Google is testing “Sponsored Shops,” a format that groups multiple products from a single retailer into one branded unit inside Shopping results.
This moves competition from the product level to the retailer level, changing what it takes to win visibility.
Feed quality, seller ratings, and assortment depth become more critical than ever.
The format introduces multiple click paths within one ad unit, which could complicate attribution and traffic flow.
Performance Max is a likely vehicle through which Sponsored Shops placements will be accessible when the format formally launches, but nobody knows for sure.
Brands that build strong store-level signals now will be better positioned if and when this rolls out broadly.
Google is running a Shopping test that could change how brands compete for visibility in product search. If it scales, the rules shift, and advertisers who see it coming will have a head start.
Here’s what’s happening and what you should be doing about it right now.
What Is Google Actually Testing?
Google’s Sponsored Shops test groups several products from one retailer into a single ad unit inside Shopping results, alongside the store name, ratings, and brand signals. Think of it as a mini storefront sitting directly inside the search results page, rather than a row of individual competing products.
It is still a test. Google has not confirmed a broad rollout. The direction it points toward matters, though, and Shopping advertisers should be paying close attention.
The test does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader shift Google has been building toward for a while: more brand-centric, discovery-oriented, and AI-mediated shopping experiences. In 2025, Google introduced the Merchant Brand Profile feature, which lets retailers build brand-presence pages in search with lifestyle images, videos, and business descriptions.
Sponsored Shops looks like the logical next step in that direction, bringing brand identity directly into the Shopping ad unit itself.
Why the Format Change Is a Bigger Deal Than It Looks
Right now, Shopping competition is largely a product-level game. Your listing competes against a competitor’s listing. Better feed, stronger bid, you take the placement.
Sponsored Shops changes the terms of that competition. Instead of a single product earning a spot, your entire store is on display at once: assortment, brand presence, and ratings together. A competitor with a stronger catalog and better seller signals will have a structural advantage that no amount of bid optimization can fully offset.
That’s a meaningful shift. Brands that have been winning through finely tuned individual product listings will need to think harder about how their store presents as a whole. Brands that have invested in feed quality, customer experience, and assortment depth will find that investment paying off in ways it didn’t before.
There’s also a measurement angle worth flagging. A single ad unit with multiple clickable elements (store name, individual products, ratings) creates multiple potential click paths. How traffic splits across those paths, and how that maps to your current attribution model, is an open question every Shopping advertiser should be thinking through before this format scales.
What This Signals About Where Google Is Headed
Google has been explicit about where it wants Shopping to go. In its own communications about 2026 priorities, the company described its goal as making search “a more powerful tool for discovery, where ads can inspire and answer all at once.” AI Mode already surfaces organic shopping recommendations based on query relevance, and Google has confirmed it is testing a new ad format inside AI Mode that showcases retailers offering relevant products, clearly marked as sponsored.
Sponsored Shops fits squarely into that roadmap. It moves Shopping slightly up the funnel, making it as much about brand discovery as product comparison. Rather than a format designed purely to capture demand-ready buyers, it is designed to let brands show up with range and identity in front of people who are still forming their consideration set.
For users, the format is intuitive. Browsing several products from the same retailer without leaving the results page is a better experience than clicking in and out of individual listings. Google tends to expand formats that improve user experience. That’s worth taking seriously.
The PMAX Connection
As of right now, we don’t know what vehicle is going to power sponsored shops. Performance Max is a likely bet based on volume and Google’s push for PMax adoption, but nothing is confirmed. PMax already accounts for roughly 62 percent of Google Shopping spend among major advertisers, and it is already designed to surface both store-level and product-level assets dynamically across Google’s ecosystem.
With this said, though, AI Max for shopping is still in beta, so that might impact what plays a role. We also know that Google does tend to favor some of their newer products which likely helps adoption rate (e.g. AI Max, PMax, & Broad being eligible for AIO ad placements).
What to Do Before This Rolls Out
You do not need to wait for a full launch to get ahead of it.
Start with your product feed. Feed quality has always mattered in Shopping, but a storefront format makes weak data much more visible. Every title, description, image, and availability signal is part of how your store presents in that unit. Get it right now. Research consistently shows that product titles, images, and product identifiers are the three highest-impact feed optimizations, and all three will matter even more in a store-level display format.
Take stock of your seller ratings. In a storefront format, ratings are far more prominent than they are in individual listings. If you have not been actively managing reviews and customer experience signals, that needs to change. A store-level placement that leads with a weak rating is a self-defeating ad.
Look at assortment depth. A Sponsored Shops unit showing three products when a competitor shows ten is a losing presentation. Review whether your full catalog is properly represented in your feed and close any gaps.
Audit your PMax asset groups. Given that PMax is the likely vehicle for Sponsored Shops placements, your asset groups should be fully built out with all image formats, high-quality lifestyle images alongside product images, accurate brand descriptions, and audience signals that represent your full customer base rather than just buyers of individual products.
Revisit your attribution setup. Multiple click paths inside a single unit means your current reporting may not capture traffic flow accurately. Think about how you will measure this before the format exists in your account at scale.
FAQs
What exactly is a Sponsored Shops unit?
A Sponsored Shops unit groups multiple products from a single retailer into one ad block inside Google Shopping results, displayed alongside the store name, ratings, and brand signals. Rather than individual product listings competing side by side, the format presents a mini storefront for a single brand.
Is Sponsored Shops live now?
As of now, Sponsored Shops is still in testing. Google has not confirmed a broad rollout timeline. The format is worth preparing for regardless, since the steps that improve your eligibility for it also strengthen your existing Shopping performance.
Which campaign type will Sponsored Shops use?
Performance Max is the most likely vehicle, given that it already accounts for the majority of Shopping spend and dynamically surfaces store-level and product-level assets across Google’s ecosystem. Making sure your PMax asset groups are fully built out is the right preparation move.
Will smaller retailers be disadvantaged?
Formats that reward assortment breadth, seller ratings, and feed quality tend to favor established retailers with larger catalogs and more customer reviews. That said, a well-optimized feed and a strong seller rating matter more than raw catalog size. Smaller retailers with tight assortments and excellent customer experience signals are not automatically excluded.
What should I do right now?
Focus on feed quality, seller ratings, and PMax asset completeness. These are the fundamentals that will determine Sponsored Shops eligibility and performance when the format expands, and they are also the fundamentals that determine your current Shopping performance.
Conclusion
Sponsored Shops is still in testing. Google Shopping is clearly moving toward a model where brands compete as storefronts, not just as individual products. The shift fits a broader pattern: more AI-mediated discovery, more brand-level visibility signals, more emphasis on the full store experience rather than the individual listing.
The time to build those store-level signals is before the competition catches up, not after. The good news is that everything you do to prepare for Sponsored Shops makes your existing Shopping campaigns stronger right now. There’s no downside to starting.
http://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.png00Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-09 18:13:492026-06-09 18:13:49Google Is Testing Sponsored Shops in SERPs: What This Means for Advertisers
Google searches ended without a click 68.01% of the time in the U.S. during the first four months of 2026, according to new SparkToro research based on Similarweb clickstream data. That’s up from 60.45% in 2024, a 7.56-point increase in two years.
Fewer searches result in clicks. The share of searches generating at least one click fell 9.51 percentage points between 2024 and 2026 (a 22.9% decline), according to SparkToro. This includes clicks to organic results, paid ads, and Google-owned properties such as Maps and YouTube, but excludes follow-up searches within Google.
Over the same period, the share of searches that led to another Google search rose 7.2 percentage points.
This trend reflects Google’s growing ability to answer questions directly in search results while encouraging users to refine or continue their searches within Google, according to SparkToro.
AI Overviews and zero click. SparkToro believes AI Overviews are likely contributing to the increase in zero-click searches, though the study doesn’t isolate the extent to which the overall rise between 2024 and 2026 can be attributed specifically to AI Overviews.
AI Overviews now appear on more than 20% of Google searches, according to the research. When they do, click-through rates drop by nearly 60%.
AI Mode and zero click. It appears to have played only a limited role during the January to April study period. SparkToro found that just 0.34% of searches transitioned into AI Mode during that time.
However, Google said at I/O 2026 that AI Mode had surpassed 1 billion monthly users and that query volume was more than doubling each quarter, suggesting its impact on search behavior could grow significantly.
Zero click history. SparkToro has tracked zero-click search behavior for years, though its underlying data sources have changed over time. Because the studies rely on different providers, panels, and methodologies, long-term comparisons are not directly equivalent. Still, the available data consistently points to a rise in zero-click behavior over time, according to SparkToro.
2024:58.5% of Google searches in the U.S. (and 59.7% in the EU) ended with no clicks, based on Datos data.
Why we care. The findings suggest Google is increasingly satisfying user needs without sending users to external websites. However, you should interpret direct comparisons across years cautiously because SparkToro’s historical analyses rely on different clickstream data providers and panels.
SEO still matters, but… SEO alone may be insufficient for many publishers seeking to regain historical levels of Google-referred traffic. SparkToro co-founder Rand Fishkin recommended investing in brand awareness and influence on the platforms where your audience already spends time, regardless of whether those efforts drive direct website visits.
