Avision
Google Business Profile visibility platform
Hi IH 👋
Quick background: I spent years as Head of Global SEO for large European companies. I kept seeing the same pattern — local businesses have a Google Business Profile that could be a huge visibility asset, but most owners don't know how to use it. Existing tools are either too complex, too expensive, or just show data without telling you what to actually do.
Worse, I saw business owners using ChatGPT to edit their GBP blindly — without knowing how fragile Google's algorithm is, or that certain changes can tank visibility or trigger a suspension.
So I built Avision.
4 months and 11 days. Solo. ~450,000 lines of code. Two complete dashboards.
What it does: → Audits your GBP and gives a score /100 with a prioritized action plan → AVI — an AI assistant that acts as your local SEO coach → Guardian Mode — 9 automated shields protecting your profile (review replies, posts, NAP consistency, competitor monitoring...) → A gamified progression system — missions guiding you from invisible to dominant on Google Maps → Growth Radar — local keyword rank tracking → For agencies — a fleet dashboard managing up to 1000 client locations, with bulk automation and wholesale pricing
Where I'm at: $0 revenue. Just launched. Lifetime deals available ($69 solo / $149-$499 agency). Nonprofits get free lifetime access — every paying customer helps fund that.
What I'd love feedback on:
Does the pricing make sense for what's included?
For agency folks — is the wholesale model (pay per location for add-ons) clear and appealing?
Anything that feels overcomplicated from the landing page?
Happy to answer anything — this is genuinely the first time I'm putting this in front of people outside my own head 😅
9 Comments
You asked what feels overcomplicated on the landing page, so I went at it from the page and SEO side. A few things stood out.
First, and this is the big one for me, the text is hard to read. A lot of the supporting copy is small, some of it around 11 to 13px, and it's low contrast, gray text on a near-black background. Lighthouse flags it too, with contrast as low as 2.7 where the minimum is 4.5. I'm 44, and on a normal laptop I was squinting at parts of it. Here's the catch. Your whole pitch is that you don't just show data, you tell people what to do. If the what-to-do text is the hardest part to read, that promise quietly works against you. Darkening the background or lightening that gray a few steps would make a real difference, especially for the local business owners who aren't 25.
Second, the headline. "The Ultimate Fleet Management Platform for Local SEO Agencies." I spent years in SEO and "fleet management" still made me pause. It reads like trucks and logistics, not Google Business Profiles. It also leads with agencies, even though a lot of your audience is solo local owners. Funny thing, your meta description ("Protect and grow your Google Business Profile") is clearer than your own H1. I'd pull that kind of plain language up into the headline, and save "fleet" for the agency section where it actually fits.
Third, a small but ironic one for an SEO tool. The page has no title tag at all. Not a weak one, none. So the browser tab and Google both fall back to just "avision dot org" For someone who ran global SEO, that's the easiest win on the page. Add a real title like "Avision: Protect and grow your Google Business Profile." While you're in there, there's also no main tag in the HTML, which is a one line accessibility fix.
One last thing on speed. The page itself is fast, but the server consistently takes about 1.2 seconds to respond before anything could even start loading. Worth checking your caching or hosting if that's consistent.
I didn't get into the pricing or the wholesale model here, since that's its own topic for another day. The product clearly has a lot in it. Right now the page mostly needs to be easier to read, and clearer about what it is in the first glance. IMHO.
This is exactly the kind of feedback I needed, thank you. Going point by point:
The contrast issue is real and embarrassing for a product whose whole pitch is clarity. I just checked, you're right that some of the supporting copy sits well below 4.5:1. I'll lighten the gray steps and bump the smallest sizes up. No excuse there, especially calling out the irony that the "what to do" text is the hardest to read.
The headline is a fair hit too. "Fleet management" makes sense once you're 30 seconds into the page and you understand we mean a fleet of Google Business Profiles, not trucks. But nobody owes a landing page 30 seconds before bouncing. Your point about the meta description being clearer than the H1 is a good gut check I should run on every page, honestly. I'll pull plainer language ("protect and grow your Google Business Profile") into the H1 and keep "fleet" for the agency-specific section where the audience already has context.
