Tag: Brand Authority

  • Credibility-First Link Building: How We Earn Lasting Authority

    Credibility-First Link Building: How We Earn Lasting Authority

    Link building for lasting brand authority

    At Resolve, we define link building for legitimacy as earning authoritative backlinks, brand mentions, and media coverage that demonstrate trust, expertise, and credibility to search engines and AI systems. Instead of chasing link volume, we use digital PR, original research, thought leadership, and journalist relationships to earn genuine editorial citations. These are the authority signals behind Google’s E-E-A-T framework, and they can help us appear in AI Overviews, earn citations from large language models, and build visibility that survives ranking swings.

    We believe a little competition is healthy. It challenges us, sharpens our thinking, and pushes us to pursue bigger and better results.

    However, today’s search environment is changing faster than ever. Large language models, AI-generated answers, and frequent algorithm updates are reshaping how people find information, making it increasingly difficult for us to rely on yesterday’s playbook.

    The metrics we once used to keep brands afloat — traffic, domain authority increases, and keyword rankings — no longer define SEO success on their own. We can reach the top of a search results page and still see very few conversions.

    If we continue chasing those numbers in isolation, we risk being left behind. We have to adapt.

    We now widen our view to the outcomes that matter most: trust and brand authority. Unlike a temporary ranking or traffic spike, trust and authority are not earned quickly or easily.

    We need time to spread the word about our brand, and we need even more time to prove that people can rely on us. Once we establish that trust, however, it becomes much harder to dislodge.

    An algorithm update can cut our traffic overnight. It cannot erase genuine trust overnight.

    Our challenge is learning how to build trust and strengthen our brand while every competitor is trying to do the same. We also need meaningful ways to measure concepts that can initially seem difficult to quantify.

    We have found that the answers involve some nuance, but they are simpler than they appear. The process begins with a shift in perspective.

    For years, we treated link building like a popularity contest. The site that collected the most votes, in the form of backlinks, was often rewarded with a prominent position in the search results.

    Infographic showing 86% of journalists use PR-pitched stories, 54% rarely answer pitches, and 61% of Gen Z use generative AI instead of Google.
    Relevance and trust beat volume: 86% of journalists use at least some PR-pitched stories, yet 54% seldom respond, while 61% of Gen Z turn to generative AI instead of Google.

    Over time, Google and other search engines updated their algorithms to improve the search experience. With each change, Google cracked down on more sites that tried to manipulate the system with backlink volume instead of earning links with real editorial and audience value. Countless sites lost traffic, and many still feel the effects.

    Today, we see Google place more emphasis on relevance, industry trust, and authority. That helps explain why a familiar brand can attract more searchers than a smaller competitor even when both publish similar content and target similar keywords.

    Large language models and Google’s AI Overviews have widened this divide. These systems can use retrieval-augmented generation, or RAG, to retrieve relevant sources, often favoring authoritative publications and proprietary information. If we merely repeat a statistic already cited by a top-tier publication, an AI system may choose the better-known source to reduce the risk of spreading inaccurate information.

    We also see younger searchers moving toward AI tools. In a 2025 Resolve study, 61% of Gen Z respondents said they used generative AI instead of Google.

    None of this means every form of link building looks like spam to Google or an LLM. It means we need backlinks to work alongside a broader set of authority signals.

    When publications and journalists cite our brand, they signal authority. When we publish original content and proprietary data, we signal authority. When we create useful graphics and informative videos, we signal authority again.

    Once Google and AI systems recognize these signals, the backlinks supporting them become meaningful votes of confidence. Our site may then be more likely to rank prominently, appear in AI Overviews, and receive citations in LLM-generated answers.

    How we use E-E-A-T in a competitive search environment

    In 2018, Google updated its quality-rater guidance to place greater focus on expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, commonly shortened to E-A-T. In 2022, Google added another E for experience. Together, these qualities provide a framework for understanding how Google considers credibility and legitimacy.

    • Experience: We demonstrate that an author has personally engaged with the subject. Examples include a forum where people describe testing a product or a gardener documenting firsthand pest-prevention trials.
    • Expertise: We show that the author has relevant knowledge, qualifications, or credentials supporting the information and advice.
    • Authoritativeness: We earn recognition from credible sources and industry voices that cite or link to our work, helping establish us as a respected participant in the field.
    • Trustworthiness: We remain transparent, accurate, and honest. We avoid deceiving readers or using manipulative link-building practices.

