AI search visibility: measurement, not guesswork.

Yes, by systematic sampling rather than by a reporting API, because none of the assistants publishes one. We run a fixed prompt set across the models on a schedule and record the outcomes, which gives a reliable trend provided the prompts stay constant. It is a measured sample, not a complete census, and we are explicit about that distinction.

The proportion of your target prompts where your business is mentioned, weighted by how prominently and how accurately. It is the generative-search equivalent of share of voice, and its value is comparative — against last month and against named competitors — rather than as an absolute figure.

This service measures; GEO changes the result. The monitoring tells you where you stand, which sources the models cite and who else appears, and the GEO work acts on that. They are sold separately because the measurement is genuinely useful on its own, including as a way to judge whether anyone’s GEO work is achieving anything.

Many assistant interactions never produce a click, and those that do often arrive without a usable referrer or are grouped as direct traffic. Some sources are now detectable and we identify those, but the honest position is that analytics alone cannot measure this channel, which is why prompt-set monitoring exists.

Monthly suits most businesses: frequent enough to catch an inaccuracy or a competitor shift, infrequent enough that normal model variation does not look like a trend. Weekly measurement mostly produces noise, and quarterly leaves a wrong description circulating for too long.

Each one ends with a short list of recommended actions and the reason for each, normally aimed at the specific sources the models cited. If the answer is that nothing needs doing this month, we say that rather than inventing work — the report exists to inform a decision, not to justify a retainer.

By holding the prompt set, the models and the method constant, and by running them on a schedule rather than ad hoc. Changing the prompts is what destroys comparability, so we add to the set deliberately and report on the original subset separately when we do.

Yes, and it is part of the standard report. We agree a named list at the start and record when each appears, how they are described and which sources are cited for them. That often reveals which third-party sources matter in your market faster than any other method.

The absolute figure means little; the comparison does. What matters is your trend month on month and your position relative to the named competitors. In a narrow B2B niche, appearing in a third of relevant prompts can be a strong position; in a crowded one it may not be.

It is useful on its own as an early warning system. An out-of-date or wrong description circulating in assistant answers is worth knowing about whether or not you have a programme to improve visibility, and it is usually cheaper to correct than to leave.