Google Ads · €350
Yet in most law firm accounts the two sit in one number. Brand searches convert beautifully and cost almost nothing, and they carry the average for everything else. The audit separates them, per practice area, and shows what the non-brand half is actually doing.
A firm bidding on immigration work is usually bidding on several things at once: its own name, the generic search, the specific problem, and whatever the network decided to spend on. Reported together, a healthy brand line can hide a non-brand line that has not produced an enquiry in a month.
The same is true across practice areas. Immigration, employment and family law have different searches, different competitors and very different costs, and an account average describes none of them.
So the audit answers four questions, in this order: what did brand cost and what did the rest cost; which practice areas pay for themselves; which searches produced enquiries and which produced clicks; and where the budget would do more if it moved.
Read-only access to the account is enough. Nothing is changed without you.
Because they are three different systems answering one client’s question, and they disagree.
In my measurement of Dutch immigration firms, only 34% of the domains Google’s AI Overview cited also appeared in the organic results on the same page. On three questions, not one cited domain was in the organic list. Paid search is a third system again, with its own blind spot.
A firm can be buying the search, ranking for the search, and still be absent from the answer the client is actually reading. Each of those is worth knowing separately. The AI visibility audit covers the third one.
€350
Refunded if you read it and it tells you nothing you did not know. I would rather give the money back than argue about whether it was useful.
Written to danil@sysenko.com · AI visibility audit · The published measurement