Some categories continue to benefit significantly from SEO, including branded searches, local business queries, and high-intent transactional searches, Fishkin said.
About the data. The study used Similarweb desktop and mobile web panel data covering U.S. Google searches from January through April 2026. SparkToro assumed that two-thirds of searches occurred on mobile devices and one-third on desktops. The analysis excludes searches conducted in Google’s mobile search app, where SparkToro said zero-click behavior may be even higher.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/google-zero-stNSya.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-09 15:01:422026-06-09 15:01:42Google zero-click searches hit 68% in early 2026: Study
AI forms opinions about your brand from what it can see online. That’s your digital footprint.
The problem is that AI often sees only fragments of your business. It sees your website, content, reviews, and mentions, but much of the expertise, customer insight, and operational knowledge that makes your business valuable never makes it into the digital footprint.
The solution is to surface that knowledge, organize it into a single source of truth, and turn it into machine-readable signals. Here’s how to collect it, organize it into a single source of truth, and distribute it across the channels AI uses to understand, evaluate, and recommend brands.
What you feed the machines is understandability, credibility, and deliverability (UCD)
Everything you put into your footprint is fodder for three things AI has to decide about you. Together, they provide the fodder for the whole funnel.
Understandability
Does AI know who you are, what you do, and who you serve? You already know where your understandability comes from:
Your about page.
Your product pages.
Your structured data.
What often gets missed is the operational detail that explains what you actually do once a client is inside.
Credibility
Does AI believe you’re good at it? This is N-E-E-A-T-T credibility — notability, experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and transparency, an extension of Google’s E-E-A-T.
You know what credibility signals you currently feed: your case studies, your credentials, and your testimonials. What many businesses don’t realize is how much N-E-E-A-T-T credibility is already embedded in their day-to-day operations.
Deliverability
Does the AI engine have the content to hand you to the subset of its users who are your audience?
You know where your deliverability comes from: the topical content, the marketing, and the authority pieces you commission. Deliverability is often hiding in plain sight, in the content generated by your business operations and offline activities.
Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.
The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
5 streams of business data feeding every commercial surface
All three elements of the UCD trio are fed by the five inputs below, and how much each contributes varies by business.
The point isn’t to file each input under one letter. Organized and codified, the five together give AI the fodder it needs from top to bottom of the funnel.
1. Products and services: What you sell, and you already do it
Your products and services data: what you sell, at what price, under what conditions, and with consistent names and identifiers. This is mostly about understandability, with credibility riding alongside it.
Most businesses already do this, so the work is in the depth, not the effort. Don’t just list what you sell. Describe who each offering is for, what problem it solves, what it costs, what it doesn’t do, and how it differs from the next option.
A thin product page tells AI a product exists. An exhaustive one tells it when to recommend that product and to whom.
Keep it accurate, complete, and consistent with everything else in your footprint. A price or product name that differs across pages reads as doubt.
2. Authority content: Your expertise, and almost everybody does it
This is the marketing you already create to show you know your field: your articles, videos, guides, data studies, and the thought leadership you publish to tick the box marked “content created.”
People put effort into it to build authority, rank, do SEO, and position themselves as experts. That’s fine. It leans toward deliverability because it’s what tells AI which territory to surface you in.
But everybody does it, which is exactly why it’s the least differentiating of the five on its own. It earns its weight only when it’s tied to the rest: the same expertise proven by your operations and corroborated by third parties, not just asserted in a blog post.
It’s necessary, but it’s not where your advantage hides.
3. Brand narrative and voice: Who you are, who you serve, and why you’re the best
All marketers create brand narratives, so the work here is about consistency and clarity rather than invention. Everybody communicates who they are, what they do, and who they serve, and keeping that clear and consistent matters enormously.
But three things are often left out, and AI needs all of them.
Intent: It isn’t enough to name your ideal customer profile (ICP). You have to pair your ICP with what they’re after: the cohort-to-intent combinations from the funnel query pathway. AI has to know not just whose problem you solve, but which problem, and at which moment, before it can hand you to them.
Credibility: The thing that feeds your N-E-E-A-T-T. Many people leave it out because they feel awkward saying it. You have to set it out because AI won’t work out your true value on its own. Be clear and bold about why you’re credible, then make sure you can back it up with evidence.
Making the relationship with your clients explicit: Validation from the people you serve that you deliver on what your narrative and cohort-to-intent mapping promise. Say who you are, what you do, and who you serve. Then explain why a customer should choose you and prove it.
Voice is the part corporations get wrong most often. Narrative is what you say. Voice is how you say it. One team may write the narrative once, but voice escapes through every rep, every support reply, every social post, and every deck.
When it drifts, and in most large companies it drifts constantly, AI reads the same brand as five different brands and loses confidence in all five.
So standardize your voice and keep it consistent everywhere. Consistency is a credibility signal in itself. Inconsistency is a tax you pay without seeing the bill.
In short, make sure your brand narrative clearly sets out your ICP, who you are, and why you’re the best fit for them, in a voice that stays consistent wherever AI finds it.
4. OPID business operations: The stream almost nobody harvests
It’s the most powerful of the five because the material comes from your clients and from the work your team does to serve them, which is exactly the material that rarely makes it online. It sits behind closed doors, buried in a CRM, parked on a platform nobody values, and almost nobody harvests it.
It feeds all three elements of understandability, credibility, and deliverability more effectively than anything else you own.
Understandability comes from the granular detail of what you actually do and the exact circumstances in which you help. Most of that is only ever discussed inside the business. A review where a client describes precisely what they got from you puts something on the record you’d never say about yourself, and the machine reads it as fact.
Credibility is your N-E-E-A-T-T, and this is the most convincing kind because it comes from clients themselves, not from your marketing.
Deliverability comes from the match. The content here aligns exactly with your cohort-to-intent combinations because it was created around the clients you attracted and served well. Whether it comes from you or from them, it fits the audience and intent you need to communicate to the engines.
Once you start looking, you’ll find the richest material you own:
Customer voice is the highest signal because it’s real questions in real language: reviews across every platform, written and video testimonials, FAQs, unpublished support questions that should become FAQs, support and sales call transcripts, onboarding and churn-exit interviews, and free-text survey responses.
Evidence and outcomes provide the proof you need: case studies with real before-and-after numbers, patent filings, academic deposits that are public but underused, and independent third-party studies that corroborate your claims.
Methodology covers the rest. SOPs, playbooks, training materials, glossaries you currently keep private, and long-form spoken content such as webinars, keynotes, and podcast appearances, transcribed.
Look for material that answers a question an assistive engine or agent actually gets asked, in the questioner’s own words, with a verifiable fact attached.
A support ticket, churn interview, or sales call transcript will often outperform polished marketing copy in that test because it’s already phrased the way real people ask questions.
That’s the whole point of harvesting OPID business operations: taking information from a place AI can’t see and moving it to a place where it can, while making it visible to your human audience, too. It’s convincing to both because it’s true and because it matches the cohort-to-intent combination exactly.
5. Bringing the offline online: The stream almost nobody runs
This section is all about the marketing and audience engagement you do offline: the talks you give, the festivals or hackathons you sponsor to support your community, the interviews, the panels, and the rooms full of clients. It’s obvious to you, but largely invisible to AI.
Bring the offline online and feed it to the machines by publishing self-reporting content and linking to the social posts and summary articles others write. That’s a huge win most brands miss.
But it works the other way, too. Your codified source of truth can feed your offline communication, so the story a client hears from you at a conference, in a newspaper, on the radio, or face to face is consistent with the story you’re telling AI on the web.
That matters more than it seems. If the two differ, you lose the person because the gap reads as doubt to a human and as low confidence to a machine.
Clarity and consistency over time, online and offline, is the name of the game.
Organize and codify the five into one source of truth
Once you’ve harvested all five streams, organize and codify them into a single source of truth: a database you build to output whatever format each surface needs, including HTML, schema, MCP, RDF, prose, audio, video, and images.
Organize the data once, centralize it, set up a system that codifies it on the way out, and from there you can distribute it in a few clicks while your digital footprint stays clear and consistent as it grows.
Then distribute it across your digital ecosystem in the format your human audience expects and packaged so machines can ingest it cleanly.
Where you publish affects how much the machine believes you, and the rule is simple: the less of you there is in it, the more it trusts it. You’re working across three tiers.
First-party: You claim
You publish on your own properties, in your own voice. You state who you are and set the frame. It’s the baseline, and on its own it proves nothing because you wrote it and you published it.
Second-party: You corroborate
Here, you’re still publishing, but across a broader footprint and with other voices in the mix. Two things widen here.
The platform: In addition to your own entity home website, you publish on platforms where you own the account, such as YouTube, LinkedIn, Medium, and press releases. You’re stating your case the same way you would on your website, just on another property you control.
The voice: You can publish your own words, or you can publish what a client or user said, such as a review, quote, or case study, on your own site and across those other accounts.
It’s a step up from first-party because the substance is no longer solely your own assertion, even though you’re still the one choosing it and publishing it.
