Agency Connect
Agency Connect
Make your agency information useful to a reader choosing a provider. Use Agency Connect to request ranking consideration or inclusion for your digital agency. Tell SEOS.co which pages and locations are relevant, explain the services you want considered and provide useful public context. The form also accepts sponsorship interest. A clear submission helps distinguish factual agency information, reported project evidence and the request you are making.
Request agency consideration
Identify the pages or locations relevant to your request and link to public information supporting your agency description. Do not include private client records or account credentials.
Start with the request, not a sales presentation
Explain what you want the submission to address. Are you requesting consideration for a location, an industry or a specialty? Are you providing information about an agency that is not currently described, or pointing to a particular page where your work appears relevant? Naming the purpose keeps the message understandable and prevents a broad promotional description from obscuring the actual request.
Include the agency name and the public website URL using the form fields. In the message, identify relevant SEOS.co pages or locations and explain the connection. If you are also expressing sponsorship interest, say so clearly rather than combining it with a factual correction as though they were the same issue. The existence of a sponsorship field does not itself establish any particular commercial terms or editorial outcome.
Submitting information is a request for consideration, not evidence establishing a ranking position. A provider’s desired description should remain distinguishable from substantiated facts and attributed claims. This page does not promise acceptance, a particular position, a response time or a publication timetable. Focus on making the information accurate and useful rather than assuming that a completed form settles those questions.
Describe the agency with precise public information
Provide a concise account of the services the agency currently offers and the kinds of businesses it serves. Link to the official pages that support those descriptions. Specific language is more useful than a list of broad claims about excellence. If a service involves strategy without implementation, say so. If delivery depends on the client’s development resources, identify that distinction where it matters.
Separate headquarters, staffed offices and service areas. An agency can serve a market without maintaining an office there, and a market page should not be used to imply otherwise. Describe the relevant location relationship plainly. If the public website does not resolve an important detail, acknowledge the gap rather than asking a reader to infer a stronger claim from the agency’s presence in a category.
Keep claims about credentials or capabilities tied to the relevant source and scope. A qualification may establish one kind of expertise without establishing every service in a proposal. A broad industry label may conceal important differences between business models. The aim is to help a buyer understand what the agency says it does and what questions remain, not to create a profile that sounds comprehensive at the expense of accuracy.
Connect category relevance with actual work
A location request should explain the market relationship. An industry request should explain relevant business context. A specialty request should explain the type of work. These categories can overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A provider may work with a business in one city without having delivered every specialty associated with that business or serving every industry in the region.
For a hypothetical example, an agency requesting consideration for ecommerce migration work could identify the platform context, the kind of migration work it offers and a public project account showing its role. It should not turn that example into a claim that it guarantees revenue preservation or has expertise in every commerce platform. This illustration is submission guidance, not a description of a real agency case.
For a hypothetical local-search example, describe whether the work concerns a single location or coordination across multiple locations, and distinguish business profile management from website implementation. Link to evidence that supports the particular capability. Useful specificity helps a reader compare work models without requiring an unsupported claim that one model is universally better.
Present case studies with the context intact
If you include a project example, identify the client or business context where that information can be shared publicly. Explain the baseline, period, metric and work delivered. State who is reporting the result. An agency-published case remains agency-reported unless a relevant part is independently corroborated. Avoid presenting a selected project as a forecast for future clients.
Define the result accurately. Organic traffic is not the same as qualified enquiries, and total revenue is not automatically organic search revenue. If the project included paid media, a redesign or other work, describe that scope. A useful account gives the reader a way to understand attribution rather than relying on a large percentage to imply a causal conclusion.
Public evidence can be incomplete. If a baseline or channel definition is unavailable, say so. Do not invent a missing number to fill a table or treat a confidential report as publicly inspectable evidence. A narrow, attributed account can be more informative than a dramatic claim whose period, denominator and origin cannot be understood.
Where client confirmation or independent reporting exists, link to it and explain which part of the claim it supports. Confirmation of a commercial relationship does not necessarily confirm every performance figure. Several publications repeating the agency’s announcement do not automatically become independent measurements. Keep the evidence chain clear enough that another reader can follow it.
Use testimonials and third-party reviews carefully
A testimonial can describe a client’s experience with the agency. It is a selected perspective, not a representation of every engagement. Include relevant context where available: the service, timing and nature of the relationship. Avoid rewriting a client’s statement to imply a broader outcome than the client described.
For third-party reviews, identify the platform and link to the public source. Read any verification label according to that platform’s process. Do not describe it as a SEOS.co client interview or an independent audit of the result. Identity, relationship and measurement of performance remain different questions even when a platform confirms one of them.
Generic praise may be less useful for a buyer than a specific account of implementation and responsibilities. If you have a relevant public review, explain its connection to the category request. Do not ask a reader to infer specialist capability solely from a high rating or a large number of brief endorsements. The review standards provide more detail about interpreting these forms of evidence.
