AI answer audit
We run your category’s real buying questions through ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini and Copilot, and record where you appear, where competitors appear, and what’s being cited instead of you.
Service III · Generative search
Being in the answer, not just on page one.
A growing share of buying research now ends inside an AI answer that never shows a list of blue links. If your brand isn’t among the sources those systems draw on, you’re not losing the ranking — you’re absent from the conversation entirely.
The problem
Answer engines don’t work like a results page. They retrieve, synthesise and cite — and each one does it differently. Research across hundreds of millions of citations has found remarkably little overlap between the domains ChatGPT cites and those Perplexity does, and brand citation rates that vary enormously from one platform to the next.
Which means being strong on Google is necessary but not sufficient. What gets you cited is a machine-readable brand: clean structured data, a coherent entity footprint, content shaped like an answer, and corroborating mentions on the third-party sources these systems already trust.
Ranking first is worth very little if the answer never mentions you.
What’s included
An additive layer on top of solid SEO — not a replacement for it.
We run your category’s real buying questions through ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, Perplexity, Gemini and Copilot, and record where you appear, where competitors appear, and what’s being cited instead of you.
Making your brand legible as an entity — consistent naming, descriptions and relationships across your site, Wikidata-class sources, directories and profiles.
Organisation, product, service, FAQ and author markup implemented properly, so retrieval systems can parse what you do without guessing.
Pages built to be quoted: direct answers stated up front, specifics and figures rather than adjectives, clear definitions, and comparisons that don’t dodge the question.
Earning presence on the review sites, listicles, forums and publications that answer engines lean on most heavily in your category.
Robots and llms.txt configuration for AI crawlers, plus ongoing share-of-answer tracking so you can see the trend rather than guess at it.
Twelve months ago whether a brand appeared in an AI answer was barely knowable. It’s now measurable — and most of your competitors still aren’t looking.
How it runs
The same rhythm every time, so you always know what’s happening and why.
We record how you currently appear across the major answer engines for the questions your buyers actually ask. That baseline is what everything afterwards is measured against.
Schema, entity consistency, crawler access and technical retrievability fixed first. Without this layer, the content work underperforms.
Pages designed to be quoted rather than merely ranked, plus third-party presence on the sources these systems already trust.
Re-run the prompt set on a schedule. You see whether your presence in AI answers is rising, and against whom.
What you actually receive
No mystery retainer. Here’s what lands in your inbox.
Where you appear today across each major answer engine, and who appears instead.
The real buying questions we track for your category, agreed with you.
Markup and profile work shipped, not recommended.
Content written to be cited.
The third-party sources worth earning a place on.
Trend by platform, with what we’re changing next.
Questions we get asked
It overlaps but it isn’t the same. Answer engines retrieve and cite differently from a search results page, and a page that ranks well doesn’t automatically get quoted. The strongest results come from doing both — GEO sits on top of solid SEO rather than replacing it.
No. Nobody can, and you should be wary of anyone who says otherwise — these systems are probabilistic and change without notice. What we can do is measure your starting position, improve the things that demonstrably influence citation, and show you the trend.
By running an agreed set of real buying prompts across each platform on a schedule and recording whether you’re mentioned, cited, or absent. Several commercial tools now track this at scale, and we use them alongside our own prompt set.
Usually, yes. Clean structured data, a coherent entity footprint and genuinely useful answer content are good for classic search as well. Very little of the work is wasted.
Not necessarily. Smaller, specific brands often find it easier to get cited in a narrow category than to outrank large competitors on broad terms. It’s frequently the cheaper route to visibility.
No pressure · No pitch deck
One conversation about ai visibility and what it would actually take. If we’re not the right studio for it, we’ll say so.
A growing share of buyer research now starts inside ChatGPT, Gemini or Perplexity, where the answer names two or three companies rather than listing ten blue links.
If you are not one of the named companies, you are not in the consideration set. There is no page two to be on.
Generative engine optimisation, or GEO, is the practice of making a business findable and quotable inside AI assistants. You will also see it called answer engine optimisation (AEO) or AI search optimisation. The terminology has not settled; the work is the same.
Real overlap exists — both reward clear structure, factual accuracy and genuine usefulness — but three things differ enough to need separate work.
A language model builds an understanding of your company as a thing in the world: what you do, who you serve, what you are known for.
Everywhere you are mentioned, not only your own site. Consistency across your site, directories, press, review platforms and social profiles matters more here than it ever did for classic SEO.
For a model to quote you, it has to lift a clean, self-contained statement from your page.
Content written as flowing narrative with the answer in paragraph nine loses to a competitor who answered in the first two sentences.
Models lean heavily on listicles, comparison articles, forums and review sites when asked “who are the best X.” Appearing in those sources influences AI answers more directly than it influences Google rankings.
We run a structured prompt set — the questions your buyers actually ask — across all four major systems and record whether you appear, how you are described and who appears instead.
For most businesses reading this, the answer is either nothing or something wrong. It is usually the most uncomfortable page in the report.
One coherent, consistent account of your business across every source a model might read. Schema markup, an about page stating facts plainly, consistent naming and description across directories and profiles.
Direct answers near the top, headings matching real questions, comparison and pricing information stated rather than gated, specifics rather than adjectives.
Because it contains no fact. Adjectives are unquotable. Numbers, dates, named methods and plain descriptions are not.
Getting you into the roundups, comparisons and review platforms models actually pull from in your category.
The same prompt set re-run, so you see share of voice moving rather than guessing.
This field is roughly two years old. Measurement is less mature than SEO’s, results vary between models, and answers shift when a model updates. Anyone offering guaranteed AI rankings is inventing a certainty the field does not have.
What we can say from the work so far: it moves faster than classic SEO because competition is thin, it compounds with SEO rather than competing with it, and businesses starting now are building a position that will be considerably more expensive to buy in two years.
The foundation is shared with search engine optimisation — structure, accuracy, crawlability, usefulness. If you already do SEO properly, AI visibility costs perhaps thirty per cent more on top.
It depends on brand management more than any other channel we run. A model can only describe you coherently if you describe yourself coherently. Muddled positioning produces muddled AI answers, because the model is summarising the mess it found.
The third-party presence feeding AI answers overlaps with the earned coverage that supports social media management and digital PR.
The largest by usage and the one most buyers name when they describe researching with AI. Its browsing and citation behaviour has changed repeatedly, which is why measurement has to be repeated rather than done once.
The one with the widest passive reach, because users encounter it without choosing to. It draws heavily on conventional search signals, which means strong SEO work carries over most directly here.
Smaller audience, unusually high commercial intent, and the most transparent about its sources — which makes it the best place to diagnose why you are or are not being cited.
Deeply integrated into Google’s ecosystem and increasingly the default on Android devices in India.
The same questions, asked the same way, at the same interval. Movement only means something against a constant.
Being mentioned is not enough if the description is wrong. We track how you are characterised, not just whether you appear.
Usually traced to a stale directory listing, an outdated press mention or an inconsistent about page. Fixing the source is slower than it sounds and more reliable than anything else available.
Ask ChatGPT what it knows about your company. Then ask it who the best providers in your category are. Whatever comes back is your current AI visibility.
For the full baseline across all four systems rather than one spot check, ask for the AI visibility audit.