Posts

Web Design and Development San Diego

How AI may increase the value of SEO expertise

How AI may increase the value of SEO expertise

By now, you’ve heard the doom and gloom.

SEO is a white-collar job. So does that mean our jobs will be eliminated, too? The answer isn’t as obvious as you might think.

Yes, the world is changing. But if you’ve been doing SEO for a while, you should be used to that by now.

SEOs have always been forced to wear strange combinations of hats: part technical analyst, part content strategist, part UX researcher, part marketer, and part analyst.

I don’t think AI will make SEO expertise obsolete. But it will make shallow SEO obsolete.

The people who thrive will be the ones who understand search behavior, business outcomes, technical systems, content strategy, analytics, and how to turn all of that into better decisions.

The old version of SEO stopped working years ago

I’ve been doing SEO since before there was a word for “SEO.” Every few years, there’s a viral article declaring that “SEO is dead.” One of the first to catch fire was a 2005 article by Jeremy Schoemaker, repeating something he’d heard from Jason Calacanis. 

Then, in 2009, Danny Sullivan wrote an article on this site reacting to a blog post by Robert Scoble declaring that “SEO isn’t important anymore.”

We know the reality. SEO never died. But over the years, it’s changed a lot.

Look at this screenshot of a Google search for [flowers] in 2007 versus the same search in 2026.

Google Search in 2007 for flowers
Google’s “flowers” SERP in 2007, when a No. 1 organic ranking controlled most of the visible page.
Google Search in 2026 for flowers
Google’s “flowers” SERP in 2026, where organic listings compete with ads, shopping results, local packs, AI features, and other search elements.

This example is near and dear to my heart because I wrote that title tag in 2007. I was fortunate enough to lead SEO at 1-800-Flowers at a time when a No. 1 organic ranking meant significant traffic and revenue.

Twenty years later, their team has maintained the No. 1 organic ranking. However, today it’s so buried on the SERP that I wonder whether it gets any clicks at all.

This phenomenon isn’t limited to searches for “flowers.” Search for any competitive head term these days, and chances are you’ll see the organic result buried.

Is SEO “dead”? That really depends on your definition of “SEO.”

If your definition is “getting to the top of Google organic search” by spending your whole day writing title tags, then yeah, SEO is pretty much dead. It has been for a long time.

If your definition of SEO is understanding that people are looking for your goods and services, understanding their needs, answering their questions, and meeting them wherever they go to find information, then your journey as an SEO expert — or whatever you eventually decide to call yourself — is only beginning.

Dig deeper: Could AI eventually make SEO obsolete?

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

Semrush One Logo

Why true SEO experts are uniquely positioned to thrive 

There’s one phenomenon I’ve noticed with AI, not just in SEO, but across every industry. You might have noticed it too.

On social media, you’ll see a lot of AI-generated videos. The vast majority are silly “look what I can do with AI” videos. You see them, maybe press “Like,” and then forget about them. But the ones with staying power are made by people who understand filmmaking: pacing, framing, lighting, composition, camera movement, editing, sound design, and how to build toward an emotional payoff.

In other words, even though everyone can generate videos with AI now, the differentiator is no longer how “cool” the visuals are. It’s how skillfully creators use AI as a tool to achieve their vision.

There’s an analogous situation happening with SEO and AI. I’ve noticed a lot of people typing simplistic prompts and, like Neo in “The Matrix,” declaring, “I know SEO.”

What these folks don’t realize is that SEO is a lot more than title tags, and it was never just about reverse-engineering search engines. It was always about reverse-engineering the human brain, drawing on knowledge and experience across keyword lists, user behavior, content strategy, technical systems, analytics, persuasion, UX, and business outcomes.

When others are typing simplistic prompts into their LLMs, SEO experts will be having deep conversations with their LLMs, teaching them, challenging them, and finding ways to get the best out of them. Those who excel in this new world won’t be the ones who have all the answers. They’ll be the ones who have the right questions.

While it’s still early, and I’m convinced we haven’t even scratched the surface of ways to use LLMs in SEO, here are just a few ways I’ve been using AI in my SEO work to make it more efficient and effective than ever.

1. Performing SEO basics with unprecedented efficiency and effectiveness

I’m generally not a fan of AI-generated long-form writing. You end up with generic, inauthentic slop that, in the words of Shakespeare, is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 

I predict that a year from now, most people will be able to spot the clear signs of AI-generated copy: not just obvious tells like excessive use of em dashes and repetitive phrasing (“That’s not X … it’s Y!”), but a lack of authentic personality and stories.

Metadata is one of the places where I don’t mind AI assistance because its job isn’t to invent original thought. It’s to compress the page’s value, intent, and positioning into the right format for the right surface.

The big mistake I see people making with AI-generated metadata is that their prompts are far too generic: “Write a title tag for this page.”

A seasoned SEO knows the goal isn’t to create a “pretty title tag.” It’s to create the most effective title tag possible for human, search engine, and AI discovery. It takes into account various search intents, brand positioning, competitor gaps, conversion drivers, and practical space limitations.

AI opens up new opportunities that weren’t practical before. Not many people know that ideally, your title tag, Open Graph tag, and Twitter card should be distinct from one another because they’ll be shown to different audiences on Google, Facebook, and X. And it took me a few tries to remind AI that title tag length isn’t based on character count, but on pixel width.

Those “in the know” will start using AI to generate everything: title tags, meta description tags, OG tags, Twitter cards, and the right structured data.

Someone without SEO experience will write generic prompts and wonder why their perfectly polished title tags aren’t doing anything for them a year from now.

Dig deeper: The AI writing tics that hurt engagement: A study

2. Turning SEO recommendations into dev-ready tickets

One “edge” I’ve had throughout my career is the ability to translate vague marketing goals into precise technical requirements developers can actually execute.

But as technology has become more complex, I found myself hitting my own limits. I understood the principles of coding, but had a hard time articulating exactly what I needed developers to do. Googling hardly ever helped because I’d just find high-level articles written by consultants, some of whom clearly didn’t understand it either.

A practical example is modern React or single-page app architecture, where a page may look complete to users while key SEO content is assembled after load from JavaScript rather than appearing as crawlable HTML.

In the past, I might’ve written a vague recommendation like “we need more crawlable content on this page,” forcing my poor developer to figure out what that means.

With AI, I can turn that into a real implementation ticket: grounding the LLM in the site’s tech stack, translating the SEO need into concepts like server-side rendering, hydration, DOM content, and crawlable links, and adding examples, test cases, edge cases, and acceptance criteria.

The point isn’t to become a React engineer. It’s to communicate SEO requirements in a way that developers can execute without forcing them to think too much about it. Trust me, your developer will thank you.

3. Mining GSC, GA4, and Semrush or Ahrefs data for actual user needs

Treating AI optimization as long-tail SEO done right has been one of the game-changers for me when it comes to my own productivity.

The holy grail of SEO has always been to read your users’ minds and create content that meets their needs. Anyone who’s spent a lot of time with SEO data knows that there are enormous amounts of insights locked within this data. The first problem is unlocking them. The second problem is getting them into a format that will get people to pay attention.

In the past, I would literally lock myself in a room with a giant spreadsheet open on my screen. I’d go through search terms one by one, categorizing and clustering them, and, if I was lucky, end up with a handful of insights days later.

I might start with a list of 30,000 keywords and get through maybe a few hundred before getting completely exhausted. And when I’d present my insights, along with my giant pivot table, to stakeholders, they’d nod their heads, and then everyone would forget about them.

LLMs are changing the game. You can simply upload data from GSC, GA4, and Semrush and Ahrefs, along with your own business and market insights, and then simply ask your LLM questions.

Here are just a few recent examples of analyses I’ve done for my clients. These would once have taken days or weeks. Now I can get to a strong first pass in minutes.

  • Analyze our GSC keyword data and organize the keywords into topical clusters. Which topics do we clearly have a “right to own” in Google’s eyes?
  • Review our top competitors and uncover keywords within this topical neighborhood that they rank for but we don’t. What kind of content do we need to “break in”?
  • Surface GSC queries that get lots of impressions but few clicks. What improvements can we make to our titles, snippets, or positioning to drive more clicks?
  • Examine organic landing pages that attract a lot of traffic but fail to convert. What is the search intent behind the keywords driving traffic to these pages, and how can we improve conversion?
  • Find keywords where we’re in “striking distance” of stronger rankings. What additional content do we need to create or adjust to push us to the top?
  • Analyze the queries people type into our on-site search. What are examples of searches they might perform on Google or prompts they might use in LLMs when looking for this information?

There are literally an endless number of questions you can ask. I didn’t present these as sample prompts because they’re thought starters. While you’ll probably get a decent answer, the real value from AI comes only when you:

  • Dig deep into specific concepts, pages, and keywords.
  • Validate the LLM’s responses.
  • Challenge it as necessary.
  • Recognize hallucinations or context drift.
  • Put your findings into immediate action.

Dig deeper: How to use AI to diagnose and improve search intent alignment

Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.


4. Prototyping page layouts, content modules, and more

Something else I’ve found LLMs can do really well is generate a solid wireframe of a page or page module that you can pass on to your web designer and developer. But this is another area where the quality of the output depends almost entirely on the quality of your prompt and the context you provide the LLM.

Most people will simply type “design me a web page,” perhaps with a few “wish list” items they’d like to see. AI may produce something that looks “complete” on the surface, perhaps a hero section, a list of benefits, some FAQs, and a call to action (CTA). But when executed, it’ll feel lifeless, generic, and disconnected from the actual business problem.

The better approach is to ground the LLM with as much background information as possible. This doesn’t need to include every SEO report, but rather the ones that provide the highest-quality signals, such as the ones we discussed above: topic clusters, competitor gaps, conversion data, and on-site search data. Add other useful information like sales objections, customer reviews, your brand’s unique value propositions, and a clear explanation of what the page needs to accomplish.

