AOR, competes with in-house for the same wins, and by month four nobody can say which team moved the number. The engagement dies in a QBR, not in the work.
So the scope is written before anything starts. Not a statement of work full of deliverables, a one-page scope: what we own, what we will not touch, who signs off internally, and the single metric we are graded on. It goes to procurement with the contract, and it is the first slide of every monthly review.
One named project, stated in a sentence. Protect the EMEA replatform. Displace the incumbent in one category. Consolidate two overlapping libraries.
What stays with your AOR and what stays in-house, listed explicitly. We do not touch brand, paid, the roadmap or your reporting stack.
One named person internally who can approve and unblock. One senior lead here. Weekly, not a monthly account call.
The project’s own baseline, taken before we start, reported separately from every other channel. One number, monthly, in writing.
What this means for the people who have to approve it.
What we actually ship
The four projects we take.
We are specific about this on purpose. Four projects, each boundaried and baselineable, plus the measurement to prove what moved. Anything outside this list is a no.
Protect a migration
A replatform, redesign or domain change, protected end to end. The highest-risk moment for non-brand traffic and the one with the shortest window to get right.
- Pre-cutover baselines captured
- Redirect map reviewed pre-launch
- Daily monitoring through the window
- Rollback triggers agreed in advance
Moves: Traffic and pipeline held through launch
Displace a named incumbent
One category, one competitor. We go after the sources behind their answer rather than the ranking, across search and every AI engine.
- Source audit on their citations
- Comparison and alternatives coverage
- Roundup and review-site displacement
- Claim-level differentiation
Moves: Shortlist position vs a named rival
Consolidate a sprawling library
Years of overlapping content and multiple pages competing for one query. Merge, retire, redirect, and rebuild the internal link graph.
- Full cannibalization audit
- Merge and retire decisions with owners
- Redirect map, equity preserved
- Internal link graph rebuilt
Moves: Authority concentrated, not split
Enter a new market
A market entry done properly: intent research before translation, correct hreflang, and reporting that does not hide a new market inside a global number.
- Market and intent research
- hreflang and structure
- Localized, not translated
- Per-market reporting
Moves: Non-brand pipeline in the new market
Attribution that survives finance
Two-Witness Rule from week one, raw always shown next to corrected, because at enterprise the number gets audited by someone who was not in the room.
- Self-reported source captured at the form
- CRM corroboration rule applied monthly
- Raw and corrected both reported
- Project-only reporting line
Moves: A number that holds under scrutiny
A clean handover
Everything we build is documented and handed over, because the point is that your team can run it after we leave.
- Specs, not tickets, for engineering
- Brief standards your team keeps
- Recorded working sessions
- Exit summary with what is unfinished
Moves: Capability that stays with you
How the 90 days run
Scope it, baseline it, ship it, hand it over.
Twelve weeks, one project. No discovery phase that bills for a quarter, because the problem is already identified before you call us.
Week 1 · Scope and baseline
The scope written down with boundaries and KPIs, baselines captured that cannot be recreated later, and the internal owner identified on your side.
Weeks 2 to 12 · Ship the work
The work itself, with a weekly working session with your internal owner. Engineering asks arrive as specs, not as a list of issues to triage.
Close · Hand it over
A written exit summary: what moved against baseline, what is unfinished, and what your team needs to keep doing. Renewal is a separate conversation on a new project.
The scoreboard
What we grade ourselves on.
Baselined in week one, graded monthly in writing on that project alone. If the project cannot clear a 4× return, we tell you before you spend a dollar.
Agreed in week one and specific to the project: retained traffic through a cutover, shortlist position, cannibalization resolved, or pipeline in a new market.
Graded monthly vs. baseline
Traced under the Two-Witness Rule, raw next to corrected, scoped to the project so it cannot be confused with your channel-wide number.
Reported monthly
Explicit monitoring of the surfaces adjacent to the project, so a win on one product line is never paid for by another.
Reported monthly
Artifacts delivered, sessions recorded, standards documented. Measured because the goal is that you do not need us for this twice.
Reported at close
Results · From the monthly reports
Named clients, published numbers.
Three engagements where the work was bounded and the number was specific. Note the migration and displacement projects, which are the two we are asked for most.
AI search became a demand channel in one quarter
Organic sessions, AI referrals, category presence and attributed demand all moved together one quarter after launch.
Four months in, running ahead of forecasted demos
Nearly half the demo pipeline was filed as Direct. The Two-Witness Rule recovered it, and the page program kept feeding it.
AI search and organic became the growth engine
A page set that did not exist twelve months ago now carries the growth and is the most-cited name in the category’s AI answers.
The objection
“We cannot run a procurement cycle for this.”
Then do not. A bounded project is a smaller decision than an agency review, and that is the entire point of the shape.
Objection 01
“We cannot run a procurement cycle for this.”
A bounded project is usually a smaller decision than a vendor review, because it is one project with one number and a defined end. Several enterprise engagements start as the GEO Pipeline Sprint at $25,000 one-time, which is often inside a director’s signing authority and produces six artifacts you keep whatever you decide next. If your process still requires a full review, we will tell you honestly that we are probably not worth the paperwork.
Objection 02
“We already have an agency of record.”
Good, and we are not competing with them. We take one project their delivery model is not built for: bounded, senior, cross-team, twelve weeks. The boundaries are written down before kickoff, including what stays in their scope, and we will happily be introduced to them rather than around them. If your AOR can genuinely staff the project at the right seniority, use them.