    We apply E-E-A-T both on and off the page. Author biographies can demonstrate expertise, while accurate sourcing can demonstrate trustworthiness. Off the page, we strengthen E-E-A-T signals through the quality of the sites that link to us and the journalists who rely on us as a source. Both dimensions influence how search engines assess whether our information is useful, accurate, and credible.

    If we consistently earn backlinks from dozens of irrelevant websites, that pattern can look like a low-quality or manufactured signal. If several respected journalists mention our brand because we published a valuable study, those mentions are much more likely to function as genuine votes of confidence.

    Infographic comparing vanity SEO metrics like traffic and backlinks with durable authority metrics such as media placements, conversions and branded search.
    Move beyond fragile SEO numbers. This side-by-side graphic shows how earned media, branded searches, industry citations and conversions build authority that can survive algorithm updates.

    For us, link quantity is no longer a reliable proxy for legitimacy. We look for backlinks that demonstrate real relevance and value.

    We cannot earn those links half-heartedly. We need a coordinated strategy that strengthens credibility both on and off our site.

    The off-page SEO tactics we use to demonstrate value

    When we ask how to earn links that search engines and LLMs will treat as signs of trust, we do not look for a single outreach tactic. Strong links usually emerge from several activities that we sustain over time.

    We create genuinely linkable assets

    To prove that people genuinely want to reference our site, we first create content worth referencing. If we are accustomed to quick and easy links, this may require a larger investment in content than we have made before. A routine how-to article or listicle is rarely enough by itself.

    We define linkable content as something journalists, publishers, and readers find distinctive and useful — something they have not already encountered dozens of times. We often draw from the following content formats.

    • Original data and proprietary research: We publish information people cannot find elsewhere. In a crowded search environment, that means conducting original research rather than recycling familiar statistics. When a journalist needs a statistic and our site is the primary source, we can earn a natural backlink.
    • Thought leadership and expert commentary: We share an original perspective from a credible expert within our organization, giving publishers a useful idea or quotation they may cite in future coverage.
    • Authoritative long-form guides: We answer the main question thoroughly and anticipate the follow-up questions a reader is likely to ask. This depth can help us earn links as audiences move further into their research.
    • Engaging visuals and infographics: We invest in visual assets that make complex information easier to understand and share. Ahrefs found that YouTube mentions strongly correlated with inclusion in AI Overviews. Videos can be especially valuable, but informative infographics also give publishers a useful visual for their own audiences.

    These formats demand more time, effort, and money, but we have found that they are often more sustainable than disposable content. They help us earn credible editorial citations and build industry authority that is more resilient to algorithm updates.

    We connect link building with digital PR

    We place digital PR at the center of authority building because it connects brand development with link acquisition. It helps us earn coverage, attract links, and introduce our organization to new audiences through credible journalists. Those are precisely the kinds of signals search engines can consider when assessing legitimacy.

    Unlike traditional PR, our digital PR work focuses on online coverage and backlinks from news organizations and media outlets. We create useful assets or proprietary data, identify the journalists most likely to care, and pitch stories that fit their established beats.

    Many of these publications carry significant influence and reach large audiences that can introduce our brand to more people. When a highly authoritative outlet covers our story, other journalists may discover and cite it organically. Syndication can amplify the effect further when a media group republishes an article across its network, potentially producing many relevant links from one story.

    Our strongest digital PR campaigns typically use one or more of the following approaches.

    Infographic outlining five steps for a credibility-focused SEO strategy, from targeting trusted publications and creating linkable assets to measuring results.
    Build lasting brand authority in five steps: target trusted publications, create citation-worthy assets, launch digital PR, nurture journalist relationships, then measure and refine your approach.
    • Data-led PR campaigns: We begin with what journalists and their readers care about, not simply what we find interesting. We review local news, Google News, and current coverage to understand which subjects are gaining attention. By considering journalist intent from the start, we improve our chances of receiving responses and earning placements.
    • Newsjacking or reactive PR: When we can move quickly, we contribute expert opinions, data, or commentary to breaking stories that relate to our brand. This gives journalists material they can use while the topic is still timely.
    • Proactive PR: We anticipate trends before they break and prepare insights around recurring news cycles, holidays, and other relevant media moments.
    • Contributed content and guest features: We place useful content written by our experts in relevant publications, allowing us to speak directly to established audiences and earn recognition.

    When we combine these tactics effectively, we can elevate our brand to a level that competitors cannot reproduce with a batch of low-value links.

    We build relationships with journalists and publishers

    We know that even fascinating proprietary data, packaged in an expertly designed analysis, can fail if our journalist outreach is poorly targeted.