With proper context, AI can help lay out something that transcends a generic landing page. For example, it can propose a strong hero section with suggested wording, recommendations for CTAs, section order, comparison tables, proof blocks, FAQs based on real questions, trust elements, and paths for different stages of intent.

Remember that it works in reverse, too. Upload a screenshot of an existing page, either yours or your competitor’s, tell the LLM what your goals are for the page, and ask it to critique the page.

AI can also open up other SEO opportunities that have previously been roadblocks. 

  • Want to do A/B testing? Tell the LLM the hypothesis you want to test, and have it come up with variants for you. 
  • Want to prototype a simple interactive tool? Provide your requirements, provide the underlying data, and see what your LLM can do. 

In some cases, it can go beyond a static mockup and produce a working prototype that a developer can evaluate, harden, and turn into production code.

Your edge as an SEO is knowing what information to feed the model, what problems the page actually needs to solve, and which ideas are strategically useful versus just AI-generated decoration.

The one thing that I haven’t seen AI do very well yet is generate professional-quality design and production-quality code. But everything up to that point is at your fingertips now. 

5. Making analytics useful again

As I’m sure it was for many of you, July 1, 2024, was a dark day for me. That’s when Google shut down Universal Analytics and forced us all onto GA4.

Since it was called Urchin, I’d all but mastered UA. Then one day, all of my reports and dashboards were simply gone. And I had no interest in spending another decade on a learning curve just to recreate reports that they’d once given me by default.

But with the arrival of LLMs, you can simply ask the LLM to walk you through building whatever report you want.

The first report I had to re-create was the on-site search report, one that’s inexplicably missing from GA4. I wrote my own prompt to walk me through creating this, but for the purposes of this article, I had ChatGPT write the prompt:


Act as a senior GA4 analytics consultant.

I want to rebuild a useful onsite search report in GA4/Looker Studio. GA4 does not provide the same dedicated Site Search report that Universal Analytics had, but I can use the `view_search_results` event, the `search_term` parameter, and any custom parameters needed.

Create a practical, implementation-ready plan that covers:

1. How to confirm onsite search tracking is working.

2. Recommended event name and parameters, including which should be registered as custom dimensions.

3. How to track searches when the site does not use URL query parameters.

4. The most useful report sections, including:
- total searches
- unique searchers
- top search terms
- zero-result searches
- refined or repeated searches
- searches followed by exits
- searches followed by conversions
- searches by page, device, and user type

5. Step-by-step instructions for building the report in GA4 Explore and Looker Studio.

6. A QA checklist to make sure the data is accurate.
Keep the answer concise, practical, and usable by both a marketer and a developer.

The key to writing these prompts, or prompts that generate prompts, is including the phrase “step by step.” One of the nice things about AI is that it doesn’t judge.

Take as long as you need, ask it to break the setup down into steps as granular as you like, and feel free to ask “dumb” questions. It’ll oblige enthusiastically.

You can imagine what this opens up. One of the classic issues with SEO analytics is that all too often, they’re merely vanity metrics. 

Conversions, clicks, impressions, and rankings may look impressive at first, but eventually the dreaded “so what” question will arise. Who really cares if you see impressions and rankings growing like wildfire if your revenue isn’t increasing?

This is where you want to ask your AI to help you tie data to business performance. 

  • Which unbranded keywords are actually driving revenue? 
  • Which are leading to soft conversion goals like email signup, account creation, or pricing page visits? 
  • Which search queries bring in engaged visitors who come back later through brand search, direct traffic, or email?

Again, the sky’s the limit. You can build a report or dashboard to answer just about any question your stakeholders have, provided you’re collecting the right data, and if you’re not, AI can help you create tickets for your web developer to collect that data.

Dig deeper: SEO analytics: How to interpret SEO data & anomalies

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

Semrush One Logo

The work is changing. The need for expertise isn’t.

Like I said, this is only scratching the surface of how AI can help transform the work we do as SEOs.

But let’s get to the question everyone is really asking: Is your job safe?

I don’t have a crystal ball. But one thing is pretty clear to me. Not every SEO job will survive unchanged. Big companies will likely cut roles. Teams will likely get smaller. A lot of tactical work that used to require specialists may be done faster, cheaper, or “good enough” by someone using AI.

If your value is limited to tasks that AI can perform on command, there may be challenges ahead.

But if your value is understanding customers, interpreting search behavior, connecting data to business outcomes, translating strategy into execution, and helping companies become more findable, useful, and trusted, then AI isn’t the end of your career. It may be the best leverage you’ve ever had.

And there’s another reason I’m optimistic. The same AI disruption hitting SEO is hitting every other white-collar profession, too. If large companies do lay off significant numbers of talented people, many of those people aren’t just going to disappear from the economy.

Some will start businesses. Some will finally pursue ideas they’ve had in their heads for years. Some will use AI to build prototypes, launch products, test markets, and create companies in ways that would have required far more capital and staff just a few years ago.

That should give us hope.

Many of the great companies we know today started with little more than a few people, an idea, and the willingness to figure things out as they went. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Michael Dell, and many others did not begin with massive corporations behind them. They began with ideas, persistence, and the tools available to them at the time.

If they were able to accomplish what they did with their tools, imagine what a new generation of entrepreneurs will be able to do with AI.

Maybe you’ll be one of those entrepreneurs. Or maybe your role will be helping one of them turn their ideas into businesses people can actually discover, understand, trust, and choose.

Either way, the products, services, brands, and businesses built with AI will still need to be found. They will still need to explain why they matter. They will still need to earn attention, authority, and trust.

SEO is dead. Long live SEO.

Read more at Read More

Web Design and Development San Diego

AI search loves listicles: What 25,000 URLs reveal about citations by Evertune

Large language models (LLMs) excel at synthesizing enormous amounts of information into personalized responses to plain-language prompts. These responses draw on massive training datasets and are often enhanced with internet searches. The fastest way to influence what LLMs say about your brand is to influence the content they retrieve through those searches.

At Evertune Research, we use the Evertune AI marketing platform to track hundreds of brands across 250 categories across every major LLM. This gives us clear insight into which content AI models cite most often, especially when users ask for brand or product recommendations across industries.

For this analysis, we reviewed the 6,000 most-cited URLs per model across ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overview, and Perplexity for March and April. We found that these models share a key behavior: they heavily cite listicles.

Half of LLMs’ most-cited URLs are listicles

Of the roughly 25,000 unique URLs we reviewed, half were listicles. Across nearly 400 million citations from all models, 63% pointed to listicles.

Listicles have many qualities that make them ideal for models’ consumption

  • They’re tightly focused on a single topic, like “best laptops for gamers,” which makes them highly relevant to user prompts. 
  • Their structured format also makes the content easy for models to parse and reproduce. 
  • For brand-related queries, listicles do much of the work for LLMs by comparing products head-to-head on features, price, materials, and more—a format ChatGPT now features prominently in its shopping widget.

Listicles were pervasive across every model we reviewed. They accounted for 40–65% of the most-cited URLs, with Copilot at the low end and Gemini at the high end.

The vast majority of listicles in our analysis featured ranked lists, such as “Top 5 CRM Tools.” Depending on the model, these made up 71% to 86% of listicles. Unranked lists, such as “7 Ways to Save on Groceries,” were a distant second. Institutional rankings (e.g., data-heavy lists like U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges rankings) accounted for just 1.4% to 4.7% of listicles.

Corporate, earned media, and affiliate domains were the top sources of listicles in our analysis. It’s worth noting, however, that individual pages may contain affiliate content even when the broader domain does not. 

  • For example, Forbes.com is an earned media domain, but it includes affiliate segments such as Forbes Advisor and Forbes Vetted. It ranked among the top three sources on every model for listicles in our URL dataset.

A word of warning before making listicles the foundation of a GEO strategy: Google has already signaled its intent to crack down on promotional listicles. Simply ranking your own brand No. 1 alongside competitors could also run afoul of a Federal Trade Commission rule that “prohibits a business from misrepresenting that a website or entity it controls provides independent reviews or opinions about a category of products or services that includes its own products or services,” among other prohibitions.

URLs that thrive on multiple models

We reviewed the 6,000 most-cited URLs across six LLMs, which in theory produced a pool of 36,000 URLs. In practice, the dataset contained about 25,000 unique URLs, since many appeared among the most-cited results across multiple models.

Among the models, the three Google Gemini-powered models — Gemini, AI Mode, and AI Overviews — showed the highest overlap. More than half of Google AI Mode’s most-cited URLs also appeared among Google AI Overviews’ most-cited URLs. Gemini likewise shared a large portion of its top-cited URLs with both Google AI Mode and Google AI Overview.

The remaining models also shared the most URLs with Google AI Mode and Google AI Overviews, though the overlap was much smaller. Perplexity shared more than 20% of its URLs with both models, while ChatGPT shared more than 15% with each. 

Given the thousands of URLs models cite on any topic, that still represents meaningful overlap. Copilot, by contrast, shared just 4% to 6% of its URLs with any other model.

The URLs that models cite most deviate for many reasons, including model training, sites’ crawl permissions and other factors. Traditional SEO that moves content higher in search results, no matter if the search is by a bot or a person, also plays a role, especially for Google AI Mode and Google AI Overview.

Page components of heavily cited URLs

Our review of the roughly 25,000 URLs heavily cited by LLMs found that these pages typically ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 words, averaged 18 words per sentence, linked frequently, and used structured headings (H2s and H3s) throughout.

Copilot favored the most concise content, typically citing pages with 964 words and 24 paragraphs. Gemini skewed more verbose, typically citing pages with 1,977 words and 53 paragraphs.