Make scope and commercial context understandable
If published pricing is part of your submission, identify what the figure describes. An hourly rate, a minimum project price, a monthly engagement and a per-location fee are different units. Link to the current source and explain material exclusions where available. Do not imply that a headline figure covers a scope that would require a separate agreement.
Explain delivery responsibilities in terms a prospective client can evaluate. Does the agency advise, implement or coordinate with another team? Who produces content, who approves it and who changes the website? A useful profile need not reproduce a contract, but it should avoid giving readers the impression that all activities associated with a service label are included automatically.
Account ownership and reporting can affect fit. If you provide public information about those subjects, keep it specific and current. A provider’s general approach may help a reader prepare questions, while the terms of an actual engagement still require direct confirmation. Do not present a profile summary as a substitute for a buyer reviewing its own proposed scope and agreement.
Keep correction requests distinct
If an existing page contains a factual error, identify the original URL and exact statement through the contact route described in the corrections policy. Provide a public source supporting the proposed change and a known change date if available. A factual correction should not be buried inside a general request for broader coverage or a preferred ranking position.
You can explain how a fact affects the relevance of a page, but keep evidence and editorial preference separate. Updating an office address is different from requesting a higher position. A discontinued service may require a factual repair without establishing what any replacement ranking should be. Precision makes both the correction and the broader request easier to understand.
For new consideration information, use the Agency Connect form below. If you mention an earlier report, repeat its page URL and distinguish what is new. Do not assume that submitting the same material repeatedly changes the strength of the evidence or creates a commitment about review timing. Keep follow-up context tied to the original request.
Protect clients and confidential information
Use public links and information you are entitled to share. Do not submit passwords, private analytics access, customer records or confidential contracts through this form. A project can be described at an appropriate level without exposing information that should remain inside the client relationship. If a material point cannot be supported publicly, state that limitation.
Check client references and project descriptions before including them. A public marketing case and an internal performance report can have different permissions and meanings. Do not imply a client endorsement merely because the client appears in a project description. Attribute each statement to its actual source and keep any qualification that affects how a reader would understand it.
Avoid unsupported claims about competitors, reviewers or motives. Agency Connect is a route to provide useful information about your request, not an evidential shortcut for accusations. If another page contains a factual problem, identify the statement and source through the appropriate correction route. A precise report is more useful than a broad assertion that an alternative provider should not appear.
Prepare a submission that another person can use
Organize the message around a clear request, relevant pages or locations, current service context and public evidence. Explain which link supports which claim rather than pasting a long list without context. If several categories are relevant, give a short reason for each. This makes the submission more intelligible without requiring an exaggerated account of the agency.
Read the message from a buyer’s perspective. Would it help someone understand the kind of work, the delivery model and the limits of the reported evidence? Could the same paragraph describe almost any agency? Replace generic praise with relevant details where possible, and remove claims that the linked sources do not support.
Keep unknowns explicit. You may know the current service offering while not having public evidence for a historical result. You may have a relevant case while its commercial outcome cannot be independently established. These distinctions do not make a submission useless. They make it more honest about what the reader can conclude.
Use the existing Agency Connect form
The form asks for your name, email, website URL, agency name and message. Email, URL, agency name and message are required; name fields are optional. Use the message to identify the pages, locations and service context relevant to the request. State sponsorship interest separately from factual information or correction requests so that each part of your submission has a clear purpose.
Before sending, confirm that the URL points to the agency you are describing and that your message includes the actual request. Remove private information. Keep a copy of the public URLs you supplied if you may need to refer to the request later. Do not send test messages simply to verify whether the form works.
Separate the record from the interpretation
A useful submission allows a reader to tell which statements are directly supported and which are your interpretation of the agency’s fit. You can explain why a project seems relevant to a category without claiming that the project proves universal expertise. Keep the original service description, project period and attribution intact when summarizing. That makes the information easier to compare with another provider’s account.
If a source has changed since you prepared the message, use the current public link and explain the change where it matters. A broken case-study URL does not automatically establish that a project never occurred, but it does limit what a reader can inspect. Describe that limit instead of silently replacing the missing evidence with a broader promotional claim.
Questions before submitting
Does inclusion consideration establish a ranking position?
No. A request is information for consideration, not evidence that a particular editorial position is warranted. Read the ranking methodology for RankScore and comparison limits, and provide relevant facts without treating the submission itself as proof of quality.
Can I describe sponsorship interest here?
Yes. State sponsorship interest clearly in the Agency Connect message and keep it separate from factual information or a correction request. Identify the relevant pages or locations and explain the request. Submitting information does not guarantee acceptance or a particular editorial position.
What if I only need to correct an existing detail?
Use the contact route with the affected URL, exact statement and supporting public source. The corrections policy explains the distinction between a factual repair and an editorial disagreement. Keeping the issue specific helps avoid confusing a correction with a new inclusion request.