Third-party: They prove you
A third party publishes in its own voice, on its own site or social accounts, or on a neutral platform such as Trustpilot, with no involvement from you.
Think clients and partners sharing their experiences, journalists, analysts, academics, and the long tail of user-generated content that assistive engines lean on.
It’s the strongest evidence because you had no hand in creating it.
You can’t write that third tier, but you can feed it. Your clients publish because you’ve served them well enough that they want to, so earn it.
Independent publishers can’t see inside your business, so give them something to work with: a client story they can build on, a view into your operation, or data about your business and industry they can cite.
Giving outside parties a true, detailed version of your business to publish is what PR, marketing, and content teams have always done. The only thing that’s changed is that now you do it so machines read the result as proof, not just so humans read it as coverage.
Point all three tiers at the same picture — you, your audience, and the independents — and they align into one answer the machine can’t miss.
Read the grid by how much of you is in the publication.
First-party is all you. Your words on your own site. It’s pure claim, and the machine treats it as the baseline because you wrote it and you published it.
Third-party is none of you. Someone else’s words on a platform you don’t control. That’s why it’s the strongest proof.
Everything in between is second-party corroboration. Your own words carried onto an account you run elsewhere, or someone else’s words that you chose to publish on your own page.
The same review is second-party when you surface it on your site and third-party when the client publishes it on their own account. The words are identical. The weight is different. The difference is determined entirely by who publishes it.
Step back, and you have a powerful loop: You harvest your operations, codify them into a single source of truth, and distribute them across the tiers machines read. Then the machines recommend you, your ICP arrives, and serving them generates the next round of operations to harvest.
Each turn feeds the next, so your digital footprint compounds instead of resetting.
The mirror principle is why this is the whole game
When an AI engine recommends a brand, think of it as an impartial broker. Much as a travel agent carries every airline or a mortgage broker has the whole market on screen, an AI engine carries every brand in your category and recommends whichever it judges to be the best solution for the person asking.
That impartiality is why buyers trust it. It’s also why the engine recommends your competitor without hesitation. It was never on your side. It’s on the buyer’s.
That’s good news once you see it the right way. An AI engine can only recommend what it clearly understands and trusts. You don’t need to trick a rigged system. You need to provide the clearest, most complete picture of who you are, what you do, who you serve, and why you’re the right fit.
Build a clearer, better-corroborated case than your competitors, and, on merit, you become the name the engine reaches for throughout the funnel. Many brands aren’t losing because they’re being outspent. They’re losing because the picture AI has of them is incomplete.
And that picture comes from your digital footprint. AI forms its view of you from the world’s view of you: the reviews, coverage, and corroboration scattered across the market. What it shows about you is its opinion of the world’s opinion of you. That’s the mirror principle.
You can try to flatter the system, trick it, or lean on it, and that might work for a while. But the approach that lasts is changing what the world can see. When you do that, you’re not manipulating anything. You’re providing proof: something that was always true, but underrepresented or invisible.
That’s exactly what this article has laid out. Harvest the five streams, organize and codify them into a single source of truth, and distribute them across the channels AI reads. Do that, and you’ve provided the fullest, truest, and best-corroborated picture of your business at the moment that matters most: when someone is looking for what you sell, and AI is deciding what to recommend.
Do it consistently, across everything AI can see, and you shape how it understands your business over time.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/web-design-creative-services.jpg?fit=1500%2C600&ssl=16001500Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-09 14:00:002026-06-09 14:00:00How AI forms opinions about your brand
For large websites, server logs often reveal technical SEO problems long before rankings decline. They show how search engines crawl your site, where crawl budget gets wasted, how quickly servers respond, and whether important pages remain accessible.
Unlike Google Search Console, analytics platforms, and third-party crawlers, server logs capture every request search engines make to your infrastructure.
Yet many organizations never analyze them — missing one of the most valuable sources of technical SEO data available.
Why server logs reveal what other SEO tools miss
Many SEO teams rely on Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, third-party crawlers, and analytics platforms. Those tools help, but they all rely on data samples, delayed reporting, or simulated crawls.
Server logs capture direct interactions between crawlers and infrastructure. That distinction matters on websites with hundreds of thousands or millions of URLs.
A log file records every request processed by a server. For SEO purposes, the most useful entries come from crawlers such as Googlebot, Bingbot, GPTBot, Applebot, and other verified search engine bots.
Each request generates operational data, including the requested URL, response code, timestamp, user agent, and response timing. Over time, those records form a detailed crawl history.
Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.
The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
Hidden SEO issues in crawl data
Most technical SEO issues begin as crawl inefficiencies that gradually compound over time. A search engine crawler may:
Request a page and receive an unexpected response.
Encounter a category section that slows under heavy load.
Follow redirect chains that expanded after a deployment.
In other cases, product pages disappear from inventory while still returning a 200 status code. These problems rarely occur as isolated incidents.
Search engines encounter them repeatedly across thousands or millions of crawl requests, creating patterns that can quietly erode crawl efficiency, indexing, and visibility.
Server logs expose those patterns clearly.
On large ecommerce platforms, logs often show crawlers spending excessive time on filtered navigation URLs while strategic product pages receive limited recrawling.
On publisher websites, crawlers sometimes revisit outdated archive paths more aggressively than newly updated content.
SaaS platforms frequently expose staging environments or parameter-driven duplicate URLs through internal systems without realizing how heavily those URLs consume crawl activity.
Without logs, those problems remain hidden behind aggregate reporting.
Server logs also provide historical visibility. Unlike Google Search Console data, which expires over time, retained logs reveal crawl trends tied to migrations, infrastructure changes, indexing shifts, and platform redesigns.
Where crawl resources go
Search engines don’t crawl every page equally. Large websites compete internally for crawl attention.
Search engines allocate resources based on perceived importance, internal linking, infrastructure quality, content freshness, and historical performance. Logs reveal those crawl decisions directly.
A retailer with five million URLs may assume high-value category pages receive regular crawling because they appear in XML sitemaps and navigation systems. Log file analysis may show Googlebot spending a disproportionate share of crawl resources on parameterized URLs created through faceted filtering instead.
Another site may discover crawlers revisiting redirected legacy URLs years after a migration. These situations are common because search engines work from observed behavior rather than internal assumptions.
Server logs also help identify sources of crawl waste that quietly consume large portions of crawl activity. Common examples include:
Infinite URL combinations.
Session parameters.
Crawlable internal search pages.
Open faceted navigation systems.
Duplicate mobile URLs.
Exposed staging environments.
Broken canonical structures.
As web platforms expand over time, crawl efficiency increasingly becomes an infrastructure challenge as much as a traditional SEO problem.
When infrastructure limits crawling
Response timing data is among the most valuable information in server logs. Search engines monitor how efficiently servers respond during crawling. Slow or unstable infrastructure affects how aggressively crawlers move through a site.
A difference between 300 milliseconds and 3 seconds may appear minor on a single request, but across hundreds of thousands of crawler requests, the impact becomes substantial. Response timing analysis helps isolate infrastructure bottlenecks under real crawl conditions and exposes performance issues that traditional SEO tools often miss.
In production environments, these patterns appear frequently. Product pages may bypass cache layers and generate database-heavy responses, image optimization services can slow down media crawlers, and API-driven templates often create inconsistent latency during crawl spikes. JavaScript rendering systems may delay crawler access to content, while regional CDN routing can introduce performance issues in specific markets.
Synthetic monitoring tools often miss these patterns because simulated testing doesn’t fully replicate crawler behavior. Logs capture what crawlers experience at the request level. Timing analysis also helps separate isolated incidents from persistent operational issues.
A temporary deployment issue differs from a structural bottleneck. Logs reveal the difference through historical request patterns.
Search engines, particularly Google, tend to reward reliable infrastructure with more consistent crawling. Fast, stable responses support efficient crawl allocation and improve recrawl frequency on important pages.
On enterprise systems, response timing analysis frequently influences infrastructure planning beyond SEO. Operations teams use log data to prioritize cache improvements, CDN adjustments, scaling decisions, and deployment scheduling.
Soft 404s remain one of the most overlooked yet highly consequential SEO issues for large online brands. Unlike a standard 404 page, which correctly returns an HTTP 404 status code, a soft 404 returns a 200 OK response while serving thin, empty, or functionally useless content.
To search engines, these pages appear crawlable and indexable despite offering little or no value, which can quietly waste crawl budget and dilute overall site quality signals.
Common soft 404 examples include:
Out-of-stock product pages that remain live without meaningful replacement content.
Empty category templates created through faceted navigation.
Broken internal search result pages.
Placeholder inventory URLs with little usable information.
Expired listings that still return a 200 OK status code.
Failed rendering can create similar issues when JavaScript content doesn’t fully load for crawlers. On large web platforms, these low-value pages often accumulate quickly and consume significant crawl activity without contributing meaningful search visibility.
Search engines eventually classify many of these pages as low quality. The issue becomes operational when crawlers continue revisiting those URLs repeatedly. Document size analysis within logs provides one way to identify potential soft 404 patterns at scale.