Although there’s no cookie-cutter formula for success in AI visibility, we found that the most-cited pages typically included the following components:

GEO takeaways

Each LLM has its own preferences and quirks, and a strong GEO strategy accounts for them. But our analysis of more than 25,000 URLs suggests that some GEO best practices can improve brand visibility and sentiment across models.

  • All LLMs cite large volumes of highly structured, hyper-specific content, which listicles exemplify. Avoid spammy, self-promotional listicles that Google penalizes, but otherwise aim to create and appear in lists where relevant.
  • Traditional SEO supports GEO. Pages that perform well in human search results also tend to perform well in bot-driven searches. This is especially true for Gemini-based models.
  • Pay attention to the page structures most often cited by the model you want to target. Copilot tends to favor brevity, while Gemini responds better to more expansive content. In general, keep pages under 2,000 words, use frequent links, apply strong structure, and include images and lists when relevant.

Read more at Read More

Yoast x WTS Global: SEO is built in community

Yoast x WTS Global: SEO is built in community

Hosts & Guests

What we learn, share, and build together

As part of the WTS Global Week celebrations, join Yoast and Women in Tech SEO for a special online coffee chat celebrating two incredible community milestones: 7 years of WTS and 16 years of Yoast.

SEO has always been more than algorithms, rankings, and updates; it’s built through people sharing ideas, supporting one another, and learning together. In this relaxed and inspiring session, Carolyn Shelby, Samah Nasr, and Areej AbuAli will reflect on the power of community in shaping careers, building confidence, and helping the SEO industry grow into a more collaborative and inclusive space.

Have you ever wondered where SEO professionals really learn beyond courses and documentation? Or how people find mentors, supportive communities, and opportunities to grow in the industry? Maybe you’re just starting out and trying to figure out which resources are actually worth your time.

Together, we’ll talk about how community creates learning opportunities, opens doors for newcomers, and provides the support people need to grow in SEO. Expect practical tips, career insights, honest experiences, and advice for those looking to deepen their involvement in the industry and connect with others in the space.

The session will include a 30-minute community chat followed by a live Q&A with attendees, giving everyone the chance to join the conversation and share their perspectives.

☕ Bring your coffee or tea, questions, and stories; we’d love for you to be part of it.

Event details

  • Duration: 45 mins
  • Live Q&A
  • Free registration
  • Recording available after the session

First upcoming events

SEO for beginners webinar
27 May 2026

Learn the essentials to start SEO confidently and boost your site’s visibility.

HiveMCR 2026
May 21 – 22, 2026

Team Yoast is Speaking, Sponsoring, Yoast Booth at HiveMCR 2026! Click through…


The post Yoast x WTS Global: SEO is built in community appeared first on Yoast.

Read more at Read More

What are AI brand mentions? And how are they different from citations?

You prompt ChatGPT with something, and suddenly your brand name shows up in the response. Sounds like a win, right? But before you share the screenshot with your team, there’s one important question to ask: Is your brand being cited or mentioned?

As AI search and LLM-driven discovery continue to grow, understanding the difference between AI brand mentions and AI citations is becoming increasingly important for SEO and brand visibility. In this article, we’ll break down what AI brand mentions are, how they work, and how they differ from citations.

Since we know you’re excited to celebrate your AI visibility win, let’s get straight into it.

Key takeaways

  • AI brand mentions occur when an AI tool references your brand in responses, while citations support the information with sources
  • Understanding the difference between mentions and citations is crucial for SEO and brand visibility
  • To improve AI mentions, create clear, structured, and extractable content that addresses user queries directly
  • Brands need to build authority through trusted mentions across various platforms to enhance visibility and acceptance by AI systems
  • Both mentions and citations are crucial; mentions help AI identify your relevance, while citations reinforce your credibility

What is an AI brand mention?

An AI brand mention happens when an AI tool references your brand name inside a generated response, recommendation, comparison, or summary. The brand mentions can be either linked (also known as explicit mention) or unlinked (also known as implicit mention).

Here’s an example of ChatGPT’s response to, “What are some of the best WordPress SEO plugins?”

ai brand mention example
ChatGPT mentions Yoast SEO explicitly and implicitly

AI can mention brands in different conversational contexts depending on the user’s query and intent. Here are some of the most common ways AI-generated responses include brand mentions:

Direct recommendations

This happens when AI directly suggests a brand, product, or service as a possible solution to the user’s query. For instance, these mentions typically appear in recommendation-style prompts where users are actively seeking options or tools.

direct ai brand mention

Comparisons

AI may mention brands while comparing products, services, features, pricing, or use cases. In such cases, the brand becomes part of a broader evaluation or decision-making discussion.

brand mention comparison

Examples within answers

Sometimes, AI uses brands as examples to explain concepts, trends, workflows, or industry practices. These mentions help provide context and make the explanation easier for users to understand.

example within answer

Contextual references

Brands can also naturally appear in broader discussions about a topic or industry. These mentions are less promotional and more about establishing topical relevance within the conversation.

contextual brand mention

How do LLMs decide what to mention?

Large language models don’t “choose” brands the way a human would. They generate responses based on patterns, probabilities, and signals they’ve learned over time. When a brand shows up in an AI answer, it’s usually because multiple underlying factors align.

Must read: Go beyond CTR with 6 AI-powered SEO discoverability metrics

Here’s what shapes those mentions:

1. Training data patterns

LLMs learn from vast datasets that show how often certain brands appear alongside specific topics.

When people repeatedly discuss a brand in connection with a particular use case, the model develops a strong association. Over time, this increases the likelihood that the brand will appear in responses to similar queries.

But it’s not just frequency. Context matters just as much.

  • What topics is the brand linked to?
  • What problems does it appear to solve?
  • What other terms show up around it?

Brands that appear across multiple contexts build deeper, more flexible associations. Those with limited or inconsistent mentions struggle to surface.

2. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

Many modern AI systems extend beyond their training data using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). This is where things get more dynamic, and where many brands either gain visibility or disappear entirely.

At a basic level, here’s what changes:

  • Without RAG, the model answers using only what it learned during training
  • With RAG, the system first retrieves relevant information from external or live sources, then passes both the user query and the retrieved content into the model

The model then combines this new information with its existing knowledge to generate a more accurate, up-to-date response.

descriptive diagram of RAG
Descriptive diagram of RAG and training data by Amazon AWS

When a user submits a query, the retrieval system acts as a gatekeeper. It scans indexed sources, such as web pages, documentation, articles, and forums, to find content that best matches the query.

3. Context and semantic understanding

LLMs don’t rely on exact keyword matches. They interpret intent. When someone asks a question, the model maps it to broader concepts and then surfaces brands that fit those meanings.

For example, a query about “tools for remote teams” might connect to:

  • Collaboration
  • Async work
  • Team communication
  • Workflow management

LLMs are more likely to surface brands that consistently associate themselves with these ideas, even if users don’t use the exact phrase. This is where entity clarity becomes critical. If your brand is described differently across sources, the model struggles to understand what you actually do.

Overall, it’s not just about what you say, but how your content connects to related topics. Therefore, linking your brand to relevant concepts, use cases, and terminology helps AI systems understand when your brand is relevant. This is where it helps to semantically link entities to your content, so those relationships are clearer and easier for models to pick up.

4. Authority and cross-source validation

LLMs don’t rely on a single source. They validate information by comparing patterns across multiple sources and weighing the trustworthiness of those sources. When a claim appears consistently across many independent platforms, the model is more confident in including it. If it shows up in only a few places, that confidence drops.

AI systems combine semantic understanding with retrieval signals to assess which sources to trust. This typically includes:

  • Source credibility: Well-known publications, academic content, government sites, and recognized organizations are prioritized
  • Citation patterns: Sources that are frequently referenced by others are treated as more authoritative
  • Recency: More recent information is often weighted higher, especially for fast-changing topics
  • Transparency: Content with clear authorship, dates, and references is considered more reliable

Authority in AI is about being consistently referenced across credible, independent sources. This is why PR, earned media, and third-party mentions play a bigger role in AI visibility than they traditionally did in SEO.

5. Relevance to the query

Before anything else, the model evaluates fit. Even highly authoritative or frequently mentioned brands won’t appear unless they clearly match the user’s intent, such as the use case, audience, or problem being solved.

In simple terms, if your brand isn’t a strong answer to the query, it won’t be included.

When surfacing a brand in answers, AI models may include nuances like:

  • Beginner vs advanced users
  • Budget vs premium solutions
  • Niche vs general use cases

Modern AI systems have shifted from traditional keyword matching to query understanding. They use Natural Language Processing (NLP) to understand the “why” behind the text strings. If explained technically, gen AI converts text queries (prompts) into vectors that allow it to find semantic similarity and return relevant answers.

6. Sentiment and human feedback (RLHF)

LLMs don’t rely solely on training data or web sources. They are continuously improved through human feedback, a process known as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF).

rlhf process overview
Overview of the RLHF process (source: Amazon AWS)

In this process, human evaluators review model responses and guide them based on whether the answers are:

  • Helpful
  • Accurate
  • Safe
  • Trustworthy

How does this affect brand mentions? If a brand is consistently associated with negative sentiment, the model may learn to avoid or deprioritize it. On the other hand, brands that appear in neutral or positive contexts across sources are more likely to be included.

In this way, RLHF acts as a layer that refines raw data signals, aligning brand mentions more closely with quality, trust, and user expectations.

Tips to get more mentions

Getting your brand mentioned in AI answers isn’t a completely new discipline. It closely overlaps with what many now call LLM SEO. If you’ve already been working on visibility, authority, and content quality, you’re on the right track.

Here are a few practical ways to improve your chances of being mentioned:

Publish definitive, extractable resources

Create content that is easy for AI systems to understand and reuse. This means clear definitions, structured explanations, and direct answers rather than long, vague introductions.