    Resolve data about journalist outreach and PR pitches

    Journalists receive an enormous number of PR pitches, and those messages can either support or obstruct their work. According to a 2026 Muck Rack study, nearly nine in 10 journalists said at least some of their stories originated with PR pitches.

    The same survey found that 54% of journalists seldom or never responded to most pitches. Relevance was a central problem: nearly half said a genuinely relevant pitch was rare.

    If we send a journalist at an economics publication a pitch about music-listening habits, we should expect a rejection because the subject may matter to only a small part of that publication’s audience. We do not take that response personally. Journalists build their careers around particular topics and beats, and our job is to support that work rather than distract from it.

    We therefore approach outreach as relationship building: a two-way exchange that should benefit everyone involved. Above all, we remember that there is a real person on the other side of every email.

    • We personalize our emails and explain why a story fits the journalist’s audience.
    • We respond graciously when a journalist says no because our next idea may be a better fit.
    • We share relevant work from journalists and publications through social media.
    • We contribute thoughtful comments when we have something useful to add.
    • We cite journalists’ reporting in future content when it genuinely supports our work.

    As we strengthen these relationships, journalists become more likely to consider future opportunities. A thoughtful follow-up or second pitch can receive a warmer response when a reporter already knows that we provide reliable data and useful commentary.

    PR relationships grow over time. Even when our first pitch does not fit a journalist’s beat, we remain willing to return with a better story or a new set of relevant data.

    How we measure real brand authority

    We recognize that authority, trust, and legitimacy feel less concrete than traffic or keyword position. Yet they have become more important. A traffic surge may look encouraging while reflecting temporary attention, weak intent, or an advantage that disappears after an algorithm update.

    Authority and legitimacy are more durable. We can also measure the impact of credibility-focused work through several meaningful indicators.

    Infographic showing EZ Contacts’ digital PR results: 1,000+ media placements, a Domain Rating of 43, and doubled visibility in ChatGPT and AI Overviews.
    EZ Contacts’ six-month digital PR campaign delivered 1,000+ media placements, raised Domain Rating from 40 to 43, and doubled visibility across ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews.
    • Earned media placements: We track the publications that cover our brand, including coverage containing an unlinked mention. These placements help us assess brand credibility.
    • Branded search volume: We monitor whether more people search for our company or products after discovering us through media coverage.
    • Industry coverage: We look for the point at which publications we have not contacted begin citing our work. That organic pickup is a valuable sign that our authority is spreading.
    • Conversions: We measure whether greater credibility leads more people to trust our organization, products, or services and ultimately take meaningful action.
    • Organic ranking improvements for target keywords: We still review rankings, but we treat them as one indicator within a broader picture. Sustained movement can show that search engines increasingly view us as a credible result relative to competing pages.
    Metrics for measuring brand authority and credibility

    We do not expect these indicators to appear overnight.

    • We invest real effort in creating proprietary data.
    • We build trust with journalists through repeated, useful interactions.
    • We grow authority through sustained work over time.

    Our advice is simple: we stay patient, keep improving, and allow credible results to compound.

    How we build a credibility-focused link strategy

    Knowing the principles of SEO authority is one thing; building an entire campaign around them is another. We use the following five-step process to turn those principles into consistent action.

    1. Step 1 — We define our target publications: We identify five to 10 publications that our audience trusts and that search engines are likely to recognize as authoritative within our field. These become our priority coverage targets.
    2. Step 2 — We develop linkable assets: We create at least two content or media assets designed around the interests of those publications. We may use original survey data, visual guides, proprietary analysis, or expert thought leadership.
    3. Step 3 — We launch a digital PR campaign: We proactively pitch our assets to relevant publications. We can also use platforms such as Connectively or Muck Rack to identify ongoing opportunities with writers covering subjects related to our research.
    4. Step 4 — We nurture relationships: We treat every positive media interaction as the beginning of a longer relationship. We follow up with useful information, engage with published coverage, and build the kind of rapport a journalist can rely on.
    5. Step 5 — We measure and iterate: We review our authority indicators each quarter, learn from the response to our campaigns, and adjust our content and outreach accordingly.
    Resolve credibility-focused link-building process

    We know this process can consume a team’s time, particularly when resources or specialized expertise are limited.

    In those situations, we may benefit from working with a link-building and digital PR specialist who can expand our capacity and keep pace with search changes. The right support can help us establish sustainable visibility without allowing every minor ranking fluctuation to pull us off course.

    How we build authority that lasts at Resolve

    We know that quality usually stands the test of time better than quantity. The difficult part is maintaining that focus when competitors appear to be winning with sudden traffic spikes or eye-catching vanity metrics.