No title tag is just a miss, full stop. Same with the missing main tag. Both one-line fixes, no reason they're not in already. Appreciate you flagging it bluntly instead of being polite about it.
On TTFB, I'm seeing something closer to 500ms right now, but server response time has been inconsistent depending on caching state, so I'm not going to wave it away. Worth a proper look at the caching layer regardless.
Skipping pricing for now is fair, that's a deeper conversation. This first pass was the right one. Fixing this round before anything else.
Love that you took all of it on the chin, that's half the battle right there. And good call on the TTFB, around 500ms with caching variance explains what I saw, so nothing to worry about there. Fix this round and the page will finally match how much is actually under the hood. You're clearly onto something.
Appreciate that, genuinely. The "page doesn't match what's under the hood" line is going to stick with me, that's the gap I need to close. Will report back once the contrast and headline fixes are live. Thanks for taking the time to actually dig in instead of just skimming it
Congrats on the launch!
As someone who's worked with local businesses before, I think the biggest challenge isn't getting data—it's knowing what action to take next. The idea of turning GBP optimization into a prioritized action plan and guided missions is interesting because that's where many business owners get stuck.
My first impression is that the feature set sounds quite comprehensive, especially for agencies managing multiple locations. The challenge may actually be helping visitors quickly understand the core value without feeling overwhelmed by everything the platform can do.
I'm also curious: after working in SEO for years, what was the single most common GBP mistake you kept seeing that inspired you to build Avision in the first place?
Wishing you the best with the launch and the first paying customers!
Thank you, that means a lot coming from someone who's actually done the local business work.
You're right that the "what to take action on" gap is the real problem, and it's exactly why the product is built around prioritized missions rather than a dashboard full of metrics. Most local SEO tools dump 40 data points on a business owner and call it insight. Knowing your NAP is inconsistent doesn't help if you don't know fixing it is more urgent than posting another photo this week.
On the overwhelm point, you've identified something I'm actively wrestling with. The feature set is broad because the problem is broad, agencies and solo owners have genuinely different needs, but a first-time visitor shouldn't have to discover that. The page right now leads with everything instead of leading with the one core loop: audit, prioritized plan, autopilot. I'm tightening that.
On the most common mistake: inconsistent or incomplete profiles that just sit there. Not bad SEO, just neglect. A business gets verified, fills in the basics, and then nothing for two years. No new photos, no posts, reviews unanswered, hours not updated for holidays. Google rewards activity and consistency, so dormant profiles slowly lose ground to competitors who are doing even mediocre upkeep regularly. That's the gap Avision is built to close, not one-time fixes but ongoing attention a business owner doesn't have time to give it themselves.
I'd be careful with one thing.
The challenge may not be whether the pricing makes sense.
The harder decision could be what exactly Avision is asking customers to believe before they've experienced a result.
That sounds subtle, but it can quietly shape adoption, objections, and how early feedback gets interpreted.
I wouldn't make that call casually in a thread.
That's a fair thing to flag, and I'd rather sit with it than wave it off.
I think what you're pointing at is that the pricing model isn't really the friction point, it's the implicit ask underneath it: trust the audit, trust the score, trust that the AI knows what to prioritize, before any of that has proven itself against your specific business. That's a different kind of objection than "is $69 worth it," and it shows up differently too, as silence or hesitation rather than a clear pushback I can address with an FAQ.
I don't think there's a tidy answer to drop in a thread, so I won't pretend to have one. But it changes what I should be paying attention to in early feedback, not just "did they convert" but "where did they stall and what were they unsure they could trust." Appreciate you saying it carefully instead of letting it get flattened into a pricing question.
Possibly.
The reason I'd still be careful is that I don't think the interesting part is where customers hesitate.
I think it's the conclusion that gets drawn from that hesitation.
That's one of those decisions that can quietly shape everything that follows.
I wouldn't try to unpack that properly in a thread.
If you're curious, drop your email and I'll send over the tighter version.