Landing pages with nearly identical response sizes can sometimes indicate templated low-value responses. A group of 60,000 product URLs all returning responses smaller than 100 bytes after inventory expiration usually points toward placeholder templates rather than meaningful content.
Internal search systems create another common example. Empty search result pages often generate highly consistent response sizes because the template loads correctly while no actual content appears.
Response codes alone rarely expose the full pattern of crawl behavior. A clearer operational picture emerges when HTTP status codes are analyzed alongside response sizes, crawl frequency, and URL patterns. Together, these signals reveal how search engines interact with different sections of a web platform and where crawl inefficiencies begin to accumulate.
Large publishers, such as news websites, also encounter soft 404 issues through broken pagination systems or empty archive states.
SaaS platforms sometimes expose onboarding placeholders through crawlable public URLs.
Marketplace websites frequently generate thin pages for inactive listings while still returning successful responses. Document size analysis helps identify these patterns quickly across large datasets.
The case for log retention
Short log retention periods limit the quality of server log analysis. Many crawl patterns develop gradually, with search engines adjusting crawl allocation over weeks or months rather than days.
Historical log data reveals long-term shifts in crawl behavior, including:
Changes in crawl frequency.
Legacy URL activity.
Migration effects.
Infrastructure instability.
Seasonal crawl patterns.
Redirect persistence.
Broader crawl budget fluctuations.
For large websites, six to 36 months of logs often provide meaningful operational history.
Historical data is especially valuable during migrations. Teams compare crawler behavior before and after structural changes to determine whether important sections gained or lost crawl visibility. Without retained logs, those comparisons disappear permanently.
Many organizations still overwrite logs quickly or don’t retain them at all. Once lost, historical crawl data can’t be reconstructed later.
Separating search crawlers from bot noise
Raw server logs contain large volumes of automated traffic unrelated to SEO. Many bots impersonate Googlebot or Bingbot, making accurate filtering essential before meaningful analysis can begin. Effective validation typically combines user agent analysis, reverse DNS checks, and trusted IP verification to separate legitimate crawlers from scrapers, monitoring systems, and malicious automation.
Once filtered correctly, server logs reveal clear behavioral differences between crawler types, including Googlebot Smartphone, Googlebot Image, Bingbot, Applebot, AdsBot, and newer AI-oriented crawlers. Each interacts with web platforms differently, creating distinct crawl patterns, resource demands, and indexing behavior.
Image crawlers place heavier demands on media infrastructure. Mobile crawlers focus more heavily on rendering consistency. AI-focused crawlers often revisit large archive sections repeatedly.
Crawler segmentation helps technical teams prioritize infrastructure improvements based on actual crawl demand rather than assumptions.
Monitoring migrations with log data
Migrations are one of the highest-risk periods in technical SEO, as even well-tested launches can introduce crawl instability.
Server logs provide direct visibility into how search engines respond after deployment, including which redirects crawlers continue to follow, whether redirect chains form, which legacy URLs remain active, and where 404 spikes occur.
Logs also reveal how crawl allocation shifts across the platform, whether response times begin to deteriorate, and which sections search engines continue to prioritize after the migration goes live.
A migration may appear successful during browser testing while crawlers encounter entirely different behavior through caching systems, CDN routing, or redirect logic.
Large ecommerce migrations often reveal persistent crawl activity on old URL structures weeks or months after launch. International platforms sometimes discover regional redirect inconsistencies affecting only certain crawlers. Logs expose those failures early enough to correct them.
Collecting the right log data
Useful log analysis depends on complete records. At a minimum, logs should include:
Remote IP address, including originating IP and optional (X-)Forwarded-For information.
User agent string.
Request protocol, such as HTTP, HTTPS, or WSS.
Request hostname.
Request path.
Request parameters.
Request time, including date, time, and time zone.
Request method.
Response HTTP status code.
Response timings.
These fields create the operational baseline required for meaningful crawl analysis.
Hostname and protocol fields often receive less attention than they deserve. Missing these values creates blind spots on multilingual websites, subdomain-heavy platforms, and CDN-driven architectures.
Many organizations simplify analysis by storing the full request URL as a normalized field containing protocol, hostname, path, and parameters.
Additional fields can further improve analysis quality:
Response byte size.
Cache status.
Referrer.
CDN edge location.
Upstream timing.
Compression type.
Response size data becomes especially valuable during soft 404 investigations and duplicate content analysis.
Why logs remain underused
Server logs often fall between departments. Infrastructure teams view them as operational data. Security teams use them for threat monitoring. SEO teams focus on crawling and indexing. Analytics teams prioritize user behavior reporting.
As a result, one of the most valuable technical SEO datasets within an organization often remains completely unused. Yet server logs answer operational questions that few other systems can.
They reveal which pages absorb the largest share of crawl resources, which sections return unstable responses, and which deprecated URLs continue receiving heavy crawler activity years later.
Logs also expose latency issues affecting specific crawler groups and low-value pages that dilute crawl efficiency. These insights directly influence rankings, crawl allocation, and search visibility.
Technical SEO and GEO increasingly overlap with infrastructure engineering because search engines continuously evaluate operational quality. Server logs expose those operational realities in detail.
For large websites, log analysis stops being optional once crawl scale reaches enterprise complexity. The data already exists. The advantage comes from retaining it, structuring it properly, and using it consistently.
See the complete picture of your search visibility.
Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
The business value of server logs
Ultimately, server log retention delivers value far beyond SEO alone. In particular, preserved log data can strengthen buyer confidence by providing verifiable operational evidence of site performance, infrastructure stability, and historical activity.
That additional transparency can materially support due diligence and even contribute positively to company valuation, making a compelling case that the cost of recording and retaining server logs is often outweighed by their long-term strategic value.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/web-design-creative-services.jpg?fit=1500%2C600&ssl=16001500Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-09 13:00:002026-06-09 13:00:00What server logs reveal that SEO tools miss
Not long ago, broad match was positioned as the future of paid search. Today, that role belongs to AI Max.
Over the last few months, I’ve heard repeated recommendations to enable AI Max on brand campaigns, even when those campaigns are already performing exactly as intended.
The problem is that many accounts still lack the foundations AI Max needs to work well. Conversion tracking is unreliable, offline conversion imports are missing, and generic campaigns remain constrained by budget or structure.
AI Max depends on strong conversion signals, sufficient volume, and enough variation for the system to learn effectively. In many accounts, brand campaigns provide most of that signal.
But using AI Max on brand means introducing additional automation into your most predictable and efficient traffic source.
The promise and limitations of AI Max
AI Max expands search targeting beyond your existing keyword list by using keywords, landing pages, and site content as signals rather than strict targeting parameters.
Like dynamic search ads (DSA), AI Max can match to queries you didn’t explicitly target. But it goes further, reaching beyond the intent boundaries defined by your keyword set.
Google has positioned AI Max as the next step in Search automation, with DSA, automatically created assets, and campaign-level broad match settings scheduled to transition into AI Max in September.
The platform includes controls such as brand exclusions, URL exclusions, text guidelines, and location targeting. In accounts with strong conversion tracking, sufficient search volume, and reliable performance signals, AI Max may uncover incremental growth opportunities.
Many accounts haven’t reached that stage yet.
Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.
The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
Why AI surface eligibility isn’t a reason to rush into AI Max
Much of the recent interest in AI Max stems from Google’s push toward AI-powered search experiences.
AI Overviews now reach 2.5 billion monthly users, according to Google. Ads appear in 25.6% of AI Overview results, Semrush data shows.
As Google continues expanding AI-driven search experiences, advertisers are understandably focused on maintaining visibility across those surfaces.
That concern is reasonable. The problem is that AI Max is often presented as the solution before advertisers address the measurement, conversion, and account structure issues that determine whether the automation can succeed.
Google Ads representatives typically pitch AI Max for brand campaigns by claiming it’s necessary for eligibility in AI Mode and AI Overviews on brand searches. But this isn’t accurate.
Ginny Marvin, Google Ads liaison, confirmed that three campaign types are eligible to serve in AI Overviews: broad match with Smart Bidding, Performance Max (PMax), and AI Max for Search.
However, exact match keywords aren’t eligible to serve in AI Overviews at all, even when identical broad match keywords exist in the same account.
So, the eligibility picture looks like this:
Campaign type
AI Overview eligible
Query control
Best use case
Exact match
No
Highest
Defensive brand
Phrase match
No
Medium
Controlled intent expansion
Broad match
Yes
Lower
Generic scaling
Performance Max
Yes
Low
Cross-network automation
AI Max
Yes
Lowest
Mature accounts with strong signals
PMax and AI Max do broadly the same job in terms of AI surface eligibility. So if you run PMax brand campaigns, you’re already covered. Adding AI Max won’t unlock anything new, as it’ll only add another automation layer to a setup that’s already eligible.
So, when reps position AI Max on brand as the answer to AI surface eligibility, advertisers should stop and ask why this feature takes priority over fixing the account’s foundation.
Test data doesn’t support Google’s AI Max claims
When AI Max was in beta, Google stated that advertisers who activate the feature would see 14% more conversions, and those running exact and phrase match keywords would likely see a 27% increase in conversions.