    We do not let temporary numbers distract us from the larger goal. We focus on lasting authority and legitimacy earned through sustained content creation, thoughtful PR outreach, and genuine relationship building.

    When an internal team lacks the time or patience required to maintain that effort, we can step in.

    At Resolve, we work with brands to build credibility-focused SEO campaigns through linkable content, data-led digital PR, and hands-on link building. Our goal is sustainable organic growth, not a burst of visibility that disappears after the next algorithm update.

    Resolve results from credibility-focused digital PR

    We have seen this approach pay off. In a recent data-led campaign for EZ Contacts, we earned more than 1,000 placements in outlets including the New York Post and Yahoo. As the coverage grew, the brand’s visibility in ChatGPT and Google’s AI Overviews doubled. That is the kind of durable growth we want to build — growth that extends beyond the next algorithm update.

    Large Google logo over colorful stacks of digital pages and folders, symbolizing search advertising, web content, and online marketing updates.
    A bold Google logo sits atop layered, colorful digital documents, evoking the fast-moving world of search marketing, ad formats, campaign assets, and platform updates.

    When we are ready to build links that last, we can visit growresolve.com to learn more.

    We see considerable overlap between link building and digital PR, but we do not treat them as identical. Link building is the broader practice of acquiring backlinks from other websites to improve search authority. Digital PR is a particular approach within that practice, focused on earning links through media coverage, journalist relationships, and placements in credible publications rather than relying on directory submissions, guest-post exchanges, or other lower-authority tactics.

    We often use digital PR to pursue the strongest editorial backlinks because reputable outlets have real audiences and established review standards. At the same time, this work builds brand visibility and consumer trust in ways that many conventional link-building methods do not.

    How long do we wait for meaningful results?

    We do not expect authoritative backlinks or earned media coverage to produce results overnight. That is an honest trade-off when we choose a credibility-focused approach instead of more aggressive tactics. Most brands can begin seeing meaningful domain-authority gains and early ranking movement after three to six months of consistent execution, while highly competitive keywords and top-tier placements may require more time.

    The advantage is that our results can compound. Links from credible publications tend to endure, strong journalist relationships can create repeat opportunities, and the authority generated through consistent coverage can keep delivering value long after the initial campaign.

    We define an authority backlink as a link from a source that search engines and its audience regard as credible and trustworthy. These sources typically have genuine readers, clear editorial processes, established authority, and topical relevance to our industry.

    A regular backlink can come from any website willing to link to us, regardless of its relevance, quality, or editorial standards. That distinction matters because search engines do not evaluate every link equally. One editorial link from a respected industry publication can be more valuable than dozens of links from low-authority sites, while also supporting the kind of E-E-A-T credibility that bulk link acquisition cannot reproduce.

    Do we value brand mentions without hyperlinks?

    Yes. We recognize that Google can associate brand mentions with entities even when a publication does not include a hyperlink. Relevant, unlinked mentions in credible coverage can still contribute to the wider authority signals surrounding our brand.

    That is why we consider digital PR valuable even when every placement does not produce a direct link. A credibility-focused off-page strategy should not be reduced to backlink acquisition alone. Our larger objective is to build a brand that respected publications genuinely want to mention, cite, and cover.

    We see risks ranging from wasted effort to serious search penalties. Link buying, reciprocal-link schemes, private blog networks, and manipulative anchor-text optimization can violate Google’s spam policies. These tactics may trigger manual actions or algorithmic suppression that substantially reduces our search visibility.

    Even when outdated tactics do not produce an immediate penalty, they can lose their value as search systems become better at identifying manufactured signals. Recovering from a link-related penalty can be slow and expensive. We would rather invest in credible link building from the beginning than repair the damage caused by shortcuts later.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • How I Build a Brand AI Search Can Trust and Recommend

    How I Build a Brand AI Search Can Trust and Recommend

    Building a brand worth finding: Signals that fuel discovery

    For most of the past decade, I treated organic marketing as a visibility game. I wanted brands on Page 1, inside featured snippets, and in front of the people already searching.

    That north star has moved.

    When I spoke at SMX Advanced on June 5, the question I put to the room was not simply, “How do I get a brand found?” The harder question was, “How do I get that brand chosen?”

    In 2026, those answers are no longer the same. The distance between being discovered and being selected is where I see many brands losing ground.

    In AI search, my reputation shows up first

    The old user journey was messy and multi-step. People explored, compared, checked reviews, read Reddit threads, visited comparison sites, and moved toward a decision over time. Now, a single AI prompt can compress much of that process into one synthesized answer.

