A model will not recommend a firm it cannot vouch for. LLMO builds the evidence it looks for: a named professional behind the work whose credentials check out, profiles that agree with each other, and independent sources that have said the same thing about you.
The short answer
LLMO is the off-site half. It is who signs your content, whether their credentials are verifiable, which directories carry a complete record of you, and whether anyone independent has corroborated it. This pillar is slow, and it is usually what separates two firms with equally good websites.
Everything else on this site can be live inside a month. This one runs on other people schedules: editors, directory reviewers, and engines re-crawling sources they do not tell you about. Here is what the 90 days actually contain.
Every substantive page gets a named author with an About-the-Author block, and a Person record in your schema carrying the credentials that matter in your field. The Person record points at a registry an engine can check, a bar number, an NPI, an SEC record. A byline that resolves to nothing is worth nothing.
We claim and complete the directories your field actually relies on, then reconcile them against your site and your licensing record until every one says the same thing. Contradiction between two profiles is worse than a missing profile, because it gives an engine a reason to hedge.
Bylined placement in publications an engine treats as a source, and quotes in coverage where your named professional is the expert. We draft and place, and your credential holder approves every word before it runs.
Engines lean heavily on Reddit, Quora and field-specific forums for questions that ask who to hire. A genuine, non-promotional presence there is a citable source in its own right. Astroturfing is both obvious and counterproductive, so we do not do it.
Reported monthly, against the firms named instead of you, with the sources listed so you can check the work.
Where this sits on the ladder
Scores editorial authority and citation footprint, so you can see how far off-site you actually are before committing.
The verified record every profile then has to match. Doing LLMO without it means propagating whatever is already wrong.
The engagement this pillar lives in: baseline, profiles, directories, citation building and share-of-voice reporting.
Credential verification is the whole game here, and every field verifies differently. These are the records engines can actually check in each.
The bar record is the anchor: admissions, status and any discipline history are public and machine readable. Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell and Super Lawyers carry weight. Everything published stays inside Chapter 4-7, which rules out most of what a generic agency would suggest.
NPI, board certification and hospital affiliations are the checkable facts. Healthgrades, Vitals and Castle Connolly are the profiles that matter. Reviews are a live signal and a HIPAA hazard at once, so responses follow a script that never confirms someone is a patient.
SEC IAPD and FINRA BrokerCheck are public, authoritative and already describe you, so the first job is making sure your site agrees with them. Forbes Finance Council is the placement route most often worth it. The SEC marketing rule governs everything published.
State licence records and the local Realtor association profile are the verifiable base. Mansion Global and brokerage network pages carry real authority. Team structures complicate the entity picture more than in any other field, so we resolve who is the entity before building profiles.
If your credentials are not verifiable from a public registry, say so early. It changes the sequence, and it is better handled at the start than discovered at day 60.
This page is about the engagement. These go deeper on how the mechanism works, and they are free to read.
Framework
Where authority sits relative to the rest, and why most firms stall one rung below it.
ReadDiagnosis
Contradiction between sources is the most common cause, and the least visible from inside.
ReadContext
How the on-site and off-site halves feed each other across the 90 days.
ReadLLMO is one of five. A full AI Visibility engagement covers all of them, because an engine checks more than one before it names a firm.
The audit scores editorial authority and citation footprint alongside five on-site areas, so you find out whether your gap is the website or everything around it before you spend on either.
No charge and no obligation. If a call is not the right next step, we will say so and send something useful instead.
or call 305-209-8453 · se habla español
LLMO is the work of building the credibility signals a language model reads before it decides your firm is safe to recommend. Most of it sits off your own website: who is named as the author of your content and whether their credentials check out, which directories carry a complete profile of you, whether anyone independent has written about or quoted you, and whether the entity records the model relies on agree with each other. It is the slowest pillar and usually the one that separates two firms with equally good sites.
Because credibility is assessed against a person, not a logo. An article bylined to your firm gives an engine nobody whose expertise it can check. The same article bylined to a named partner, with a bar number, a practice history and a profile the engine can cross-reference, is a different object entirely. We see sites with dozens of well-written articles all attributed to the organization, and the schema count makes the site look healthy while the authority signal is close to zero.
Longer than the on-site pillars, and that is inherent rather than a scoping choice. Directory profiles need review and propagation. An editor decides when a bylined piece runs. Engines re-crawl third-party sources on their own schedule. We work in 90-day terms and report share of voice at day 30, 60 and 90, because that is the honest cadence. Anyone promising off-site authority in three weeks is describing something else.
It is field specific and the list is shorter than most agencies imply. Law firms: Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Super Lawyers, Justia and the state bar profile. Concierge medicine: Healthgrades, Vitals, Castle Connolly and the state medical association. Wealth and family offices: SEC IAPD, FINRA BrokerCheck, Forbes Finance Council. Luxury real estate: the local Realtor association, Mansion Global and the brokerage network profile. We map which you already hold and which are worth the effort, and we do not pad the list.
We draft and place them, and the named professional reviews and approves everything before it runs. That review is not a formality. In a regulated field the person whose licence is attached has to stand behind the words, and an engine that later finds the claim was wrong does more damage than never publishing. Nothing goes out with a credential on it that the credential holder has not read.
Usually not, and it is worth being blunt about it. Wikipedia has notability standards most professional firms do not meet, and attempting a page you do not qualify for tends to end in deletion and a note in the record. A claimed Google Knowledge Panel, a complete and consistent LinkedIn presence and accurate licensing records do most of the same identity work and are actually achievable.
The directory and profile work, yes. It is tedious rather than difficult, and we publish the priority list so a capable marketing coordinator can work through it. What is harder in-house is editorial placement, because it depends on relationships and on knowing which outlets an engine actually treats as a source. If you only have capacity for one half, do the profiles yourself and let us handle placement.