Google also indicated that advertisers who enable the full AI Max feature suite see 7% more conversions on average. Independent testing has produced more mixed results.
The evidence for AI Max remains mixed
Across 600 accounts, Smarter Ecommerce found that AI Max delivered a 35% lower return on ad spend (ROAS) than traditional match types. AI Max accounted for just 0.57% of total ad spend in those accounts, indicating that advertisers kept the budget to a minimum.
After running a four-month test, Xavier Mantica found that AI Max had the most expensive conversions. While AI Max cost $100.37 per conversion, phrase match cost $43.97 per conversion, and exact match cost $52.69 per conversion. And Ezra Sackett tested 30,000 search terms with AI Max, only to find that 99% of impressions delivered zero conversions.
After a 23-test analysis of 16 advertisers, Andy Goodwin noted improved Quality Score and ROAS when advertisers used the AI Max full feature suite. But he tested mature advertisers and used text customization in only 50% of tests and URL optimization in just 44%. This suggests advertisers were cautious about enabling every AI Max feature.
However, none of this data is brand-specific. AI Max may deliver value in the right context, but an exact match defensive brand campaign that already performs well isn’t the ideal place to test a new automation product that depends heavily on signal quality. This is especially true for accounts that haven’t solved the underlying data problems feeding the automation.
AI Max doesn’t always find genuinely new search terms, according to Adalysis. In some cases, it simply takes credit for the queries that exact and phrase campaigns were already winning.
Because AI Max treats keywords as signals rather than targeting parameters, impressions that would previously have been attributed to your exact match keyword can end up attributed to AI Max instead.
This reporting issue can be significant for brand campaigns. Brand traffic is already the highest converting traffic in most accounts.
Flip on AI Max, and suddenly you see an uplift. But it’s difficult to tell if it’s incremental or if preexisting branded performance simply appears in a different automation bucket.
Brand controls don’t work consistently
Google’s pitch leans heavily on brand controls. AI Max offers inclusions, exclusions, and guardrails that supposedly keep the match type tightly focused. In practice though, these controls don’t always work well.
Adalysis notes that competitor terms occasionally slip through and brand terms sometimes match to non-brand queries. DAC reports overlap between brand and non-brand terms as well as unintended language matching. And LBBOnline finds relevance hovering around 50% in some campaigns.
Brand controls could improve over time. But the available evidence doesn’t support treating AI Max as a low-risk switch for tightly controlled defensive brand campaigns.
What to consider before testing AI Max on brand
Before expanding automation into a defensive brand campaign, ask these questions.
1. Are the conversion signals trustworthy?
Have you separated macro and micro conversions? Do offline imports work correctly? Does lead quality feed back into the platform, or does Google still optimize equally toward every form fill?
If the signal quality underneath the account is poor, AI Max will amplify it instead of fixing it.
2. Have you already explored generic growth?
In many of the accounts I audit, budget, weak landing page alignment, poor structure, and outdated query management limit generic campaigns. This is where you usually find incremental growth, not inside an already dominant brand campaign.
3. Does the account give automation enough useful learning data?
AI Max isn’t magic. It reflects the quality of the signals underneath it.
If most of the account’s meaningful conversion volume comes from brand, then turning AI Max on in a brand campaign may reinforce existing dependency on branded traffic rather than helping the account grow beyond it.
4. Are brand + modifier searches already structured properly?
“Brand + reviews,” “Brand + pricing,” “Brand + near me,” and product intent variations often deserve their own campaign strategy entirely. AI Max shouldn’t become a substitute for good account architecture.
5. Do you have a strategic reason to expand the brand campaign?
If so, test carefully using experiments. That’s a business decision, not a checkbox recommendation from a rep who hasn’t looked deeply enough at the account to understand where the real opportunities actually are.
See the complete picture of your search visibility.
Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
AI Max only works as well as the signals feeding it
AI Max may grow into something genuinely useful over time. Remember, PMax went through a similar evolution and is in a much stronger place now than it was early on.
But automation only works as well as the signals feeding it. Right now, the issue is that the foundations underneath the automation still aren’t strong enough. Better conversion frameworks, measurement, account structure, and feedback loops make automation smarter.
If brand remains the best-performing campaign in the account, the bigger question is why the rest of the account hasn’t caught up yet.
Above all else, don’t confuse Google’s automation priorities with your account priorities.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/web-design-creative-services.jpg?fit=1500%2C600&ssl=16001500Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-09 12:00:002026-06-09 12:00:00Why your brand campaign may not be ready for AI Max
You can be a strong brand, publish high-quality content, and still not have topical authority.
Just look at Great Jones, a kitchenware company.
Their Dutch oven (called The Dutchess) is beautiful, well-reviewed, and featured in industry-leading sites like Vogue, the New York Times, Bon Appétit, and The Kitchn.
But search “best Dutch ovens” on Google or ask an LLM for recommendations, and the brand rarely appears.
It’s not that Great Jones lacks content or press.
What’s missing is the pattern — a consistent, positive framing that ties the brand to Dutch ovens across its own site and third parties.
Without this, search engines and large language models (LLMs) can’t confidently connect the brand to the topic, so they default to the names with stronger signals.
Many brands have some version of this gap. And AI search has only made it more visible.
The good news: You can build this pattern.
In this guide, I’ll show you how using the Topical Authority Pyramid, a framework I created to turn your brand into the go-to name in your niche.
This framework builds on conversations with Amanda Milligan, Content and Growth Manager at Semrush, and my work in brand positioning across ecommerce, SaaS, and finance.
What Is Topical Authority?
Topical authority is your site’s earned reputation for expertise on a specific subject. It forms when your brand and topic appear together repeatedly across the sources that buyers, search engines, and LLMs trust.
Think about the brands you automatically connect with certain topics.
Like these:
You didn’t consciously decide to make those associations.
They formed because those brands kept showing up with the same message, in the same spaces, around the same topic.
That’s topical authority — and it’s also how search engines and LLMs learn which brands are most strongly associated with a topic.
The Topical Authority Pyramid Framework
Topical authority has traditionally been defined by content volume and breadth of coverage.
Publish comprehensively on a subject, and you’d own it.
That’s no longer enough.
As Amanda explains:
The phrase “topical authority” has been around for a long time, but the thinking around it has evolved significantly. At its core, it’s always been about your brand becoming associated with specific topics. What’s changed is how we try to build that association.
Today, search engines and LLMs look for more than coverage. They look for a clear position on the topic and external evidence that supports it.
To address this, I created the Topical Authority Pyramid:
The Pyramid breaks topical authority into three layers:
Foundational authority: On-site content and credibility signals that demonstrate experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-E-A-T), and category fit. (Think category pages, about pages, author bios, comparison content, FAQs, customer reviews, case studies, and more.) Still important, but not enough on its own.
Point of view (POV-led authority): A specific, consistent angle that separates you from every other brand covering the same ground. It gives buyers a reason to choose you and AI systems the confidence to recommend you over competitors.
Proof-backed authority: Third-party signals (mentions, reviews, citations, and data) that back up your POV across the wider web. It turns your POV from self-declared to independently verified.
Each layer works alongside the others to establish your brand as the expert in your niche and earn more visibility in search engines and LLMs.
Many brands, including Great Jones, have strong foundational authority and scattered proof, but no consistent POV tying it all together.
Here’s how to build all three.
Free resource: Download our free Topical Authority Audit template to audit your topics, score competitor authority, and track your progress. Fill it out as you work through each step below or at your own pace.
Step 1: Audit Your Topic Reputation
Your brand likely already has a topical reputation, whether you’ve shaped it intentionally or not.
Audit it before deciding what to build.
Research Your Current On-Site Associations
The gap between what you publish and what you want to be known for may be wider than you expect.
This is something Amanda has experienced firsthand:
When I did content audits, I’d inventory every piece of content by topic. You might find you have dozens of pieces on something that isn’t even your priority, and only five on the topic you actually want to own. That mismatch is exactly what a topic audit is designed to surface because what you’ve published is what you’re telling Google and buyers your priorities are.
The fastest way to assess this is with Semrush’s Organic Rankings tool.
Enter your domain to automatically see your brand’s strongest topic associations, organized by the topics getting visibility.
When I did this for Great Jones, their strongest topical associations were “recipes” and “celebrity chefs.”
Dutch ovens barely registered.
Yet, the Dutchess is their primary product.
And “Dutch oven” alone gets over 200,000 monthly Google searches.
Great Jones has a big opportunity to increase their topical authority for Dutch ovens and convert some of this search interest into sales.
These are the kind of topical association gaps you want to surface in this step.
Two more places to look:
Google Search Console: Go to “Performance” > Queries and sort by clicks or impressions. You’ll see the topics that attract users to your site.
Branded queries on Google and LLMs: Search “[your brand] + your topic” and “what is [your brand] known for” to see how search engines and LLMs describe you
Audit Your Off-Site Presence
Next, review your third-party coverage: mentions, reviews, roundups, and editorial press.
This is where many brands have the biggest gap, and it’s the one AI systems appear to weigh most heavily.