    AI search does not reward the brand that shouts the loudest in paid media or stuffs the most keywords into metadata. I see it rewarding the brand with the strongest reputation in the places that matter. Reddit discussions, review sites, comparison pages, expert commentary, forums, and editorial coverage are all being absorbed by large language models and blended into recommendations.

    AI search citation material

    In other words, my brand is no longer defined only by what I say about it. It is shaped by how AI understands it, and AI is reading what everyone else has said, too.

    Owned content on websites and social channels will always carry a promotional bias. AI systems look for outside validation to support, challenge, or clarify those claims.

    That changes the work of organic marketing. I can no longer stop at visibility. I have to build a brand that is found, correctly understood, and ultimately chosen. Those are three separate challenges, and I need a strategy for each one.

    Found: I need to appear where my audience actually looks

    The first challenge is still discoverability, but the canvas is much wider than Google. People now discover brands through ChatGPT, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok, Google, Quora, LinkedIn, and word of mouth. I have to understand which of those entry points matter most to the specific audience I want to reach.

    That starts with mapping the sources my audience genuinely trusts: the publications, platforms, communities, creators, analysts, newsletters, and peer groups that influence their decisions. The intersection of semantic relevance, domain authority, and audience affinity tells me which third-party properties are worth pursuing.

    For one B2B audience, that might mean Wired, Tom’s Guide, or an active LinkedIn group where buyers discuss vendors in a specific vertical. For another, it might be r/smallbusiness or a Substack newsletter with 40,000 engaged subscribers.

    Once I know where the audience spends time, I can create useful content, earn credible mentions, and participate in the conversations already shaping decisions. This is audience-first, performance-driven PR and organic strategy, not generic brand awareness.

    Infographic showing 93% of AI search citations come from third-party community and earned media, with 7% from owned brand media.
    AI search leans heavily on outside validation: this chart shows third-party communities, reviews, and earned media driving 93% of citations versus 7% from owned channels.

    The data makes the case even stronger. Across the top commercial sectors analyzed, 93% of AI search citations came from third-party sources. If I only invest in content on my own domain, I risk being invisible to the systems now doing much of the brand discovery work.

    Understood: I need consistent signals everywhere

    Getting found matters, but it is not enough on its own. If machines are surfacing my brand, they also need to understand it accurately.

    LLMs do more than crawl my website. They build a consensus picture from everything available online: reviews, Reddit discussions, press coverage, YouTube commentary, Trustpilot ratings, forum threads, and more. If those signals conflict with the story I am telling about myself, I have a real problem.

    If I claim premium positioning while thousands of articles question whether the brand is truly luxury, heavy discounting is part of the public record, and review scores are poor, AI is unlikely to recommend that brand as a premium option. The model has read the broader story, not just the homepage copy.

    That is why brand messaging consistency has become an SEO issue. Owned, earned, and paid content all need to reinforce the same core associations. Conflicting signals do not just confuse customers; they can weaken AI visibility.

    Digital PR plays a critical role here because it helps shape the external narrative. Through strategic media placements, expert commentary, and search-informed coverage, I can influence what journalists write, what audiences remember, and what models learn.

    I also have to think beyond one obvious keyword. The query fan-out, or the range of prompts a potential customer might use, requires positive and consistent answers across every touchpoint an LLM might evaluate.

    Chosen: I need trust signals that influence the decision

    The third challenge is the hardest and probably the most important. Trust has always been an SEO currency, but as clicks decline and zero-click search becomes more common, trust matters even more.

    According to an Ahrefs study, brand appearance in AI Overviews is most strongly correlated with branded web mentions. In practical terms, that means the number of times a brand is positively named across authoritative third-party sources is becoming one of the most powerful signals organic marketers can influence.

    That is also the core output of strong digital PR. Based on the last 4,000 pieces of U.S.- and U.K.-based coverage driven for clients, 91% of AI search citations included expert insight rather than branded content or product pages.

    That tells me expert-backed, editorially independent coverage is critical. Internal experts are now one of the most valuable assets a brand has. Brands that invest in real thought leadership, original research, and data-backed studies are giving both people and AI systems stronger reasons to trust them.

    The three content formats I see consistently supporting LLM inclusion are product roundups and listicles that place a brand inside trusted “best of” editorials, reliable data-backed research that journalists and LLMs can cite, and expert thought leadership that positions real people as credible voices in their category.