For example, a well-structured guide that clearly defines “what is customer data management” with concise sections is far more likely to be picked up than a generic blog post that buries the answer halfway through.

Address evaluative queries

AI assistants often respond to questions like “best tools for X” or “which platform should I choose?” If your content directly addresses these comparisons, you increase your chances of being included.

Like a comparison page, for example, Yoast vs. Rank Math, that explains when your product is better suited than alternatives, it gives the model a clear context to recommend you.

Strengthen authority signals

Mentions across trusted, independent sources significantly improve your visibility. This includes being featured in industry publications, contributing expert insights, or earning mentions in reviews and comparisons.

For example, a brand cited in multiple reputable blogs and reports is more likely to be surfaced than one that only publishes content on its own website.

Keep cornerstone pages current

Freshness plays a key role, especially for topics that evolve quickly. Regularly updating the content of your key pages signals that your information is reliable and up to date. For example, a “best tools” page updated every few months with current data is more likely to be retrieved than one that hasn’t been touched in years.

Broaden entity clarity

Your brand should be consistently described across your website and external platforms. This helps AI systems clearly understand what you do and when to mention you. For example, if your product is always positioned as “project management software for remote teams,” that repeated clarity strengthens your association with that use case.

AI brand mentions vs AI citations

Before sharing the comparison, let me give you a brief overview of citations. AI citations are references that AI systems and search engines include to support the answers they generate.

Citations usually point to a specific source, such as a webpage, report, or article, and credit the source of the information. In many cases, a response can include both a brand mention and a citation at the same time.

ai brand citation and mention example
ChatGPT’s response mentions brands and cites resources to back its answer

Next, let’s see how they are different.

Aspect AI brand mention AI citation
Definition Your brand name appears within the AI-generated response AI attributes information to your content, often with a link or reference
Format Mentioned naturally in text, no link required URL, footnote, or inline source reference
What it signals Brand awareness and category relevance Authority, credibility, and trustworthiness
Impact Builds mindshare and keeps you in the consideration set Acts as proof of expertise and can drive traffic
Traffic potential Indirect, through increased brand recall Direct, via clickable or attributed sources
Frequency More common across most AI responses Less common and more competitive
Where it appears Across most LLMs, even without live web access More common in systems with retrieval or web access
How to optimize PR, earned media, third-party mentions, community presence Create citation-worthy content, structured data, original research
Example “X is a popular CRM software” “According to The Yoast Perspective 2026 report…”

Some takeaways

  • Mentions get you in the conversation. Citations make you the source.
  • Mentions make the AI familiar with your brand. Citations make the AI willing to vouch for it.

In short, the most effective strategy is to optimize for both.

Do citations still matter?

Yes, citations still matter, but they are no longer a standalone strategy.

AI systems still use citations as supporting signals to validate information, confirm credibility, and discover trustworthy sources. When multiple reputable websites reference the same brand or source, it reinforces trust and helps AI systems verify the information’s reliability.

While both mentions and citations matter, mentions currently carry more weight for relevance and AI visibility. Citations still help reinforce authority and trust, but mentions give AI systems richer contextual signals about where a brand fits, how often it appears in conversations, and why it matters within a topic.

How to achieve citations and mentions both?

Brands that consistently appear in relevant conversations while publishing credible content are more likely to earn both mentions and citations. Here are some easy strategies that you can follow:

Create mention-worthy content

The easiest way to earn both mentions and citations is to publish content people naturally want to reference. This includes thought leadership, original research, unique insights, industry commentary, and practical resources that add real value. When your content contributes something new to the conversation, it becomes easier for journalists, creators, communities, and AI systems to pick it up.

Focus on contextual brand mentions

AI systems pay attention to how and where your brand is discussed. Mentions across community discussions, industry blogs, PR coverage, podcasts, forums, and trend-based conversations help reinforce your relevance within a topic. The goal is not just visibility, but also appearing consistently in meaningful, context-rich discussions.

Build credibility for citations

If you want more citations, credibility becomes essential. AI systems are more likely to reference content that demonstrates strong expertise and trustworthiness. This is where principles like E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) become important.

AI brand mentions vs. citations: FAQs

While mentions help AI systems recognize and associate your brand with specific topics, citations strengthen trust and authority by validating your content as a reliable source.

The reality is that both work together. Brands that consistently appear in relevant conversations while publishing credible, high-quality content are far more likely to strengthen their AI visibility over time.

Here are some common questions around AI brand mentions and citations:

Are citations and backlinks the same?

Not exactly. Backlinks are traditional SEO links that point from one website to another, mainly to help search engines understand authority and ranking signals. AI citations, on the other hand, are references AI systems use to support or validate the answers they generate. While citations can include links, their primary role is attribution and trust rather than passing ranking value. For a deeper understanding, read AI citations vs backlinks.

If a brand is mentioned, will it be cited too?

Not always. A brand can be mentioned in an AI response without being directly cited as a source. This usually happens because AI systems often recognize brands through repeated contextual mentions across the web, even when they are not using that brand’s content as the primary supporting source for the answer.

Why should businesses focus on both mentions and citations from AI?

Mentions and citations support different aspects of AI visibility. Mentions help AI systems understand where your brand fits within a topic, while citations reinforce authority and trust.

How to track both mentions and citations for my brand?

Tracking AI visibility manually across platforms can quickly become difficult. Tools like Yoast SEO AI+ help brands monitor how they appear across AI-driven search experiences. With AI Brand Insights, you can track mentions, citations, and overall brand presence across AI platforms to better understand where your visibility is growing and where opportunities exist to improve your AI brand visibility using Yoast AI Brand Insights.

The post What are AI brand mentions? And how are they different from citations? appeared first on Yoast.

Read more at Read More

How to Create an AI Visibility Report with Writesonic

Key Takeaways

  • An AI visibility report tracks how often your brand is cited across AI-generated responses. Think of it as a companion to your SEO reporting, not a replacement for it.
  • Your tracked prompt set is the foundation of every number Writesonic shows you. If you don’t understand what those prompts cover, you’ll misread your data.
  • Portfolios organize your tracked URLs by content type. Get this set up early and keep it updated as new content goes live.
  • Citation data is inherently noisy. A single-period dip rarely means anything. A sustained two-to-three-month trend does.
  • The Action Center is where the quick wins live. Use it to find pages with citation visibility gaps and start closing them.

Here’s something that should keep marketers up at night: your buyers are researching purchases in ChatGPT and Perplexity, and most brands have no idea whether they’re showing up in those answers.

That gap is exactly what an AI visibility report is built to close. It tells you how often your brand gets cited in AI-generated responses, which pages are driving those citations, and where competitors are outperforming you in the moments that matter most.

Writesonic has one of the more practical toolsets for building this kind of reporting. But I want to make one thing clear: I’m not trying to do a review of the platform. This is a working guide for content teams that need to get this reporting off the ground and want to understand what the data actually means before they put it in front of a client or a leadership team.

Why AI Visibility Reporting Matters for Marketing Teams

Buyers don’t just Google things anymore. A growing portion of them open ChatGPT, type a question, and act on whatever comes back. Salesforce research found that 41 percent of consumers used AI tools as part of their research process in 2024. That number has only grown since.

If your brand isn’t being cited in those responses, you’re losing potential customers.

AI visibility reporting helps you understand not just if you appear, but which topics you’re being cited for, how that’s changing over time, and who’s beating you in the answers your buyers are reading.

Where this fits in your stack matters, too. AI visibility reporting isn’t a replacement for organic search analytics or conversion data, but an added signal. This tells you whether AI systems find your content credible enough to surface. Teams that treat it as a complement to their larger organic strategy get more out of it than those trying to use it standalone.

The two questions it should help you answer: Are we showing up where buyers are actually looking? And if not, what do we fix first?

Understanding Your Prompt Set Before You Report on Anything

Every number in Writesonic traces back to your tracked prompt set. These are the specific questions the platform monitors across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and other AI tools to see whether your content gets cited in the response.

Get this wrong, and everything downstream looks worse than it is.

The platform assigns default topic labels to clusters of prompts. Those labels are usually broad. A marketing blog running this kind of reporting might see their prompt topics labeled “content marketing” and “digital marketing.” Both are accurate but they are closely related terms that cover a huge swathe of subtopics. Due to the lack of specificity, you may encounter issues building and reporting on AI visibility if you only rely on the pre-populated topic list.  

Image related to How to Create an AI Visibility Report with Writesonic

Here’s what works better: export the full prompt list, drop it into an AI tool, and ask it to summarize the underlying themes, intent types, and audience categories. That same marketing agency’s list of 100 prompts might actually break into much more specific themes, like Organic & search visibility, Paid media & SEM, and Email & conversion.  

Image related to How to Create an AI Visibility Report with Writesonic

The screenshot above is a portion of Claude’s output when I asked it to perform this exercise. As you can see, there’s a lot more information here to guide our content reporting (and creation). Not only do we have a clearer idea of the GEO content pillars we’re tracking against, but also the audience and intent for each category.   

This type of output influences how you read everything else. If you find that your prompt set skews heavily toward one audience, your citation numbers for content aimed at a different audience will look artificially low. You can’t treat this as losing ground.  You’re just being measured against prompts that page was never written for. 

The practical rule: only report on content that genuinely aligns with your tracked prompt themes. Flagging low citation share on a page that serves a completely different audience creates confusion in client reports. Know your prompt set first, then interpret your data.

To pull the list, navigate to the Prompts section and use the export option. Fifteen minutes of AI-assisted theme analysis is worth doing before you touch anything else.

Setting Up Portfolios to Track Your Content Over Time

Portfolios are folders. They allow you to organize the URLs you’re tracking by content type so you can report on categories rather than hunting down individual pages every time you pull a report.

