Pricing SEO work is where most agencies lose margin — not because they price too low, but because pricing is disconnected from scope.
The scope lives in a Google Doc. The pricing lives in a spreadsheet. The two are assembled by different people (or the same person at different times), and they drift apart. Deliverables get added without adjusting fees. Hours get estimated from memory, not from scope variables. Discounts get applied without understanding the margin impact.
Consistent pricing requires a system, not a spreadsheet.
Who this is for
- SEO agency founders who want pricing discipline across the team
- Operations leads building rate cards and pricing frameworks
- Account managers who price scopes without senior involvement
- Agencies where different team members produce different prices for the same scope
Three pricing foundations
Every SEO price should be informed by three lenses:
| Foundation | What it determines |
|---|---|
| Cost-based floor | Your minimum viable price — below this, you lose money |
| Market-based range | What comparable agencies charge for similar work |
| Value-based ceiling | What the work is worth to the client in business impact |
Cost-based floor
Calculate your true delivery cost per engagement:
- Staff hours x fully loaded hourly rate (salary + overhead + margin)
- Tool costs attributable to the engagement
- Management and reporting overhead
- Target minimum margin: 40%. Healthy margin: 50–65%
If your cost to deliver a retainer is $3,000/month, your minimum price is $5,000 (at 40% margin) or $6,000–$8,500 (at 50–65% margin).
Market-based range
| Client tier | Typical monthly retainer |
|---|---|
| Small business | $500–$2,000/month |
| Mid-market | $3,000–$10,000/month |
| Enterprise | $10,000–$30,000+/month |
These ranges shift by geography, specialisation, and agency positioning. They're reference points, not rules.
Value-based ceiling
What's the client's organic channel worth? If SEO drives $500K/year in revenue, a $5K/month retainer is a fraction of the value created. Value-based pricing works when you can connect your fee to measurable business impact.
Four pricing models
1. Monthly retainer
Best for: Ongoing SEO management Structure: Fixed monthly fee for defined deliverables Advantage: Predictable revenue, long-term relationships Risk: Scope creep if deliverables aren't bounded
2. Project-based
Best for: Audits, migrations, specific optimisation projects Structure: Fixed scope, fixed fee, defined timeline Advantage: Clear boundaries, clean completion Risk: Underestimating scope — always add 20% buffer to hours
3. Performance-based
Best for: Rarely — avoid pure performance-based models Structure: Fee tied to results (rankings, traffic, revenue) Advantage: Aligns incentives with client outcomes Risk: SEO timelines are unpredictable, external factors affect results Recommendation: If used, hybrid model — base retainer + performance bonus
4. Productised packages
Best for: Agencies with standardised service offerings Structure: Defined package (Bronze/Silver/Gold or similar) with fixed deliverables Advantage: Highest margin when standardised, easiest to sell and delegate Risk: Clients who need customisation feel constrained Example: "SEO Starter: $2,500/month — includes technical monitoring, 10 pages optimised, monthly report"
Five margin-eroding mistakes
1. Hour-based retainers without work type boundaries. "20 hours of SEO" invites anything. "20 hours covering technical SEO, on-page optimisation, and reporting" has boundaries.
2. Estimating hours from memory. "That feels like a 15-hour audit" vs "a 5,000-page site with technical + content audit scope = 32–40 hours based on our rate card." Variables-based estimation is more accurate.
3. Not raising prices with scope. When the client adds a market, a location, or a content workstream — the price should change. If it doesn't, margin erodes.
4. Ignoring scope creep. "Just this one extra thing" repeated 10 times equals a significant unpaid workstream. Track effective hourly rate per client monthly.
5. Inconsistent pricing across team members. If two account managers produce different prices for identical scopes, the pricing process is broken. The fix is a rate card tied to scope variables, not discretion.
Before finalising any SEO engagement price:
- Cost floor calculated (staff hours x loaded rate + tools + overhead)
- Market rate checked (comparable agencies, similar scope)
- Value consideration applied (what's organic worth to this client?)
- Hours estimated from scope variables (not memory)
- Pricing matches deliverables in the SOW (no drift)
- Margin target met (minimum 40%, target 50–65%)
- Scope creep provisions included (change request process)
- Discount documented with rationale (if any)
- Rate review timeline set (annual or at renewal)
- Internal approval obtained (if required by pricing policy)
How RuleDox helps
When pricing lives inside the scope instead of a separate spreadsheet, it stays aligned:
- Hours calculate from scope variables — site size, engagement type, and service mix determine effort
- Pricing updates automatically — change a variable, pricing recalculates
- Rate cards are encoded — your per-hour or per-deliverable rates are built into the rules
- Margin visibility — you can see the relationship between scope, hours, and fee in one place
- Delegation safe — juniors assemble scopes with correct pricing because the system enforces the rate card
No more spreadsheet-to-scope disconnect.
FAQ
Should I show my pricing calculation to the client? No. Clients don't need to see your cost structure or margin. They need to see what they're getting (deliverables) and what it costs (fee). Internal pricing methodology stays internal.
How often should I review pricing? Annually at minimum. More often if your cost base changes (new hires, new tools) or if effective hourly rates consistently fall below target. Rate reviews should be proactive, not reactive.
How do I handle clients who want to negotiate? Negotiate scope, not price. If the budget is $3K but the scope requires $5K, remove deliverables until the scope matches the budget. Never discount without reducing scope — it trains clients to negotiate and erodes your positioning.