    Neon Google search bar with microphone icon over a futuristic digital data background, representing search technology and SEO updates.
    A glowing Google search bar cuts through streams of digital data, capturing the fast-moving world of search, shopping visibility, and SEO innovation.

    What does not work is chasing inauthentic mentions through artificial link schemes, fake expert personas, or manufactured coverage. Google has already flagged these kinds of tactics in its GEO guidance, and models are getting better at distinguishing genuine authority from manipulated signals.

    The reputational risk is also high. If I try to manufacture authority and get caught, I do not just lose visibility. I damage the trust I was trying to build.

    This cannot be a one-time effort. Multiple studies, including research from Waseda University, have identified a correlation between AI brand visibility and content recency.

    Brands that maintain a steady flow of credible, expert-backed third-party coverage do not just appear more often in AI responses. They appear with more confidence.

    Frequency and freshness both matter. A one-off PR campaign is not enough. I need to treat credible external validation as an always-on strategic investment.

    The framework I use in practice

    When I think about brand discovery in 2026, I come back to three words: found, understood, and chosen.

    Found: I map the audience’s real sources of influence and make sure the brand is credibly present across the fragmented ecosystem where discovery now happens.

    Understood: I work to make sure everything said about the brand tells a consistent story, matches the desired positioning, and reinforces the associations that drive preference.

    Chosen: I continuously build genuine trust signals through earned coverage, expert commentary, and third-party validation, so that when a person or machine compares the brand with a competitor, credible external evidence tips the decision in my favor.

    The brands winning in organic search right now have not unlocked some secret technical trick. They have built reputations worth recommending, and they have made sure machines can understand those reputations clearly.

    That is where I believe organic marketing has to go next. Instead of chasing the algorithm, I need to build something worth finding, worth understanding, and worth choosing.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • 6 SEO Priorities I’m Rethinking for Stronger AI Visibility

    6 SEO Priorities I’m Rethinking for Stronger AI Visibility

    I see plenty of overlap between SEO and AEO, but I do not treat them as the same discipline. The SEO playbook that worked reliably in traditional search will not take me as far when the goal is visibility inside AI-generated answers.

    So I keep coming back to one practical question: what should I change first?

    Instead of revisiting content structure for AI search, I focus on three priorities I believe deserve more attention now and three SEO habits I would intentionally emphasize less.

    3 SEO priorities I would emphasize more

    Establish brand authority and strong entities

    Before an AI system is likely to cite my brand, it needs to understand that the brand exists, what it represents, and why it is credible. Entity recognition has become foundational to AI visibility in a way that traditional search did not always require, even though Google’s Knowledge Graph has been moving in this direction for years. Large language model training data tends to reward brands that show up consistently across trusted platforms.

    When I work on this for clients, I pay closer attention to whether brand information is consistent across Wikipedia, LinkedIn, Crunchbase, industry directories, and any other source an LLM might use to understand an entity.

    I also think PR and SEO or AEO teams need to work much more closely together. Earned media mentions are no longer just awareness plays; they are entity-building signals.

    E-E-A-T was already pushing SEO in this direction, but author entities matter even more in AI search. When bylined experts have their own credible web presence, they strengthen the authority of the content they create.

    When I can invest in entity building before scaling content, I usually see stronger AI citation potential because the credibility infrastructure is already in place.

    Build topical depth with content clusters

    AI systems tend to favor sources that show comprehensive authority on a subject, not just pages that happen to rank for isolated keywords. A thin content footprint is much more vulnerable in AI search than it was in traditional search.

    That means I need to move beyond keyword-by-keyword planning and think more seriously about topic ownership. Instead of only asking, “What do we rank for?” I ask, “What topics do I want AI systems to associate this brand with?”

    Internal linking becomes more valuable in this environment because it helps signal relationships between related pieces of content. I also treat content audits as a way to find gaps in topical coverage, not just as a way to identify pages with declining traffic.

    When I can go deep in a specific niche, I often see content cited across multiple related queries. One well-built content cluster can create visibility far beyond a single keyword target.

    Owning the topic cluster around the problem a client’s product solves can position that brand as a trusted resource before a sales conversation even begins. I also hear more often that buyers are finding those brands in LLMs during their research process.

    Earn unlinked brand mentions and community presence

    LLMs learn from the broader web, not only from pages with backlinks. A mention on Reddit, Quora, a niche forum, or an industry community can matter even when there is no link attached.

    I think this is one of the bigger mindset shifts for SEO teams. AI systems look for patterns in what the web says about a brand across many sources, not only what ranks in Google. Owned content alone cannot manufacture that signal.

