Birth Injury Marketing
Service line · Foundation and up

SEO & AI search

Two distribution systems now sit between a query and your firm: the classic results page, and the answer engine that summarises instead of listing. They reward different things. We build for both and report them separately, because a page that ranks and is never quoted is failing at half its job.

Build for extraction, not only for ranking

One page, two distribution systems. A single page must satisfy classic ranking factors and answer-engine extraction requirements, which are related but not identical. One published page Classic results page competes for a position in a list Answer engine extracts a passage and cites it Rewards: depth, links, freshness, internal structure, page experience Rewards: self-contained passages, real tables, accurate schema, llms.txt, a claim that survives being lifted
Figure 1 — the two systems overlap but do not coincide. The practical consequence: every page opens with a direct definitional answer before any framing, and every factual block is written so that lifting it out of the page does not change its meaning. This site is built that way; its own llms.txt is public.
The extraction checklist we apply to every page we publish for a client. It is the same checklist this site is held to.
RequirementWhy it matters to an answer engine
A direct definitional answer in the first paragraph, before any framingExtractable as a standalone response to the query
Facts written so a paragraph can be lifted without losing meaningSynthesis breaks context; self-containment survives it
Real <table> markup with headers, not a visual grid of divsTabular data is parsed as tabular data
Accurate Article, FAQPage, HowTo, Dataset schema — never stuffedInaccurate schema is worse than none; it teaches the engine to distrust the domain
A named author, a reviewer where relevant, and a real last-reviewed dateAccountability signals, and in health-and-legal topics they carry weight
An llms.txt summarising the site and its standing caveatsA machine-readable statement of what the site does and does not claim

What we measure, from day one

AI-referral traffic is instrumented before the first page ships — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini and Copilot segmented as named sources rather than dumped into direct or referral. Firms that add this instrumentation later cannot tell whether the channel grew or their measurement did.

Reporting split. Organic and answer-engine performance are reported as separate channels because they move for different reasons.
ChannelLeading indicatorLagging indicator
Classic organicNon-branded impressions and clicks on target clustersSigned cases attributed to organic
Answer enginesCitations and referral sessions by engineSigned cases with an AI-assistant touchpoint
BrandBranded query volumeDirect inquiries — a lagging measure of everything else

Content that earns its place

We publish to a standard, not a calendar. A page ships when it does something the current best result does not, when every statistic in it links to primary material, and when a named author and, where relevant, a named reviewer stand behind it. If that yields two pages in a month, we publish two. The editorial standard we hold ourselves to is the one we apply to client work, and the full playbook is published free.

What we report

What we report, and what we refuse to report as a headline. Vanity metrics still appear — they are diagnostic — but never at the top.
MetricRoleReported as
Signed cases attributed to organicPrimaryHeadline.
Citations in AI answers, by enginePrimaryTracked as its own channel from day one, not folded into "organic".
Referral sessions from AI assistantsPrimarySegmented by engine in analytics before the first article ships.
Non-branded organic inquiriesDiagnosticBranded traffic is a lagging measure of everything else you do.
RankingsOperationalAppendix. A ranking is not an outcome.
How an engagement is structured. Same shape on every service line, so you can compare bands directly.
PhaseLengthWhat happensWhat you get
0 · Diagnostic3 weeksMarket sizing from our data, audit of current spend against cost per signed case, screening-capacity modelA written plan and a decision. Credited in full against the first three months of any retainer.
1 · InstrumentationWeeks 1–4Tracking rebuilt so every inquiry carries its source through to the case management systemA funnel you can audit. Nothing is optimised before it can be measured.
2 · BuildWeeks 3–10Channel build, creative, landing pages, intake scripts and screening rubricAssets you own outright, in your accounts, under your name.
3 · OperateOngoingWeekly optimisation against cost per signed case, monthly against cost per case surviving reviewA monthly report that leads with signed cases, not impressions.

When this is the wrong service for you

If you need cases this quarter, this is the wrong line to start with. Organic and answer-engine work compounds over quarters, not weeks. Start with paid search for flow and run this alongside it. Equally, if your firm will not put a named attorney’s byline and credentials on published pages, do not buy content from anyone — unattributed content in a health-and-legal category is the weakest asset you can own.

Related

What this costs → · Book a call → · Read the free library first →

Authorship & review

Author
Kevin Schwaner, Founder; Chief Marketing Officer. Credentials.
Last reviewed
Legal review
Not yet assigned. This page describes marketing practice, not law, and gives no legal advice. Rules cited are linked to the primary source so you can read them directly. See Editorial Standards.
Corrections
Found an error? Tell us and it goes in the dated corrections log, whether or not it flatters us.