We are writing this as a supplier, and you should read it with that in mind. But the criteria are the same whoever you end up with, and a couple of them count against us.
Most people buying SEO for the first time have no basis for judging the offers they get. The jargon is dense, the results are hard to verify, and everyone says roughly the same thing in the sales meeting. That imbalance is not the buyer’s fault.
The points below are the ones we would check ourselves. They are written as questions you can ask, because a concrete question reveals more than a general assessment. And the order is not random: the first three most often decide whether an SEO project comes to anything.
Ask for the name of the person who will actually work on your site, and what share of the hours is theirs. The sales meeting is often held by a senior; the work may go to a junior or a subcontractor. Neither is wrong, but you should know what you are buying.
E-commerce experience helps little if you are a law firm, and the reverse. Ask for two examples from a similar industry or platform, and ask what the problem was and what they did. An agency that cannot answer that concretely probably has not done it.
This is the most common gap. Many suppliers produce a list of actions and assume someone else will put them live. If you have no developer, the list sits there. Establish whether the supplier can go into the theme, or whether you need a developer as well.
A proposal should say what gets done, how many hours are allocated, what is billed extra, and what happens when something takes longer than expected. “Ongoing SEO work, 20 hours a month” is not a scope. It is a number.
A twelve-month commitment is common in the industry and can be reasonable — SEO takes time. But you should know how you can end it, what happens to the work already done, and whether you keep access to accounts and data.
Search Console, Analytics, Google Ads and Business Profile should be in your name, with the supplier as a user. If it is the other way round, you lose the history the day the engagement ends — and that history is often the most valuable thing built up.
A report showing only positions says little about the business. Ask whether it covers non-brand queries, landing pages, leads and sales, and whether you have read access to the source data. Without it, you cannot verify anything.
You should not have to learn the trade in order to buy the service. If you do not understand the explanation after two attempts, it is usually the explanation that is poor, not you. It also tells you what the reporting will look like.
Logos on a website cost nothing. One client willing to take a call and say how the engagement actually went is worth more than twelve of them. Ask for one.
If you sell to people in Bergen, local insight is real value: they know the market, the competitors and the search behaviour. If you sell nationally or digitally, proximity is mostly a practical question about how you meet. Do not make geography a requirement without reason, and do not pay for what you do not need.
The first on the list is on its own reason to decline. On the other five you should get a good answer before going further.
No supplier controls Google’s ranking. The promise cannot be kept, and whoever makes it knows that. This is the one warning sign that on its own ends the conversation.
“We have our own method” with nothing behind it usually means one of two things: there is no method, or it does not survive being described.
“40 % more traffic” is not information until you know for whom, over what period, measured where, and what else happened in that period.
If a number of links per month is on sale, you are probably buying placements in a network. That breaches Google’s guidelines, and the risk sits with your site, not the supplier’s.
If you get a PDF but no access to Search Console, you cannot check anything in it.
“20 articles a month” says nothing about who needs them. Mass-produced content with no real search demand behind it is a cost, not an investment.
The question is often framed as a choice between big and small. The more useful distinction is what you lack. If you need capacity — many hands producing over time — an agency with a team is right. If you need judgement on a hard problem, an experienced consultant is often both faster and cheaper, because you are not paying for an apparatus you do not use.
The most common mistake is buying capacity when the problem was judgement. Then you get twenty articles a month on a site that is not indexed properly.
After a good first meeting you should be able to repeat, in your own words, what the supplier thinks the main problem on your site is, and what they would do first. If you cannot, the meeting was about the supplier and not about you.
You should also have been told at least one uncomfortable thing. Every site has something wrong with it, and a supplier with only good news in the first meeting has either not looked, or chosen not to say.
Our service page has its own section on when we fit and when we do not. It is written before you call, deliberately.