    Trusted third-party communities such as Reddit can carry particular weight because LLMs have been heavily trained on them and often treat that content as a form of authentic user sentiment.

    That makes community participation and digital PR increasingly important SEO-adjacent work. I care about whether a brand is being mentioned in the right places, even when the mention does not come with a backlink.

    Futuristic SEO and AI search illustration showing old tools breaking apart as blue data streams lead to a glowing search platform and digital icons.
    Old search marketing tools give way to a faster, connected future, with data streams, AI icons, and a glowing search hub symbolizing SEO innovation and community growth.

    Monitoring unlinked brand mentions is becoming just as important to me as tracking backlinks. Tools such as Brandwatch and Mention, along with manual Reddit and Quora monitoring, can show where a brand is appearing organically and where it is absent.

    I would rather talk with the team about where the brand is being discussed, whether those conversations are accurate, and whether the sentiment is positive than focus only on who is linking to the site.

    Brands with an active presence in relevant communities are more likely to surface naturally in conversational, recommendation-style AI answers, including queries such as “What does Reddit think about X?” or “What’s the best Y according to users?”

    For challenger brands trying to enter a category, earned community mentions can build AI-visible authority faster than traditional link building, which usually takes longer to accumulate.

    B2C brands can benefit especially from genuine community presence because consumer AI queries often lean toward social proof and peer recommendations rather than formal editorial sources.

    3 SEO priorities I would emphasize less

    Chasing high-volume keywords with thin content

    AI Overviews can absorb the click for broad informational queries. Ranking No. 1 for a head term increasingly means I may have invested a lot of effort into winning traffic that never actually reaches the site.

    Search volume alone is no longer a reliable proxy for opportunity. A query with 50,000 monthly searches that triggers an AI Overview may send less traffic than a query with 2,000 searches that still requires a click.

    I would rather create specific, authoritative content that answers a narrower question better than anything else available. I focus more on queries where the searcher needs to act, compare options, or access something only the site can provide. Those needs are harder for AI to fully resolve.

    Keyword traffic potential is no longer the first metric I trust. I first ask whether someone will still need to click after AI answers the query. If the answer is no, the opportunity is not what it used to be.

    Pursuing exact-match and manipulative link building

    Low-quality link volume does not do much for AI citation likelihood. LLMs care more about the authority and relevance of the sources mentioning or citing a brand than raw link counts. The publications that matter for AI visibility usually have real editorial standards, and those are much harder to game.

    I would focus on earning coverage and links from the kinds of sources AI systems are more likely to draw from, including trade publications, respected industry blogs, and academic-adjacent resources. The better long-term move is to build content worth referencing, not outreach that exists only to extract a link.

    A hundred low-quality links will not necessarily get a brand cited in ChatGPT. Five links from publications the target audience actually reads might matter much more. Source authority is the metric I would watch more closely than link volume.

    Optimizing for CTR on standard blue links

    A growing share of informational queries are resolved without a click. That makes title tag and meta description optimization for CTR less valuable on queries dominated by AI Overviews. I would rather spend that time trying to become the cited source inside the AI answer.

    For queries where clicks still happen, I put more weight on transactional and navigational intent because those searches are more resistant to full AI resolution.

    CTR optimization assumes a searcher is choosing between blue links. For more queries now, that choice is shaped before the traditional results even become the focus. The opportunity has moved higher on the page.

    The payoff is not always more traffic

    There are more shifts I could make, but these are the first ones I would prioritize. I may lose some volume in traditional SEO metrics such as impressions and clicks, but that should matter less if the downstream business metrics remain strong. In AI search, I care more about conversions, pipeline, and revenue than vanity traffic. That is the tradeoff I believe this new search environment increasingly rewards.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • Dan Freed on Building Real Authority in AI Search Today

    Dan Freed on Building Real Authority in AI Search Today

    I know Dan Freed’s story begins with what it feels like to be underestimated. He was diagnosed with ADHD at six, kicked out of preschool, and dropped out of high school at sixteen. Later, he scored in the 99th percentile on the GMAT and earned degrees from Yale and INSEAD. He has also taken prescription stimulants for most of his adult life, and that lived experience eventually led him to found Thesis, a brain supplement company built around data-driven formulation, and then Stasis, the first supplement system designed for people who take stimulants.

    At First Page Sage, we have built our own reputation around a similar idea: real authority in any category, including the fast-changing world of generative AI search, comes from substance rather than shortcuts. I sat down with Dan to talk about Stasis, the gap he believes it fills, and what it takes to earn trust in a category most people overlook.