The Portfolio section of Writesonic.

Source

Create them early and keep them simple. At minimum, you want separate portfolios for blog posts, core website pages, and comprehensive guides. If your client has distinct product lines or service areas, break those out too.

The part that really matters is the workflow. As soon as a new piece of content goes live, add the URL to its portfolio. Teams that skip this step spend far too much time during reporting cycles searching for pages that should have been tracked from day one. Make it part of the implementation process: publish, review, then add to portfolio. 

One thing worth knowing: portfolios aren’t limited to your own content. You can add competitor URLs and track their citation performance in the same view. That’s useful when you need to show a client exactly where a competitor is outpacing them on a specific topic, without having to cross-reference separate reports mid-meeting.

How to Report on a Single Piece of Content

The path is: Overview > Citations > Content Performance. Set your date range and filter by URL slug.

Image related to How to Create an AI Visibility Report with Writesonic

You’ll mainly want to look at Citation Count or Citing Answers, which are how many times that page was cited across all tracked prompts in the selected period. 

If you look at Citation Share, the number may appear small. That’s because this view measures a single page’s citation contribution across your entire prompt set, not just the prompts that are relevant to what the page covers. A tightly focused blog post will naturally have limited citation surface area relative to the full prompt universe you’re tracking.

Second, pay attention to the prompts the page is and more importantly, is not being cited for. You can see the full prompt set by clicking on the number in the ‘Answers citing your content’ tab. In this case, I clicked on the 100.  

You’ll then be taken to the All Prompts & Answers view, where you can see which prompts and platforms are surfacing your content and which ones are not.  

Image related to How to Create an AI Visibility Report with Writesonic

If a page is ranking well for some prompts but missing others that closely match its content, those gaps are actionable. Adding a structured FAQ section or a more direct answer to a specific question can sometimes close them — and that’s something Writesonic can help you generate. 

Third, be careful with month-over-month comparisons. A single dip is not a signal. LLM citation patterns shift constantly as models update and competitive content changes. Before treating a decrease as a problem, remove the comparison period and look at a three-to-four-month trend line instead. A trough followed by recovery is a very different story than a genuine sustained decline.

When you do see a real downward trend, don’t touch the content first. Cross-reference with your SEO data and generative engine optimization metrics. Often, the issue is external, like a model update, and editing the content won’t fix it.

Reporting Content Categories with Portfolios

Another useful feature inside Writesonic is the ability to report on content performance at the portfolio level, not just the page level. 

To access it, navigate to Overview > Page Tracker > Portfolios. If you’ve organized portfolios by content type, topic cluster, service area, or funnel stage, this view gives you a meaningful way to evaluate how a group of pages is collectively performing in AI-generated answers.

This matters because page-level reporting only tells you so much. When you’re managing a content program at scale, you need to be able to say, “our informational content about hotel amenities is being cited regularly” or “our location-based pages are getting picked up but not driving brand mentions.” Portfolios let you have that conversation at the category level, which is how most content strategies are built and how most stakeholders think about performance.

Two metrics worth understanding here are citation share and visibility contribution.

Visibilty contribution and citation share in Writesonic.

Citation share tells you what percentage of all AI answers cite at least one page from that portfolio. Think of it as reach for that content category. A 1.6% citation share, like the example above, means those pages appeared in roughly 660 out of 40,000 tracked answers. Reported at the portfolio level, this becomes a concrete benchmark you can share: how often AI tools are drawing from this type of content, and how that’s trending over time.

Visibility contribution is a layer deeper. It measures the percentage of your brand’s total AI visibility that comes from pages in that portfolio being cited alongside a brand mention. It tells you which content categories are driving brand recognition in AI answers, not just traffic or citations. A portfolio with strong visibility contribution means your content and your brand name are appearing together in AI responses, which is the outcome you’re optimizing for.

Together, these two metrics help you go beyond vanity reporting and start answering the questions clients and stakeholders actually care about: Is this content working? Are people seeing our brand name? Which content categories should we double down on, and which need attention?

If a portfolio has solid citation share but low visibility contribution, AI tools are referencing those pages frequently but not associating them with your brand. That’s a signal to look at how clearly your brand is represented within the content itself. If a portfolio is underperforming on both, that’s a prioritization conversation. And if a portfolio is driving strong numbers on both, that’s proof-of-concept worth scaling.

Understanding Volatility: What’s Signal and What’s Noise?

LLM citation data is noisy by nature. This isn’t a Writesonic-specific problem. It’s how these models work. AI citation drift, where sources shift in and out of responses as models retrain, re-rank sources, or adjust sampling, has been documented across platforms. Research from SISTRIX shows citation sources can change significantly week over week, even when the underlying content is untouched.

One data point tells you almost nothing. The question is always whether you’re looking at a trend or a snapshot.

Citations in Writesonic over a two-month span.

For example, look at the graph above. This shows the number of citations a page has over a two-month span. As you can see, there are several peaks and valleys, even within the span of a few days. However, if you were to draw a trend line, the result would be relatively flat and even increase a bit towards the end of the second month. 

That’s why it’s important to remember that a one-period decrease is not a call to action. A consistent downward pattern over two to three months is worth digging into. Before you touch any content, pull SEO performance and AI Overview impression data for the same window. If organic traffic is stable and AI Overview appearances are flat, the Writesonic dip is most likely a model or sampling artifact.

This is worth saying explicitly to leadership and clients. AI visibility reporting is newer and messier than traditional SEO reporting. Setting that expectation upfront builds credibility. Trying to explain unexpected volatility after the fact does the opposite.

What Writesonic Can’t Tell You

Transparency on limitations makes reporting more credible, not less.

As mentioned earlier, Writesonic tracks a defined prompt set, not every AI query relevant to your category. Your citation numbers reflect performance within that sample. That distinction matters when someone asks why results look lower than expected. The tracked set may simply not cover the full range of queries where your content performs well.

Other things to be aware of include:

Prompt volume isn’t search volume. AI platforms don’t publish query data the way Google does. Estimating how many times people search specific prompts in platforms like ChatGPT requires multiple data sources, a scoring methodology, and sampled user data. That means LLM prompt volume should always be taken with a grain of salt, no matter what AI visibility platform you’re using.

Citation change versus buyer behavior. A drop in citations might reflect a model update or a competitor adding a stronger page. It doesn’t necessarily mean fewer buyers are encountering your brand. Separating those two things requires additional data sources like conversion tracking, qualitative research, or broader competitive analysis.

Competitive visibility outside the tracked set. You can see how competitors are performing within your prompt set. You can’t see how they’re performing in AI queries you aren’t tracking at all.

For each gap, the fix is the same: layer in additional signals. Use organic performance, GEO and AEO analysis alongside broader competitive research to paint the full picture. Writesonic works best as one input among several, not as a standalone source of truth.

Using Quick Wins to Improve AI Visibility Now

The Action Center is where the most immediately actionable reporting lives. Navigate to Action Center > Boost Content Visibility > Refresh existing content for AI visibility to find existing pages where competitors are being cited more often than you for the same prompts.

Suggestions from Writesonic to refresh existing content for AI visibiilty.

These are your quick wins. The pages themselves usually aren’t the problem; they’re just missing specific structural elements that AI models tend to pull from. Common recommendations from the platform include FAQ sections, comparison tables, and explicit key takeaway sections. These signal to large language models (LLMs) that a page directly answers a specific question and improves your chances of being cited.

Writesonic will generate draft versions of those elements for you. Use them as a starting point, not a final output. Editorial judgment still applies. Not every recommendation fits every page. A conversion-focused product page probably shouldn’t get a sprawling FAQ section that complicates the user journey, even if the data suggests it would improve citation share.

Generated AI content in Writesonic.

This module is particularly useful at campaign kick-off. Teams can surface concrete page improvements in the first few weeks while the broader strategy is still being developed, giving clients something tangible early.

New Content Opportunities in the Action Center

Beyond refreshing existing pages, the Action Center also identifies topics where competitors are earning citations, and you have no content covering them at all.

Navigate to Action Center > Boost Content Visibility > Create content inspired by competitors winning in AI citations for this view. The recommendations here are about where to create new pages or blog posts, not about tweaking what you have. If a competitor is consistently cited on a topic that aligns with your tracked prompt themes and your site has nothing on it, that’s a real gap in your AI visibility coverage, and a direct input for your content calendar.

Suggested content ideas from Writesonic.

Review this section at least quarterly alongside your standard keyword research. The two often point in the same direction.

FAQs

What KPIs matter for executive AI visibility reporting?

Lead with citation share trend direction over a rolling 90-day period, not raw citation counts. Raw numbers require too much context without supporting data. Showing category-level performance for priority topics, plus specific wins and gaps, lands better in executive reporting than a single number that needs a two-paragraph explanation.

How do you create reports showing brand visibility in AI platforms?

Use Writesonic’s Content Performance and Page Tracker views to pull citation data by URL and topic. Present directional trends and be explicit about what your prompt set covers.

How do you report AI search visibility to leadership?

Frame AI visibility as one signal alongside organic search, not a standalone metric. Show specific wins (pages gaining citation share) alongside gaps, and tie recommendations directly to business priorities. Explain volatility upfront so a single-period dip doesn’t derail an entire reporting session.

Where can you find AI visibility reports with sentiment analysis?

Writesonic includes sentiment indicators alongside citation data. You can dig deeper into how your brand is being discussed on LLMs by navigating to Overview, then the Sentiment dashboard under Brand Visibility. 

Conclusion

Most teams that struggle with AI visibility reporting don’t have a data problem. They have an interpretation problem. The numbers look strange, the volatility is hard to explain, and it’s difficult to know what to act on.