Run these checks:
Search “[your brand] + [topic]” and look beyond your own site: What’s showing? Industry blogs? Reddit? Editorial coverage? Or nothing?
Ask an LLM: “What are the best [topic] brands?” and “Where would you recommend buying [topic]?” See whether your brand surfaces and what it’s associated with.
Check “best of” lists, roundups, and comparison articles for your topic: Are you in them? If so, where do you rank and how are you described? If not, who is?
A quick off-site audit for Great Jones showed me they’ve earned coverage any kitchenware brand would envy: features in major lifestyle publications and partnerships with prominent chefs and influencers.
But when you look specifically at Dutch oven coverage, the off-site gap is obvious.
Most of the top-ranking articles are a few years old (or older):
And the overall sentiment is inconsistent.
For example, in Food & Wine’s Dutch oven roundup, the Dutchess appears under the “Other” section (rather than “Top Picks”) with a caveat about heating issues.
In this Bon Appétit roundup of the best Dutch ovens, Great Jones is categorized under “Dutch ovens we don’t recommend.”
They’re also notably missing from some use-case roundups, like this one from Serious Eats:
In Reddit threads where buyers are actively looking for Dutch oven recommendations, Great Jones rarely comes up.
When it does, many of the threads are from years ago:
Great Jones has real brand equity to build on.
But it’s just not adding up to a solid reputation in Dutch ovens — yet.
Step 2: Choose the Topic You’ll Build Authority Around
You can’t build authority on everything at once.
This step narrows your focus to one topic worth owning based on a few crucial factors:
What drives revenue
Where competitors are weak
Where your brand has room to claim a position
Build and Prioritize Your Topic List
Start by listing the topics you want buyers, search engines, and LLMs to associate with your brand.
Begin with the obvious ones: the products, categories, use cases, and problems you want to be known for.
Then expand with adjacent topics buyers already care about.
For Great Jones, that might include slow cooking, one-pot meals, kitchen gifting, or cookware care.
Look especially for topics where you already have traction, competitors are weak, or your brand should be associated but currently isn’t.
Once you’ve identified 10 to 15 topics, add them to the “Topic Audit & Scoring” tab in your spreadsheet.
Next, narrow the list down.
Not every topic on your list is worth building a reputation around right now.
For each one, ask two questions:
Do you want to own it? Does it drive revenue, support a product you sell, or build a reputation that brings buyers to you?
How urgent is it?
High: Directly tied to revenue and an opportunity you can act on now
Medium: Tied to revenue, but the opportunity or timing isn’t right yet
Low: Worth tracking but not acting on yet, or no direct business connection
You should end up with three to five high-priority topics to investigate next.
Run a Query Audit
Now test each shortlisted topic to see who already owns the space and where there’s room for your brand to carve out a position.
For each topic, run four queries on Google and LLMs:
Query type
What to search
What it tells you
Head term
The topic as-is (“Dutch ovens”)
Who owns the broad topic; what AI defaults to
Best query
Add “best” or a qualifier (“best Dutch ovens under $200”)
Where buyer intent lives; which brands AI recommends
Brand query
Your brand + the topic (“Great Jones Dutch oven”)
Where you specifically stand; how AI currently describes you
Specific angle
A query tied to an association you might want to own (“Dutch oven for gifting”)
Whether that territory is already claimed or still open
As you run each query, note:
Which formats show up most: editorial lists, reviews, Reddit threads, brand pages
Whether AI systems name specific brands without being asked (unprompted)
Whether community results show buyers asking for recommendations or comparing options
Record this in the “Query Audit” tab of your spreadsheet.
If a query shows buying intent but the top results barely address it, that’s a topical authority opportunity.
For example, when I search “Dutch ovens” and “best Dutch ovens,” the same brands consistently come up: Le Creuset, Staub, Lodge, and Caraway.
But rarely Great Jones.
And for “Dutch oven for gifting,” ChatGPT didn’t mention Great Jones at all.
Great Jones only appears when buyers already know to look for them.
More importantly, some topics, such as gifting, aesthetics, and non-toxic coating, are not clearly owned by any brand.
That’s where the opportunity is.
Score by Association Strength
After the Query Audit, score your presence on each topic against three competitors on a 0 to 3-point scale.
The score reflects your overall standing across the Topical Authority Pyramid: foundational, POV, and proof combined:
Score
What it means
0
Not present anywhere for this topic
1
Present but weak or negative
2
Present and positive but inconsistent
3
Consistently prominent across high-authority sources and AI
Note: This isn’t a precise measurement. Use your observations, priorities, and market knowledge to guide the score.
Score your brand first, then each competitor.
After your scoring is complete, look for high-priority topics where you scored a 1 or 2 and at least one competitor scored a 0 or 1.
Those are topics where buyer demand is real, you have some footing, and no competitor has locked it down — the conditions for a winnable position.
For Great Jones, “Dutch ovens for gifting” fits the pattern: high priority, room to claim it, and no clear leader.
By the end, you should have one topic to focus on.
Have more than one? Choose the one closest to revenue or where the gap between your current and desired reputation is smallest.
Have none? Go niche. Instead of “Dutch ovens,” try “enameled cast iron Dutch ovens.” A narrower topic is easier to own and still builds toward the bigger one.
Step 3: Identify Your Topic POV
You’ve identified one viable topic. Next, decide what reputation to build around it.
Your POV is the specific angle you own inside that space.
It’s what makes your brand distinct to buyers, search engines, and AI systems.
Like these brands — same topic, completely different associations:
Research What’s Already Owned
Before identifying your POV, map what dominant brands in your space are already known for.
These are the POVs to avoid. Going after any of them directly means competing for territory another brand has spent years building.
Start with your notes from the Query Audit. The patterns there tell you a lot about which competitors own what.
To run your audit, go through each belief in the table and identify which proof assets you already have and which are missing.
Use the POV Proof Planner in your template to record your findings:
For Great Jones’s gifting POV, a quick proof audit surfaces:
Consideration proof exists: The brand has features in the New York Times, Good Housekeeping, and many others, but most aren’t connected to gifting or were published years ago
Comparison proof is sparse: Some decision-stage proof tied to gifting exists for Great Jones, but it’s not consistent enough to increase AI recommendations
Step 5: Build Your On-Site Foundation
Before search engines and LLMs can associate your brand with your POV, you need to establish it on your site.
This step is about building that foundation: the hub and supporting pages where your topic, POV, and early proof signals all come together.
Create a Hub Page for Your POV
Your hub page is the central authority document for your POV.
It defines the topic, explains why it matters, and routes buyers to supporting pages that go deeper.
Side note: If you’ve built pillar pages and topic clusters before, this will feel familiar. The structure is similar, but the organizing principle is proof and belief, not coverage and keywords.
For Great Jones, that could be a “Dutch oven gifting guide.”
It would link to the Dutch oven product page and explain why Dutch ovens make exceptional gifts.
Supporting pages, such as gift basket ideas, a gifting FAQ, and a report on cookware gifting would also be linked.
If you’ve been publishing for a while, you may already have a page that can serve as the hub: a category page, a subcategory page, or an industry-specific landing page.
Build Supporting Pages
Supporting pages go deeper than the hub.
Each one proves a specific aspect of your POV at a specific stage of the buyer journey.
Go back to the proof assets you mapped in Step 4 — they tell you what you need to prove and at which stage.
Your supporting pages are how you do it.
For Great Jones, the comparison stage is a clear gap.
To convince buyers the Dutchess is a better gift than the alternatives, they need dedicated comparison pages, backed by awards, endorsements from leading industry sites and public figures, and head-to-head data.
Other supporting pages might include:
Dutch oven gift basket ideas: What to pair it with and how to present it, backed by customer photos and a relevant publication feature
Gifting FAQ: Sizing, monogramming, return policies, with real customer questions pulled from reviews
The Gift-Worthy Dutch Oven Report: Proprietary survey data on how customers buy, give, and display the product
Pro tip: Strengthen your hub and cluster pages with on-site trust signals. Include author bios that show real niche experience in the topic, named expert sources or contributors, and an About or editorial page that clearly ties your brand and contributors to the category.
Identify what pages you need, and fill out the rest of the “On-Site Foundation Planner” tab in your template.
Structure Each Page for Readers and Machines
Lead with the most important information first — also known as the inverted pyramid.
It makes your pages easier for readers to scan and for machines to interpret.
Then, make sure each page has:
Clear section headings: Labeled so readers and machines immediately understand what each section covers
POV language: Reuse the same phrases and framing tied to your angle throughout
Schema markup: Structured data that helps search engines and AI systems understand your content and context
Semantic HTML: Proper use of HTML tags so machines can correctly interpret your page structure
Link Your Pages
Each hub and supporting page proves something on its own.
Link them together, and you create a proof system.
Link from the hub to your 5–10 most important supporting pages in the body. Not just in the nav, breadcrumbs, or footer.
Link every supporting page back to the hub. Keep key pages within 2–3 clicks of each other.
Use descriptive, relevant anchor text to help people and machines understand what the linked page is about
Step 6: Create an Off-Site Proof System
A strong POV and foundation won’t get you into AI answers if the association exists only on your site.
