From $499 to a custom build.

A report delivered within 3 business days, a 5-minute video walkthrough plus a 20-minute call with Brandon, and a free re-check of your AI answers, rankings and money leak every quarter for as long as you are in business. If you do not feel you got value from the audit, we refund the full $499, no questions asked.

The audit tells you what is actually wrong and what it is costing you. From there you can fix it yourself with our step-by-step instructions, hire us for the $2,997 fix in 14 days, keep it fixed on the $997-a-month care plan, or commission a custom AI system quoted after the audit. Options and prices for a custom build are covered on your call.

Custom AI systems are quoted as one fixed fee, starting at $10,000, after the audit names the constraint the system should address. Before you pay, we build a working prototype on your own data so you can see it perform. You own the code, prompts and data at handoff. There is no per-seat fee, no hourly rate, and no subscription.

No mandatory retainer. The $997-a-month care plan is optional and can be cancelled any time; it exists for businesses that want their fixes kept current rather than checked once. A custom build is a one-time fixed fee with the code owned at handoff, not a subscription.

Any owner-run business that wants a real answer on what AI and search are doing to its customer pipeline, from a five-person shop to a multi-location operator. Jim Glaser Law is a named client (3,787 calls handled); ColabContent also runs an owned practice platform tracking 13,296 matters and has shipped more than 40 builds across law, CPA, insurance, manufacturing and home services.

Skip straight to the $2,997 fix, done in 14 days, or the $997-a-month care plan if you want it kept current. The audit is the fastest way to know exactly what to fix and in what order, but it is not required before hiring us for a fix.

Operators who arrive at the audit call having run the sequence usually book the next step that same week. The sequence asks four questions in a specific order. First, is the leading constraint actually addressable with AI, or is it a process problem, a staffing problem, or a stack problem that AI would not solve. Second, if AI is the right intervention, is the right buying motion a custom build, an off-the-shelf product, or an internal hire. Third, if the right motion is a custom build, is the operator comfortable owning the code at handoff. Fourth, is the budget for a custom build, starting at $10,000, real this quarter, or does the fix-and-care ladder already solve it.

Operators who answer yes to all four book the call. Operators who answer no to any one of them either change the question (the leading constraint is different, the budget moves, the cloud posture changes) or take a different path. We do not push operators who land at a "no" on any of the four into a commission they will not be served by.

Twelve months post-handoff, three signals tell the operator whether the commission performed against the target written down after the audit. First, the dollar or hour delta on the workflow the commission addressed, measured against the pre-engagement baseline. Second, the percentage of the workflow the AI layer now handles autonomously versus the percentage that still routes to a human reviewer. Third, the number of times the operator's team has modified the build's prompts, models, or integration code on their own without ColabContent involvement. All three should be improving over time. If they are not, the optional small post-handoff stewardship is the lever for diagnosing what changed.

A commission is not the right answer for every operator. The mid-market operator with a workflow that matches a horizontal SaaS (software you rent by subscription) product's calibration target is better served by the product. The operator with a five-to-ten-year horizon and the willingness to spend twelve months building infrastructure before shipping the first production workflow is better served by an internal hire. The operator large enough that a strategy-then-build separation makes sense is better served by a Big Four engagement. We will tell the operator which of those alternatives fits if a custom build does not.

The honest case for a custom build is narrow on purpose. Owner-run businesses with a named constraint the audit surfaced, with systems the product market does not represent well, with the budget for the fixed fee, and with the willingness to run the system inside their own tools. Businesses in that band are where the math works; everyone else is usually better served by the audit, the fix, or the care plan alone.

Most consulting houses do not publish ranked comparisons against their competitors, do not publish the boundary of what they will not build, and do not publish fixed-fee pricing bands. We publish all three because the operators we want to commission for are the operators who reward that transparency with a faster booking. We are not optimizing for top-of-funnel volume; we are optimizing for the right businesses to book the audit. Publishing the comparisons, the rankings, and the boundaries selects for those businesses.