Writesonic helps with that, but only if you come in with the right expectations. Know what your prompt set covers. Organize your portfolios from the start. Read citation data as a directional trend, not a precise scorecard. Use the Action Center to find the generative engine optimization improvements most likely to move the needle quickly. Teams that build these habits now will be ahead of the curve as AI-driven search grows and the tools mature. 

Read more at Read More

Web Design and Development San Diego

A new resource for optimizing for generative AI in Google Search

As people increasingly gravitate to generative AI experiences and find information in new ways,
we’re publishing a new resource to help website owners, SEOs, and developers understand how to
optimize their content for appearance in generative AI features in Search, and in turn Google
Search overall.

Read more at Read More

Ubersuggest Keyword Ideas: What the Data Actually Tells You

Key Takeaways

  • Keyword volume is one signal, not the full story. It tells you that demand exists, but not where it lives, how it’s being answered, or whether your brand is part of the conversation.
  • The Ubersuggest keyword tool and Answer the Public now pull data from Google, Bing, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Amazon, giving you a multi-platform view of where your audience is actually searching.
  • AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini generate answers, not link lists. Ubersuggest’s AI Search Visibility feature tracks whether your brand appears in those answers and how your visibility compares to competitors.
  • Ubersuggest’s global keyword data lets you identify regions where demand already exists for your product or service, so you can prioritize expansion instead of guessing.
  • The highest-value content opportunities sit at the intersection of strong multi-platform demand and low brand visibility. Knowing where that gap is tells you exactly where to focus.

Search is no longer a single-channel game. For a long time, SEO meant one thing: get found on Google. But Google’s own SVP Prabhakar Raghavan noted that roughly 40 percent of young people now turn to TikTok and Instagram for searches instead of Google, a number that’s only likely to grow over time. 

Add ChatGPT, Gemini, YouTube, and other rising channels on top of that, and the picture becomes clear: keyword volume alone can’t tell you where demand actually lives, how it’s being answered, or whether your brand is part of the conversation.

The good news is that Ubersuggest is a great tool to help you adapt to this shift. I’ll cover here how Ubersuggest keyword ideas data actually surfaces, and how to layer multiple signals into a strategy built for the way search works today.

What Keyword Data Actually Tells You (And What It Doesn’t)

Keyword research is still the foundation of any solid content strategy. Search volume tells you how much interest exists around a topic. Keyword difficulty helps you gauge how competitive that space is. Search intent tells you what kind of content actually fits the query. All of that is genuinely useful, and none of it is going away.

But traditional keyword data was built for a world where Google was the only game in town. That world doesn’t exist anymore.

A user today might search “best email marketing tool” on Google, watch comparison videos on YouTube, follow threads on Reddit, scroll TikTok for creator recommendations, and then ask ChatGPT for a final opinion before choosing a product. Each of those touchpoints is a moment of demand. Most keyword research tools only capture one of them.

The practical result: you can have a well-optimized piece ranking on page one for a target keyword and still be invisible to a significant chunk of your audience. That’s not a traffic problem you can fix by adjusting your meta tags.

Two questions worth asking before you build any content plan:

  • Where does demand for this topic actually live across platforms?
  • Is my brand showing up when people ask AI tools about this subject?

Ubersuggest addresses both. Here’s how each capability works.

How the Ubersuggest Keyword Tool and Answer the Public Surface Multi-Platform Demand

If you used Answer the Public a few years ago, it was a visualization tool that pulled suggestions from Google Autocomplete. Useful, but limited to one platform.

Image related to Ubersuggest Keyword Ideas: What the Data Actually Tells You

That’s no longer what it is. Answer the Public (now integrated with the Ubersuggest keyword generator) pulls keyword and hashtag data from Google, Bing, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. That’s a meaningful shift. You’re not just seeing what people type into a search bar anymore. You’re seeing what they watch, hashtag, and shop for across the platforms where they actually spend their time.

Here’s what that looks like in practice. Enter a broad keyword like “marketing” and select a platform.

Answer the Public platform selector showing Google, Bing, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram options
Answer the Public platform selector showing Google, Bing, Amazon, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram options

Switch to Instagram and you’ll see the hashtags your audience is actively using around that topic. Switch to TikTok and you get a keyword wheel showing what creators and users are searching within the app.

The Ubersuggest platform
The AnswerThePublic flywheel mode.

You can also compare how results shift over time, which tells you whether interest in a topic is growing or fading on a specific platform. That matters for content planning. A keyword might have modest Google search volume but strong TikTok traction, which is a signal that short-form video would outperform a blog post for that topic. You’d never see that from Google data alone.

For content teams, this changes the planning conversation. Rather than asking “what should we write?” you start asking “what format and platform does this topic actually call for?” That’s a more useful question, and it leads to content that actually reaches people where they’re searching. For a closer look at using the two tools together, see how to use Answer the Public with Ubersuggest.

The AI Search Layer: What Ubersuggest’s AI Visibility Data Shows You

Multi-platform keyword data covers where demand lives across traditional and social search. AI Search Visibility covers something different: whether your brand shows up when AI tools answer questions in your category.

The distinction matters more than it might seem. When someone asks ChatGPT “what’s the best CRM for a small sales team?” they don’t get ten blue links to evaluate. They get a generated answer. Your brand is either mentioned in that answer or it isn’t. There’s no page-two for AI responses.

This is the core challenge of AI search: it’s not about ranking, it’s about being cited. And right now, most brands have no systematic way to know whether they’re being cited at all.

Ubersuggest’s AI Search Visibility feature is built to solve that. It runs repeated queries across AI platforms, aggregates the results, and gives you a clear, data-backed picture of how often your brand appears in AI-generated responses for your most important topics. One AI response is a data point. Hundreds of responses is a pattern.

The feature surfaces four key metrics:

  • Brand Visibility %: How often your brand is mentioned across aggregated AI responses for relevant prompts.
  • Industry Rank: Where you sit relative to competitors in your space.
  • Top Prompts table: The specific questions and prompts where your brand does and doesn’t appear in AI answers.
  • Competitor Visibility trend chart: How competitors’ AI presence is changing over time.
Ubersuggest's AI search visibility function.
Ubersuggest's Top Brand Visibility function.

A note on variability: AI responses are inherently inconsistent. Ask the same question twice and you may get a different answer, different brand mentions, or a different level of detail. That’s normal, and it’s exactly why aggregating data across hundreds of repeated queries gives a more reliable read than spot-checking a single response on a given day.

One of the most actionable outputs from this feature is the Top Prompts table. It tells you which specific AI search prompts are driving brand visibility in your category, and which prompts your competitors are dominating without you. Those gaps are your content brief.

Ubersuggest's Top Prompts Function

Ubersuggest’s AI visibility features are built to cut through that noise, aggregating responses at scale so your visibility score reflects a real pattern rather than a single snapshot. This is the piece of Ubersuggest keyword research that most marketers haven’t built into their workflow yet. The window to get ahead of competitors here is still open, but it won’t be for long.

Going Global: Using Ubersuggest Data Across Markets

Expanding into new markets is one of the highest-leverage growth moves a brand can make, and one of the most expensive to get wrong. NP Digital now operates in 19 countries, and that growth wasn’t built on guesswork. It came from identifying where demand already existed and going after the regions with the clearest signal first.

Ubersuggest’s global keyword data makes that analysis accessible without a research team. Type any keyword into the Ubersuggest keyword tool, run a search, and filter by country. You’ll see where search volume for your topic is concentrated across global markets.

The insight here is about prioritization. You don’t need to tackle every market at once. You need to find the markets where demand already exists for what you offer, because those are the ones where content and campaigns can work with the grain of existing intent rather than trying to create it from scratch.

Layer in the city-level targeting from AI Search Visibility and you get a second useful data point: not just where people are searching, but where your brand is (or isn’t) showing up in localized AI responses. A market might have strong keyword volume and competitors with high AI visibility, or it might have strong volume and very little AI presence from anyone, which is a wide-open opportunity. That combination turns global expansion strategy from a gut call into a data-backed decision.

For most brands, the low-hanging fruit is closer than it looks. Start by running your core keywords through the global filter and see which regions surface demand you’re currently not serving.

How to Put It All Together

The data points covered above aren’t meant to live in separate tabs. Here’s how to run them as a single workflow.

Step one: map where demand lives.

Use the Ubersuggest keyword tool and Answer the Public to build a multi-platform picture of your topic. Pull keyword volume from Google and Bing, but don’t stop there. Check TikTok and Instagram data for hashtag and creator trends. Check YouTube for video search volume. Check Amazon if your category has a commerce angle. You’re mapping where your audience is actively searching, not just where you’ve historically published.

Step two: audit your AI search presence.

For the topics where you’ve found strong demand, run them through AI Search Visibility. Which prompts is your brand appearing for? Which ones are competitors owning? The Top Prompts table will show you both. If your competitors are consistently cited for a topic your brand should own, that’s a content and PR gap. If nobody in your space is showing up consistently, that’s a first-mover opportunity.

Step three: close the gaps.

The highest-value content opportunities sit where demand is real and brand visibility is low. Those are the topics to build content around, earn citations for, and develop PR relationships that put your brand in front of journalists and creators who influence what AI models learn over time. Publishing more isn’t the goal. Publishing the right content, on the right platforms, on the topics where you’re currently invisible, is.

This framework is repeatable. Run it quarterly as your AI search visibility data evolves and as platform demand shifts. The brands that build this into their routine workflow will compound their advantage over time. For a broader foundation on getting the most out of the platform, the Ubersuggest guide is the right place to start.

FAQs

How accurate is Ubersuggest?