This is one of the biggest shifts in how topical authority works, as Amanda explains:
Topical authority isn’t just about what’s on your site anymore. You need third-party sources — coverage, mentions, appearances, even reviews — independently reinforcing the same association. If the only place your brand is tied to a topic is your own content, that’s often not enough to build the pattern that AI systems and search engines need to trust you on it.
This step reinforces your POV in the places buyers and AI systems already trust.
Start with One Signature Proof Point
A signature proof point is an original, specific story or finding about your topic.
Something others outside your brand would want to reference, share, or build on.
That could be:
Proprietary data from your own sales, customer behavior, or research
A trend you’ve spotted and named before anyone else
A contrarian observation backed by evidence
For Great Jones and the gifting POV, the insight has to tie Dutch ovens to gifting.
They might pull data from their own sales — say, a 4x spike in Dutch oven purchases in the two weeks before Mother’s Day — and turn it into a “State of Mother’s Day Gift-Giving” report.
That report becomes a press pitch to lifestyle publications, a video on their YouTube channel, and a thread on Reddit’s r/gifts.
One insight, multiple placements, all reinforcing the same association: Great Jones = gifting.
To find yours, start with your proof assets from Step 4.
Look for patterns in your data, reviews, industry trends, or customer behavior.
Distribute Your Proof Point
Once you have a signature insight, decide where and how to distribute it.
There are four main buckets:
Brand channels: Content you publish directly to audiences you’ve built: email newsletters, marketplaces, review sites, podcasts, social media, SMS or loyalty messaging, local profiles
Community: Discussions in spaces your buyers already trust, such as Reddit, niche forums and industry groups, social media comments and communities
Partners: Others who extend your reach into new audiences, including affiliates, influencers, retail partners, and integrations
Earned: Third-party coverage you pitch but don’t control, such as media mentions, press features, user-generated content, and editorial placements
For each bucket, identify the specific publications, platforms, or communities where your insight is most relevant.
Not sure where to start?
Run a search on Google or an LLM related to your proof point and look at the sites that rank and the sources that get cited.
Those are the places worth showing up in. List them in the “Off-Site Proof Planner” tab of your template.
For Great Jones, some of that infrastructure is already in place.
They already have the social media following, media clout, and collaborations with names like cookbook author Molly Baz.
What they need is a focused distribution of insights around their gifting POV.
That might look like:
Briefing partner creators on a gifting-specific collaboration, like pitching fresh coverage that ties the Molly Baz collab to gifting
Pitching their Mother’s Day gifting sales data to lifestyle publications already covering Dutch ovens
Reframing existing social content around the gifting angle
Now check whether it’s starting to influence how search engines and LLMs describe your brand.
Use the “Progress Tracker” tab in your spreadsheet to record what you find at 30, 60, and 90-day intervals.
Foundational Layer: Are You Showing Up More?
Coverage tracking tells you whether your topical footprint is growing:
Go back to your Step 2 notes. How many of your four query types surfaced your brand unprompted? Run them again and compare.
Also monitor pages ranking for queries you didn’t directly target, and rising impressions for queries related to your topic.
For Great Jones, the baseline visibility was weak for many non-brand Dutch oven queries.
Showing up in two or three queries at 90 days — especially “Dutch ovens for gifting” — would be a real sign of progress.
Tools that help:
Semrush’s Organic Rankings tool (the Topics report) for association trends
Semrush AI Visibility Toolkit: The Visibility Overview tool to see whether your AI Visibility score and mention count are climbing, and Prompt Tracking to re-run your query set on a set cadence
Google Search Console for impressions and queries by page
The POV layer tracks language. Specifically, whether mentions of your brand are increasingly paired with your POV.
Run POV-specific prompts monthly and check the wording.
For Great Jones, that’s searches like “Dutch oven wedding gift” or “best Dutch oven to give as a gift.”
And when the Dutchess shows up in reviews, comparisons, and “best of” listicles, watch for the language around it.
Is it being called “a great house-warming gift,” “splurge-worthy,” or “the kind of gift that gets displayed”?
That’s the POV landing.
Tools that help:
Brand24 to track web and social mentions
Semrush’s Perception tool for sentiment trends, and Narrative Drivers for the attributes and phrases AI ties to your brand
Proof Layer: Are Others Confirming Your POV?
The proof layer tracks third-party confirmation.
Are media mentions, third-party pages, and niche communities backing up the POV you want to own?
Start with your proof point.
Are others citing or referencing it? That’s a signal your off-site distribution is working.
Then, go broader.
Run [Your Brand] + [POV] queries on Google and an LLM.
Check whether you’re appearing in more third-party sources associated with your POV.
Are buyers recommending you unprompted in Reddit or niche communities? Are your hub pages attracting links from relevant sites?
When your brand appears, is it being described in relation to your POV?
For Great Jones, that might be a gift guide naming the Dutchess as the go-to Dutch oven for wedding gifts.
Tools that help:
Google Alerts for basic brand mention tracking, or Meltwater for a more robust option
Semrush’s Competitor Research tool to surface sites citing competitors but not you, and Narrative Drivers for the Top Cited Domains shaping your topic
Build the Pattern That Wins in AI Search
Great Jones proves that great press and a great product aren’t enough for topical authority.
If search engines and LLMs don’t have clear associations attached to your brand, showing up online will be a struggle — no matter what Vogue thinks of you.
But that’s fixable.
The Topical Authority Pyramid gives you the framework:
A strong foundation that proves you belong in the category
A POV that makes you distinct
Proof that backs it up across the web
Once your first topic takes shape, expand.
Follow the Topical Authority Pyramid for your next topic, claim more territory, and deepen your authority in adjacent spaces.
Do this well, and search engines and LLMs may just start recommending you by default.
Want a repeatable way to monitor your AI visibility over time? Our AI visibility audit guide walks you through it step by step.
http://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.png00Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-08 21:32:122026-06-08 21:32:12How to Build Topical Authority in the AI Search Era (7 Steps)
Google is expanding experimentation capabilities in Performance Max, giving advertisers more ways to test creative assets and measure campaign performance before making large-scale changes.
What’s happening. Google is rolling out new asset experiments for Performance Max campaigns, allowing advertisers to test how different creative assets affect results.
The feature enables marketers to compare entirely new asset groups, evaluate the impact of adding individual assets, or measure the performance of seasonal creative against evergreen content.
Advertisers will also be able to test assets generated through Google’s Asset Studio.
The big picture. Performance Max has long automated campaign optimization across Google’s inventory, but advertisers have had limited visibility into the impact of creative changes.
The new experiments aim to give marketers a more controlled way to evaluate creative decisions before applying them across campaigns.
Between the lines. The addition of a second success metric could be particularly valuable for advertisers balancing competing objectives, such as maximizing conversions while maintaining efficiency targets.
Rather than declaring a winner based on a single KPI, marketers will be able to evaluate how changes affect broader campaign performance.
What else is new:
Conversion lift studies and experiments are being brought together under one Experiments page.
Additional experiment and measurement capabilities are planned for future releases.
Expanded support for manager accounts (MCCs) and the Google Ads API is expected to begin rolling out in the coming weeks.
Why we care. Creative remains one of the biggest levers available to Performance Max advertisers, yet testing new assets often involves risk. The new experimentation tools provide a structured way to validate creative decisions with data before fully committing budget.
What to watch. As Google continues investing in automation and AI-generated creative, asset testing is becoming increasingly important. The ability to directly compare human-created, seasonal, evergreen, and AI-generated assets could offer advertisers deeper insight into what drives performance across Performance Max campaigns.
OpenAI is expanding its advertising ambitions inside ChatGPT, beginning an early test that allows multiple advertisers to appear within a single ad placement.
What’s happening. The company is testing multi-advertiser ad units across a small subset of ChatGPT ads, according to a product update sent to advertisers.
Rather than displaying a single sponsored result, the new format will group multiple relevant ads together in one placement. Eligible ads will be sold through a second-price auction model, a common pricing mechanism used across digital advertising platforms.
OpenAI says the goal is to improve product discovery for users while creating more opportunities for advertisers to engage with users during high-intent conversations.
Meanwhile, in Ads Manager Beta. OpenAI also announced several new campaign management features for advertisers:
Advertisers can now convert existing campaigns from lifetime budgets to daily budgets.
CPM campaigns can be cloned and converted to CPC bidding with one click.
Impression-based campaigns now support custom CPM max bids.
Bulk editing is available directly within the Ads Manager interface.
Daily budgets will transition to an average daily budget model with weekly pacing flexibility.
Geographic targeting is expanding beyond the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to include the U.K., Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and Mexico.
Why we care. The updates bring OpenAI’s ad platform closer to the functionality marketers expect from mature advertising ecosystems, reducing campaign management friction while expanding targeting opportunities internationally.
What to watch. The multi-advertiser placement test could provide an early signal of how aggressively OpenAI intends to monetize ChatGPT. If successful, the format may become a larger part of the platform’s ad inventory strategy while offering advertisers more opportunities to reach users during purchase and research journeys.
