Cheap SEO gigs cost more than they charge
First, some honesty. We have bought things on Fiverr and been happy. It is a real marketplace with real talent in it. The problem is not the platform, it is the sorting: at $150, you cannot tell the exception from the template until your traffic tells you.
What actually gets delivered
| Typical $150 gig | Kadima task | |
|---|---|---|
| Who does the work | Unknown, often a tool | Named senior specialists |
| Quality check | None | Adversarial QA review before you see it |
| Price known upfront | Yes, credit where due | Yes, always |
| Deliverable | PDF export of a crawl tool | Scored roadmap you can hand to a developer |
| When it goes wrong | Dispute button | Revision round, approval gate, a human who answers |
When a gig is fine
Small, contained, low-stakes work: a quick banner, alt text on 40 images, a one-off data entry job. If the worst case is losing $150, a gig is a rational bet.
When it backfires
The expensive failures we get called in after: spam backlinks that need a disqualification cleanup, doorway pages that earned a manual action, and rewritten content that quietly dropped rankings the client spent two years earning. In each case the gig was the cheapest line item in a very expensive story.
The test is simple: if this work touches your organic revenue, the downside is not the fee, it is the traffic. Price the downside, not the gig.
The middle that used to be missing
The old choice was $150 and hope, or a $40,000 retainer. The middle is fixed-price, senior-run, QA-gated tasks: a real technical audit for $1,050, a keyword strategy for $795, every price public. Software-simple buying, agency-grade output. That gap is why Kadima exists.
Start where the risk is
The Technical SEO Audit finds what is actually broken before you spend a dollar fixing the wrong things.