Ubersuggest pulls from multiple sources, including Google’s keyword planner data, to provide search volume estimates. Like any keyword tool, these are estimates rather than exact figures. For most strategy decisions, they’re directionally reliable. For AI Search Visibility, reliability is stronger because the tool aggregates data across hundreds of repeated AI queries rather than relying on a single response, which smooths out the inherent variability of AI-generated answers.

How does Ubersuggest work?

Ubersuggest combines keyword research, site audit tools, competitive analysis, and AI visibility tracking in one platform. For traditional keyword data, it pulls from search engine databases to surface volume, difficulty scores, and related terms. For AI visibility, it runs repeated queries across tools like ChatGPT and Gemini, aggregates the results, and shows how often your brand appears in those AI-generated responses compared to competitors.

How do I use Ubersuggest for keyword research?

Head to app.neilpatel.com, enter a keyword, and review the volume, keyword difficulty score, and related term suggestions. From there, you can filter by country for global demand data, use the Content Ideas tab to see which topics are already performing well in your space, or switch over to Answer the Public to pull platform-specific data from TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Amazon alongside traditional search engines.

Conclusion

To do marketing well in today’s world, you need to optimize for multiple platforms and regions.

SEO is no longer just a “Google” game. You must optimize for YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, ChatGPT, and all the other platforms your users use.

On top of that, you should look to expand globally.

Now, it’s too hard to tackle every country, but go after the low-hanging fruit first. What other countries have demand for your products and services? Those are the countries worth considering to move into next.

Read more at Read More

Top AI SEO Agencies for Longevity Brands

Your longevity brand has peer-reviewed research, clinically backed products, and deep educational content covering NAD+ protocols, biomarker-driven interventions, and cellular […]

The post Top AI SEO Agencies for Longevity Brands appeared first on Onely.

Read more at Read More

Google Ads adds Gemini-powered dashboards for real-time insights

In Google Ads automation, everything is a signal in 2026

Google is bringing Gemini into Google Ads dashboards, aiming to make data analysis more interactive, visual and accessible.

What’s happening. Google Ads is rolling out a new Dashboards feature that lets advertisers explore performance data using charts, graphs and tables, powered by Gemini.

Users can customise views simply by typing prompts, with the dashboard updating in real time based on their queries.

Why we care. Data analysis in Google Ads has traditionally required manual setup and navigation across reports.

This update shifts that workflow toward a more conversational model, where advertisers ask questions and get instant visual answers.

Zoom in. Dashboards will display key metrics like impressions, clicks, video views and cost, alongside visual breakdowns of performance across devices, audiences and campaign types.

The goal is to give advertisers a clearer, faster way to understand what’s happening in their accounts.

What to watch. How widely advertisers adopt prompt-based reporting, and whether this reduces reliance on custom-built reports and external analytics tools.

What’s next. Google says more details will be shared at Google Marketing Live.

Bottom line. Google is turning reporting into a conversation — using AI to help advertisers get answers faster and act on them sooner.

Read more at Read More

The delegation boundary: How AI decides which brands win

The delegation boundary- How AI decides which brands win

The AI engine pipeline runs 10 gates from discovered through won.

  • Discovered is the bot finding your page. Alongside selected, crawled, rendered, and indexed, those five infrastructure gates get you legible to the machine. 
  • Annotated, recruited, grounded, and displayed are the four competitive gates where the algorithm decides whether your brand is the brand it’s prepared to put in front of a buyer. 
  • Won is the gate that pays for everything: the click happens, the recommendation lands, and the agent transacts.

Won has changed beyond recognition in the last 24 months. It used to mean a click on a search result, the human doing the picking, the brand competing for attention against nine blue links. It still means that, sometimes.

It can also mean an assistive engine naming your brand to a user who accepts the recommendation. Or it can mean an Agent transacting on the user’s behalf.

All of this is about delegation: how much we delegate to machines, and when. Delegation in the context of search and AI is far from new. We’ve delegated “finding the books to the librarian” since AltaVista.

What’s new is that the boundary of what and where we delegate is now flexible: the user can hand more of the journey to the engine than ever before, and the brand that wants to win has to be ready for every option on the delegation spectrum.

What hasn’t changed: The point of search

Search according to Sergey Brin

Underneath the three mechanisms sits the same commercial truth that’s been the point of search since Sergey Brin first articulated it: get the user to the best solution to their problem as efficiently as possible.

AI hasn’t changed the point of search. AI assistive engines and agents simply get the user to the best solution to their problem significantly more efficiently than search: a 15-minute purchase journey through ChatGPT that would have taken a week through traditional Search. In essence, AI removes an enormous amount of friction inherent in search.

The delegation boundary is the line between what the user does for themselves and what they hand to the engine. The further the user pushes it toward the engine, the less work the user does, and the faster won arrives. The further the user holds it back, the longer won takes.

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

Semrush One Logo

From problem to purchase in 15 minutes with ChatGPT

I’m a double bass player, and I have a huge bass amp in my living room. I also have a guitar my father gave me when I was 18, which I’ve never played much, because I became a professional double bass player in the 1990s, so the guitar has lived as a keepsake for most of its life.

A few months back, I got an offer to play a solo gig at the jazz club opposite my flat. I had a guitar, but no guitar amp, and I didn’t want to buy a guitar amp for one gig. I figured I could just use the bass amp.

Here’s my conversation with ChatGPT:

  • Me: Can I play guitar through my bass amp? Will I break it?
  • ChatGPT: No, you won’t break it. But it’ll sound terrible.
  • Me: How do I make it sound good?
  • ChatGPT: Three pedals: reverb, compression, equalization.
  • Me: Which ones?
  • ChatGPT: Boss, JHS, TC Electronic.
  • Me: Price?
  • ChatGPT: Around $250 for the set.
  • Me: Cheaper. I’m more of a singer than guitarist.
  • ChatGPT: I can get you there for $125.
  • Me: I need delivery by Friday, guaranteed. Saturday gig.
  • ChatGPT: Thomann in Europe, Sweetwater in the US. Both will hit Friday.
  • Me: Europe.
  • ChatGPT: [Thomann link]
  • Me: Clicks. Buys.

The Google team specifically asked me to make this point in the keynote, and I want to land it here too because they care about it for a reason most marketers haven’t worked out yet.

The engine made decisions for me all the way down the funnel. It decided whether the question even had an answer, which pedals were worth shortlisting at which price tier, and who could meet a Friday deadline.

My delegation boundary sat at the perfect click. ChatGPT owned the entire research-and-recommendation funnel. I owned the buy button, and only because Thomann doesn’t yet have an agential checkout. If they had, the agent would have transacted while I was making coffee.

The point isn’t that the funnel compressed from a week to fifteen minutes. The point is what happened inside the compression: the engine made dozens of small decisions on my behalf, each one quietly closing off options that might otherwise have stayed open. 

A different engine might have surfaced different brands, recommended a different price tier, or picked a different supplier. The brand that wins isn’t the one the user chose. It’s the one that survived every one of those upstream decisions the engine made before the user ever saw a recommendation.

Two things put my boundary that far to the right. 

  • Emotional weight: The pedals just needed to be good enough, not perfect. 
  • Domain expertise: I’m not a guitarist. I have no opinions about boutique pedal brands. The comparison work a serious guitarist would relish is friction I’d happily have someone else do.

A working professional would have approached the same purchase entirely differently. A studio musician whose tone is their living would have gone into the shop, plugged the pedals in, and decided in the room. A geeky enthusiast would have spent the week on Reverb forums comparing JHS to Strymon to Walrus, because for them, the research is the fun, the comparing is the point.

The point here is that you have the same purchase made by three buyer personas, each with a completely different position on the delegation boundary, and Thomann needs to be ready to win all three.

I’ve bought over €2,000 of equipment from Thomann since.

The single-mode assumption is dead, three modes coexist now

For two decades, “optimize for search” was the whole of the job: get in the top 10 and win the click at each stage of the funnel. Exhausting work, and it’s no longer enough.

That single approach has been replaced with three modes running in parallel. Search hasn’t gone anywhere. It just has assistive and agential sitting alongside as alternatives for all or part of the journey for each use.

The search, assistive and agent delegation modes
  • Search tolerates a fuzzy or unclear brand because the human will do the sorting. 
  • Assistive tolerates less of it, because the AI is recommending you to the user, and the AI’s credibility is on the line every time it uses your name. 
  • Agent tolerates none of it, because the agent transacts without asking, and a fuzzy brand is exactly the kind of risk the agent will quietly route around, and the user will never know.

Won looks different in each mode. 

  • In search, won is the click, and then the user finishes the journey on your site, and you need to deal with friction (objections, questions, and clarifications). 
  • In assistive, won is the AI engine naming you and the user accepting the name without further verification, and so most of the friction has already been dealt with. 
  • In agent, won is the transaction completed without anyone consulting the user, friction reduced to zero from the user’s point of view.

The pedal-buying journey sat at the assistive end, and could have been at the agential end. The professional studio musician sits at the search end. The geeky enthusiast sits at the search end too, because for him, the friction is the entertainment.

Get the newsletter search marketers rely on.


The delegation boundary moves with every purchase, person, and culture

A user might delegate a coffee order to an agent without thinking, ask an assistive engine for advice on a kitchen renovation but make the final supplier call themselves, then spend an hour happily window-shopping for a bracelet that’s “just what I always wanted.” Same person, same week, three positions on the boundary, and all three engines doing useful work.

The AI engine delegation boundary in motion

The diagram shows that one person sets the delegation boundary at completely different positions depending on the purchase. A wedding venue lives at the far left of search mode, because the decision is emotional and irreversible, and you wouldn’t want AI to make that journey for you. 

A few notches to the right, still in search mode, you’ve got someone who’s a sock collector and is window-shopping the listings because the choosing is the point. Further right, still in search mode but inching toward assistive, you’ve got the strategic business contract where only the human holds the strategic context that the AI doesn’t have access to.