Objection 03
“Are you big enough for us?”
Not for an agency-of-record relationship, and we will say that on the first call rather than in month six. We are founder-led and deliberately small, which is why the offer is one project at a time. If the honest answer to your need is a 40-person agency or three internal hires, that is the advice you will get from us for free.
Objection 04
“What about security review and MSAs?”
Expected, and we will complete them. What we ask is that the process is proportionate to a twelve-week bounded engagement rather than to a multi-year channel contract, because the time spent on paperwork is time the migration or the consolidation is still waiting.
Fit · Before you fill anything in
Who this works for, and who it doesn’t.
This is the narrowest page on the site and the one where we decline most often. Reading it properly saves us both a call.
Great fit
- An in-house SEO function already in placePeople who know the product lines and the politics. We are capacity and seniority, not the function.
- One project, from a list of fourA migration to protect, an incumbent to displace, a library to consolidate, or a market to enter.
- An internal owner who wants the helpSomebody senior who will take the weekly session and the credit for shipping it.
- A decision that does not need a vendor reviewOr a willingness to keep the paperwork proportionate to a twelve-week engagement.
- B2B SaaS with a real categoryA competitor set you can name, and buyers who compare vendors before they choose.
- You can ship changesModern CMS and a willingness to make technical and on-page edits.
- Pipeline is the measureDemos, trials and pipeline are how we are both graded, not sessions.
Also a fit: a director who knows exactly which project is stuck and wants one senior pair of hands to own it for a quarter.
Not a fit
- You want an agency of recordWe are the wrong size and would do it badly. Say so on the call and we will tell you the same.
- The project is “improve SEO”If it cannot be baselined and graded on its own, it becomes a turf argument by month three.
- Procurement runs longer than the projectIf sign-off takes two quarters, hire in-house. The debt compounds while we wait.
- You are running a competitive RFPWe do not bid. If that is the process, we are not the right vendor and there is no hard feeling in it.
- B2C apps, DTC ecommerce, or local servicesDifferent playbook, different channels. Not our specialty and not our pricing model.
- You want content volume without strategyWrong expectation. We decline these even when the budget is there.
- You can't make on-page or technical changesThe methodology does not work without them.
- Traffic is the KPIIf the goal is sessions and impressions, we will disappoint you on purpose.
- Not willing to let us driveIf every decision needs a committee and a month, the program stalls.
If that’s you, we’ll say so on the first call and point you somewhere better. No sequence, no follow-up.
In their words
The people who signed off on it.
"Justin and his team have been phenomenal from Day 0, and the consistency in quality and the measurable results they have delivered have been a true transformation to our business. We are extremely happy and we have already recommended them to our friends."
"The partnership with Rock The Rankings contributed to clear improvements in organic performance across Canada and Australia, particularly for MoonPay's high-value transactional keywords and pages."
"Rock The Rankings delivered great work for us. We came in with a massive index bloat issue, and Justin and team quickly figured out what needed to be done and helped us implement his suggestions on the site."
"Rock The Rankings have really gone above and beyond, in terms of exceeding our expectations in both their communications and their strategies around marketing. They're very specific at what they do. They've been able to help us get to positions 1 and 2 for our most valuable keywords."
"They simply get SEO: which levers to pull and when. During my search for the right partner I already had a pretty clear idea about what was needed, and they shared a very similar vision."
"The workflow was seamless between our teams. Overall, their process was very close to ours, so it was a great fit from the get-go. Most importantly, we learned a ton from their approach."
"Justin and his team helped us strengthen our SEO strategy, enabling us to adopt a more in-depth and strategic approach, and to better anticipate and organize our content operations."
"We set out to get valuable backlinks and they have just been a fantastic partner in making that happen. It's been an amazing experience working with Rock The Rankings, and I highly recommend that you try them out."
Straight answers
Asked on every call.
If yours isn’t here, bring it to the call. Same unpolished answer either way.
Yes, and it is the normal path. The GEO Pipeline Sprint is $25,000 one-time over 30 days and produces six artifacts you keep regardless of what happens next. It is frequently inside a director’s signing authority, which means the project can start while a larger decision takes its time, or instead of one.
No. We take projects an AOR delivery model is not built for: one bounded project, senior, spanning teams, twelve weeks. Boundaries are written before kickoff, their scope is explicitly excluded, and we would rather be introduced to them than around them.
Because we would lose, and we should. Owning an enterprise channel means owning your roadmap, your stakeholder management and your politics, which needs a bigger team than ours. Being clear about that is worth more to both of us than a proposal we cannot deliver on.
It has to be baselineable and gradeable on its own number, it has to have an internal owner who wants it, and it has to be one of the four on this page. If any of those is missing we decline, and we will explain which one.
A written exit summary: what moved against baseline, what is unfinished, and what your team should keep doing. Everything is documented and handed over. If there is a second project worth doing, that is a fresh conversation and a fresh baseline, not an automatic renewal.
Anyone running a competitive RFP, anyone who needs an agency of record, and any project too vague to grade. This page exists to filter those out before either of us spends time on a call.
Next step
Your GEO plan, built on your numbers.
Give us your domain and your pipeline goal. We map the prompts your buyers are asking, build your GEO marketing plan against them, and forecast the pipeline the next 90 days can realistically produce.
What we walk through