The bottom line. OpenAI is steadily building out its advertising stack, but the biggest development may be its experiment with showing multiple advertisers in a single ChatGPT ad placement — a move that could reshape how sponsored content appears within AI conversations.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/web-design-creative-services.jpg?fit=1500%2C600&ssl=16001500Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-08 16:17:562026-06-08 16:17:56OpenAI to expand ChatGPT ads to new markets & test multi-advertiser placements
Google is changing the rules framework that governs Local Services Ads, updating policy language and aligning advertiser requirements with its new badge system.
What’s happening. On July 6th Google will update its Local Services Ads policies to improve readability, revise terminology, and remove requirements that no longer apply to advertisers.
As part of the update, Google will rename “Local Services platform policies” as “Local Services Ads requirements.”
The changes build on the company’s recent overhaul of the Local Services Ads badge system, including updates to Google Guarantee badges and advertiser verification standards.
Why we care. While these changes are mostly administrative, advertisers should pay attention because the new “requirements” framework could make it easier for Google to tie compliance standards directly to badge status in the future. For agencies and local businesses, it’s another indication that maintaining verification credentials and meeting platform standards will remain critical for competing in LSAs.
The big picture. Google says the policy refresh is intended to better align advertiser requirements with the new badge framework while making compliance guidance easier to understand.
The company is not positioning the update as a major policy crackdown. Instead, the focus appears to be on simplifying existing rules and modernizing the way requirements are communicated to businesses.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/web-design-creative-services.jpg?fit=1500%2C600&ssl=16001500Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-08 15:42:582026-06-08 15:42:58Google to update Local Services Ads policies in July
Traditional share of voice (SOV) is effectively obsolete, yet many organizations have replaced it with an equally flawed successor: AI share of voice.
Software vendors now claim to measure brand visibility across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and other AI platforms using a single percentage score. The problem is that these metrics rely on a hidden denominator.
Unlike traditional search, where visibility could be measured against a known keyword set, the universe of possible AI prompts is effectively infinite.
Traditional SOV had limitations, but at least its assumptions were transparent. Marketers defined a fixed keyword set, tracked visibility against competitors, and used that list as a stable denominator. Everyone understood the measurement’s boundaries.
That model no longer exists. Search results are dynamic and personalized, and are increasingly being replaced by conversational interfaces. Yet many AI visibility platforms continue to present precise-looking percentages that can’t be audited or validated.
To stop presenting fictional metrics to leadership teams, we must rethink how we define and measure visibility in AI search.
Why traditional SOV metrics now fail
The basic assumptions of search engine optimization and digital brand tracking have been broken by two major shifts: the disappearance of the static results page and the rapid rise of personalized, conversational answers.
Search engines have become highly dynamic, personalized landscapes that change shape continuously based on real-time data.
Between AI-generated summaries, localized results, continuous scrolling, interactive merchant grids, and real-time social feeds, no two users will encounter the same interface, even when entering the exact same query at the exact same moment.
Because the search environment changes constantly, attempting to calculate a precise “share” of that screen has become a mathematical impossibility.
Your customers search everywhere. Make sure your brand shows up.
The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
The new volatile normality of rankings
Securing the top ranking position in the older marketing model meant capturing a highly predictable percentage of user click-through rates.
In the modern search landscape, however, ranking first organically might place a brand below several sponsored listings, an AI-generated overview, interactive question accordions, and featured discussions from community platforms.
Because search engines now construct layouts dynamically in response to immediate user intent and past search history, rankings fluctuate by the hour.
Measuring share of voice based on static positions is as unproductive as trying to measure the volume of an ocean wave with a wooden ruler.
The modern AI share of voice
When marketing teams realized that traditional rank tracking was losing its utility, software vendors quickly introduced alternative metrics, branded as LLM Visibility or AI share of voice.
These dashboards present highly polished, authoritative percentage scores that suggest a brand’s footprint has been successfully mapped across platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Perplexity.
These tools fail to deliver on this promise, exposing a fundamental methodology problem that we must address directly.
Legacy tracking (transparent)
LLM visibility (black box)
– Define fixed keyword list (known). – Measure rank on static SERPAuditable denominator.
– Infinite possible user prompts. – Vendor runs small, arbitrary subset. – Subjective denominator.
The infinite tail
Legacy SEO tools relied on a user-defined keyword list that served as a transparent denominator, whereas modern conversational engines present an entirely different mathematical reality where the universe of possible user prompts is effectively infinite.
Buyers no longer search for solutions using simple, two-word phrases. Instead, they enter highly specific, conversational queries that describe their exact organizational context, integration needs, and feature requirements.
Because no marketing tool can realistically sample this infinite universe of natural language, software vendors instead select a small, arbitrary subset of static prompts, run them through AI models behind the scenes, and aggregate those limited outputs into a representative global percentage.
This process creates a metric that only measures share of voice within a contrived and artificial environment, presenting a closed sandbox as if it were the open web.
Marketers maintained full visibility into the data they were analyzing with legacy tracking tools, which meant that if a system reported a specific percentage of visibility, the underlying keyword list could be audited and adjusted. Modern LLM visibility tools obscure their denominator within proprietary, vendor-defined systems that are almost certainly incomplete.
This structural flaw became incredibly clear in September 2025, when OpenAI updated to its ChatGPT 5.0 model. Following this release, the platform-wide volume of outbound citations and source links dropped.
For marketing teams relying on LLM tracking dashboards, this model change resulted in a sudden, sharp decline in their reported visibility metrics. The decline had nothing to do with a loss of brand relevance or a failure in marketing strategy. ChatGPT had simply changed how it presented source data to users.
This update demonstrates that modern AI metrics are highly volatile and largely out of your control. While software vendors are genuinely trying to solve an incredibly complex engineering problem, the underlying methodology simply cannot support the high-confidence dashboards they deliver, meaning these metrics should be treated as directional signals rather than hard numbers.
Beyond AI share of voice: 3 metrics that matter more
We must shift our focus from measuring pure search volume to measuring how effectively a brand is integrated into the broader context of digital discussions.
As search queries morph into conversational discovery, a brand’s visibility is no longer defined by the keywords it owns, but by how deeply it is embedded in the conceptual models used by AI.
1. Share of mentions
AI models synthesize relationships between concepts rather than simply indexing pages, meaning a brand must exist within the model’s training data, fine-tuning datasets, or real-time retrieval sources to be surfaced at all.
Share of mentions tracks how frequently your brand name, products, or key executives are naturally included in the responses generated across the broader information ecosystem.
This metric shifts the operational focus from ranking positions to vocabulary inclusion, ensuring that a brand is recognized by the model even when it is not explicitly prompted for a vendor list.
To influence this metric, organizations must focus on securing organic mentions across high-trust forums, developer communities, and authoritative industry publications where AI models actively gather and update their information.
2. Share of recommendations
When buyers use conversational engines to make purchasing decisions, they regularly ask for direct comparisons, shortlists, and product recommendations to simplify their research process.
Share of recommendations measures how often your product or service is explicitly featured when a user asks an AI engine to act as an advisor on a specific business challenge.
This approach shifts our focus from raw traffic acquisition to winning the buyer’s consideration set, which is critical because conversational engines filter out the noise of the web to deliver a highly curated list of options.
If your product positioning is overly generic, the model will struggle to categorize your offering and will default to recommending competitors that have established a much clearer, highly documented use case.
3. Share of narrative
Merely securing a mention in an AI response is insufficient if the context of that mention portrays your brand poorly, as high visibility within a negative framework can quickly become a strategic liability.
Share of narrative measures the qualitative attributes, adjectives, and associations linked to your brand name in conversational outputs, allowing you to understand how your business is being framed.
Narrative
What it tracks
The core strategic question
The “best” narrative
How often you are framed as the premium, gold-standard market leader.
Is the model positioning our brand as the most capable solution available?
The “popular” narrative
How often you are cited as the default, widely adopted industry standard.
Is the model identifying our brand as the most commonly used option?
The “budget” narrative
How often you are categorized as the cost-effective, value, or entry-level alternative.
Is the model framing our brand primarily as a low-cost, entry-level alternative?
If an AI engine includes your brand frequently but consistently describes your product as a complex, legacy system, your high share of voice may actually be damaging your sales pipeline.
See the complete picture of your search visibility.
Track, optimize, and win in Google and AI search from one platform.
Start Free Trial
Get started with
Reframing your success metrics
Leadership teams require competitive benchmarks to evaluate market performance, meaning you cannot simply stop reporting on share of voice without offering a viable alternative.
Transitioning your executive reporting smoothly requires a structured, three-step plan.
Reframing the executive narrative involves educating your leadership team on the limitations of modern AI dashboards.
This means explaining the hidden denominator problem and demonstrating why treating these figures as absolute metrics introduces unnecessary risk.
https://i0.wp.com/dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/web-design-creative-services.jpg?fit=1500%2C600&ssl=16001500Dubado Solutionshttp://dubadosolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dubado-logo-1.pngDubado Solutions2026-06-08 14:00:002026-06-08 14:00:00The problem with AI share of voice and 3 metrics that matter more