Cross over into assistive mode, and you’ve got the holiday I’m planning, where I’m asking the AI for advice but cross-checking through search to challenge the results before I commit. A notch further right, still inside assistive mode, you’ve got the kitchen renovation where I’m taking the AI’s advice on what’s possible, but I’m picking the supplier myself, because the supplier relationship is one I’m going to live with for years.

Cross again into agent mode, and you’ve got the holiday I already know: the agent books the cheapest familiar hotel without consulting me, because I’ve stayed there before and it’ll be fine. 

Further right, the pragmatic sock purchase where I just need the right pair in the right size by Tuesday, and the brand doesn’t matter a great deal. And right at the far end, the taxi from A to B, where I genuinely don’t think about it, the agent picks the ride, the agent pays, and I get to my destination with zero fuss or thought.

Same person, eight different positions on the boundary. The variability is the whole AAO game: you have to have a strategy that will win the click at every stage across the Delegation Boundary. The boundary tracks risk, human preference, emotional weight, reversibility, and a half-dozen other things.

You have to wrap that into your strategy on top of the cascading confidence, the 10 gates, the entity home, the push-layer entry modes, the framing gap, and the funnel flip this series has been piling up since February 2026.

7 factors tell you where the delegation boundary sits in your category

Score yourself against seven broad factors (and add your own, if you like):

  • Emotional weight: The more the purchase touches identity, family, or values, the harder to delegate.
  • Domain expertise required: The more specialized the decision, the more users either delegate fully (because they know they don’t know) or refuse to delegate (because they think they do).
  • Price relative to income: A $2 coffee delegates easily, a $20,000 car doesn’t.
  • Purchase frequency: Habitual purchases delegate readily, one-offs need scrutiny.
  • Reversibility: Returnable goods delegate easily, wedding venues don’t.
  • Regulatory context: Financial, medical, and legal categories carry compliance constraints.
  • Cultural context: Trust in agents varies by market and demographic.

Evaluate your category and you get a credible read of where your audience sits, how much friction they’re willing to hand to the engine, and where you need to focus your work. You’ve also done something less obvious, but even more important than scoring: you’ve grouped your audience by behavior at the decision moment rather than by demographic or category labels.

For two decades, we built paid and organic strategies based on how humans see the world: by category, by demographic, by geography. In Google Ads, five-star hotels in Bali went in one ad group, hostels in Bali in another, and five-star hotels in Thailand in a third, because that’s how a marketer thinks.

With AI, the engines stopped thinking that way. For Performance Max and AI Max, you absolutely must group by intent to get performance. Five-star hotels in Bali sit in the same cohort as five-star hotels in Thailand, because the intent (luxury accommodation) holds the cohort, and the geography doesn’t.

Gemini thinks in intent cohorts, not human categories, and the same lesson applies across Organic, ChatGPT, Claude, and other LLMs.

What matters here: AI groups by intent, AI builds the cohorts, and the brand optimizing against the old human structure is competing in categories the engines have left behind.

For years, Google representatives have told us that SEO (or assistive agent optimization, the newer discipline that extends SEO to cover assistive engines and agents) is all about intent, and the point they perhaps didn’t make clear enough is: that’s because it’s how AI thinks.

The user delegates, the engine commits

Here’s the point most brands haven’t seen yet: the user and the engine work in tandem, and your strategy needs to account for that.

Nothing happens without the user’s mandate. The agent doesn’t take over because the assistive engine has decided it’s time. The user pushes the boundary by handing the engine a mandate, and the engine acts within that mandate. The delegation boundary isn’t drifting toward the engine on its own: it is being intentionally moved by the user on a case-by-case basis.

Every engine has been delegated to, and delegation forces commitment. We hand search the job of finding the 10 best links for our query, and Search has to commit to which 10. We hand the assistive engine the job of recommending one brand from a comparison set, and it has to commit to which one. We hand the agent the job of executing the transaction, and it has to commit to which transaction.

Different layers of delegation, different consequences when the commitment is wrong, but the act of commitment is universal across the delegation spectrum, because every engine has been handed a job that ends in an answer (even if that answer is giving us a choice of 10).

The algorithms learn at three levels, and they learn differently across the three engines (search, assistive, and agential):

  • Individual level: What this specific user has accepted, overridden, ignored, repeated. The narrowest scale, fully personalized. Heaviest in Agent mode (where the agent acts on this specific user’s behalf), significant in Assistive mode, negligible in Search.
  • Cohort level: What users with this combination of intent signals have accepted on average across thousands of comparable journeys. Wider than the individual, narrower than everyone. Decisive in Assistive mode (the engine needs to know “what works for users like this one”), important in Agent mode as a fallback when individual signal is sparse, lighter in Search.
  • Global level: What the algorithmic trinity has encoded about the brand from the world’s record. Not user behavior but encoded knowledge, stored in three places simultaneously: the LLM as parameters baked into model weights during training, the search engine as the indexed corpus and ranking signals, and the knowledge graph as entity nodes, relationships, and attributes. Three storage layers, three update cadences, three signal types, all encoding the same fundamental thing: what the AI has come to believe about the brand from everything brands publish and everything others say about them.

Three concentric circles. The user at the center. The cohort around the user. The global world around the cohort. The first two layers are about behavior: what users do with you.

The three concentric layers of AI learning

The third layer is about knowledge: what the algorithmic trinity has encoded about you across LLM parameters, search index, and knowledge graph.

The brand has direct leverage at the third layer (everything you publish, everything written about you, everything that becomes part of the corpus the trinity reads from) and indirect leverage at the first two (through the experiences that shape what users do).

Important: The third level is the one that compounds the longest. Every won event Thomann has earned across every customer in every cohort over the last 28 years isn’t just training the cohort signal: it’s feeding the global priors that every future model trained on widely available data will inherit. 

Brand confidence work done today (and every “today” past and present) compounds into future models on substrates the brand never directly trains. That’s the deeper structural reason systematic effort compounds in the AI era. Train the substrate, not just the signal.

Why the cohort signal isn’t destiny, and where your opportunity lies

If the engines weighted what they had already learned as the only voices that mattered, no challenger brand could ever break in. 

The dominant brands would dominate forever, the individual histories, the cohort patterns, and the global priors would lock in, and AAO would be a closed game where only the incumbents win.

Luckily, that isn’t the reality. What the engine has already learned is heavy, but it isn’t absolute. The brand that establishes a stronger claim than the brands the engine recommends and advocates for can break in, and the layers the brand can move are cohort and global. (The individual layer can be influenced through other communications channels, but is effectively closed in the AI engines because they are increasingly walled gardens.)

The route in is to claim, frame, and prove. Make your claim, frame the claim, and prove it with evidence across enough sources that the engine has the corroboration to move you up. 

Underneath that work sits the understandability, credibility, and deliverability process:

  • Understandability built through clear knowledge of who you are and what you do.
  • Credibility built through N-E-E-A-T-T.
  • Deliverability built through topical ownership. 

Get all three. Once your confidence clears the threshold:

  • The cohort signal that currently favors your competitor stops being the only voice the engine hears.
  • The global layer starts absorbing your contribution alongside the incumbents’.
  • Your claim becomes framed and proved in a way the engine can resolve and prioritize. 

That’s the only way an outsider gets in. It’s also the route every dominant brand took to become dominant in the first place.

What wins at won is confidence

When push comes to shove, what decides the outcome at won is the confidence the algorithm has in your brand at the moment of decision. 

Confidence at the moment of:

  • Ranking in search. 
  • Recommending in assistive. 
  • Action in agent. 

The mode, channel, and cohort change, but the question doesn’t.

Content and context are table stakes today. Content is what you’ve published, where, in what structure: every brand doing digital marketing seriously has been doing it for years, since Bill Gates wrote “Content is king” in 1996. 

Context is the match between your content and the user’s intent at the moment they’re asking. Both are table stakes, so neither differentiates at the recruitment, grounding, display, and won gates.

Confidence is what’s left, and confidence is what we can measure at the bottom of the funnel. Three things, you measure at the bottom of the funnel brand results (the due diligence rabbit hole):

  • You measure the accuracy of the results about your brand.
  • You measure the positive sentiment in the results about your brand.
  • You measure the consistency of the results about your brand across all of the engines.

How right, how positive, how consistent: that is your measurement of confidence across the AI spectrum.

This is exactly where Thomann won my pedal purchase. ChatGPT was confident enough in Thomann’s information to commit to a Friday delivery on Thomann’s behalf, on a Tuesday, with my Saturday gig riding on it. 

Hundreds of European suppliers could, in theory, have gotten those pedals to me by Friday. ChatGPT picked Thomann because they had published the stock data, shipping times, warehouse logistics, country-by-country delivery commitments, returns policy, price, and credibility signals, in the kind of structured, accurate, consistent detail that makes an algorithm willing to put its name behind a recommendation. 

Confidence work laid down years before the moment ChatGPT needed it was compounded into a single won event in 15 minutes flat.

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

Semrush One Logo

Who’s making the decision at won — and when

Map your intent cohorts. Score each one against the seven factors. Work out which mode each cohort will use to make which decision. Then train the seven AI employees (Google, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot, Siri, and Alexa) to represent you with positive sentiment, accurate facts, and consistent narrative across every one of those moments, because they’re already working 24/7, they’re already talking to your customers, and the only question left is whether they’re recommending you or your competitor.

Untrained employees cost you money every day they’re untrained. Trained employees generate revenue every day they’re trained. Won is the moment you’ve trained them for, or the moment they’ve handed to your competition.

The next question is how you measure all of this, and it turns out my answer rewrites how brands should think about measuring AI-era search-assistive-agential success entirely. That’s the next article in the series.


This is the 11th piece in my AI authority series. 

Read more at Read More