Whoa. I'm not into "takedown pieces," per se, but this was so insightful and brimming with integrity. Thanks for the education and the call to truthiness. To Question 5, from what I've read, it seems "get on Reddit" would be a GEO-specific intervention many are considering now vs pre LLMs. But to your overarching point, that was a smart play for many brands pre-LLMs, anyway.
This is a great take, Jim and I think directionally on point. There is no way clear to "game the system" as SEO firms have largely been able to do for decades. And yes, the fundamentals that have made good SEO work in the past are largely the same - good communications and marketing.
That said, I don't see that as evidence that AI visibility itself isn’t worth measuring or studying. AI visibility is increasingly becoming an important business signal. Companies should understand how they are being represented inside these systems, which themes and sources are surfacing repeatedly, and which forms of authority appear to correlate with stronger visibility over time. While it's true that the same person can ask the same question of the same LLM at a different time, and will get slightly different results, you can see patterns over time in the bigger signals.
LLMs are influencing discovery, research, and buying behavior. Executives are asking about it. Boards are asking about it. And agencies are expected to answer them. Having some visibility into and understanding of how broader credibility signals like media, influencers, customers, content, social conversations, etc. are being interpreted by these systems feels like an important element of reputation and influence measurement to me.
Love this so much. Comms and marketing love nothing more than a trend supported by anecdotal evidence versus, you know, understanding what's delivering results for their orgs.
Yep, for now the best we can do for GEO is just...the usual comms tactics
Whoa. I'm not into "takedown pieces," per se, but this was so insightful and brimming with integrity. Thanks for the education and the call to truthiness. To Question 5, from what I've read, it seems "get on Reddit" would be a GEO-specific intervention many are considering now vs pre LLMs. But to your overarching point, that was a smart play for many brands pre-LLMs, anyway.
Only problem is that now some studies are saying Reddit is becoming less of a factor. https://www.conductor.com/academy/reddit-ai-citation-decline/
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/randfishkin_5minutewhiteboard-activity-7435416229114216448-CqD7
I didn’t know that, and those sources are awesome. Thank you!
This is a great take, Jim and I think directionally on point. There is no way clear to "game the system" as SEO firms have largely been able to do for decades. And yes, the fundamentals that have made good SEO work in the past are largely the same - good communications and marketing.
That said, I don't see that as evidence that AI visibility itself isn’t worth measuring or studying. AI visibility is increasingly becoming an important business signal. Companies should understand how they are being represented inside these systems, which themes and sources are surfacing repeatedly, and which forms of authority appear to correlate with stronger visibility over time. While it's true that the same person can ask the same question of the same LLM at a different time, and will get slightly different results, you can see patterns over time in the bigger signals.
LLMs are influencing discovery, research, and buying behavior. Executives are asking about it. Boards are asking about it. And agencies are expected to answer them. Having some visibility into and understanding of how broader credibility signals like media, influencers, customers, content, social conversations, etc. are being interpreted by these systems feels like an important element of reputation and influence measurement to me.
Love this so much. Comms and marketing love nothing more than a trend supported by anecdotal evidence versus, you know, understanding what's delivering results for their orgs.