    First Page Sage: I see your work as being built on real expertise rather than flimsy marketing. Did that philosophy shape how you built Stasis?

    Dan Freed: Completely. When I started building Thesis, the whole industry ran on vague claims: optimize your brain, unlock your potential, and so on. None of it really meant anything. We took the opposite approach by testing everything, naming the mechanism, and showing the data. Stasis came out of that same discipline. Stimulant users are one of the most underserved groups in supplements, and almost nothing built for them is backed by real formulation logic. We wanted to be the first to change that.

    First Page Sage: I want to start with the basics for people who have not heard of it. What is Stasis?

    Freed: Stasis is built around three pathways that stimulants put under pressure: dopamine support, cortisol regulation, and oxidative stress defense. The Daytime and Nighttime formulas use branded ingredients like Shoden Ashwagandha and CuminUP60 curcumin, named and dosed as a composition rather than added as vague extras. We also built a gummy version for kids ages four to seventeen, Stasis Kids Daytime, because plenty of families are managing this without support built for them either.

    First Page Sage: I am curious why this needed to exist at all. You could have kept building Thesis.

    Freed: I built Stasis for myself first. I have been on stimulants for decades. They help with focus, but nobody talks about what comes after: the crash, the tension that creeps in by afternoon, and the nights when you cannot wind down. Intelligence was never the issue for me. Brain chemistry was. A stimulant alone treats one part of that chemistry. Stasis was built to support the rest of it. A pill on its own will not fix you, but the right system around it can change what your day actually feels like.

    First Page Sage: Switching gears, I wanted to ask what drew you to a partnership with First Page Sage specifically.

    Freed: You have spent years building the actual research behind how AI engines decide who to trust and recommend. That is rare. Most of the industry is still guessing. We are in a similar spot with stimulant support: there is no established authority yet, which means there is real room to build one the right way, with evidence instead of noise.

    First Page Sage: I have one last question. How do you think about building authority in a category like this, especially as AI search changes how people find answers?

    Freed: The brands that win in AI search are the ones with something real to point to: a named mechanism, a specific ingredient form, or a study people can check. We are investing in exactly that kind of infrastructure for Stasis, on top of the consumer data we already have from real customers using it. I would rather be three years early proving something out than be first to market with nothing behind it. That is true whether a human is reading the page or an AI is summarizing it.

    I encourage readers to learn more about Stasis, the first supplement system built for people who take stimulants, at takestasis.com. Dan Freed is the founder and CEO of Thesis, where the same research-driven approach powers four nootropic formulas: Clarity, Motivation, Stress Reset, and Neuroprotection.

    Source


    Inspired by this post on First Page Sage Blog.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • How AI Is Reshaping Search Demand Across 1M Keywords

    How AI Is Reshaping Search Demand Across 1M Keywords

    I do not see search demand disappearing. I see it moving. In this analysis, 29% of high-volume search demand is declining, while nearly the same amount is growing somewhere else. Overall demand is essentially flat because people are redistributing how and where they search instead of abandoning search altogether.

    That changes how I think about SEO strategy. I would not start by panicking over shrinking keywords. I would start by identifying which queries are losing volume, which ones are gaining momentum, and where a brand can build enough authority to appear in both traditional search results and AI-generated answers.

    This study looks at where search demand is shifting, which industries are seeing the sharpest changes, and what those patterns mean for SEO teams trying to adapt to AI-driven discovery.

    In 2024, Gartner predicted that traditional search engine volume would fall 25% by 2026 as consumers shifted to AI chatbots and virtual agents. Fractl and Search Engine Land set out to test that prediction. (Disclosure: I’m the co-founder of Fractl.)

    I worked from Semrush data covering 1,010,848 high-volume keywords, each with at least 10,000 monthly searches, across 379 brands in eight verticals. I also looked at survey responses from 1,004 U.S. consumers to better understand how AI is changing the way people search.

    Image

    The analysis measured which keywords gained or lost search volume over the past year, how those shifts differed by industry, and how consumer behavior is evolving as AI tools become part of everyday discovery.

    The 29% search decline is real, but it depends on the vertical

    Across more than 1 million high-volume keywords, I found that 29% of search volume is in measurable decline. That is 4 percentage points above Gartner’s forecast. In a dataset representing 35.4 billion monthly searches, that difference represents a meaningful amount of search activity.

    The impact is not evenly distributed. FinTech showed the largest decline at -37.7%, while Lifestyle saw the smallest decline at -15.2%. Only three of the eight verticals, Insurance, SaaS, and Lifestyle, came in below Gartner’s 25% threshold. FinTech, HealthTech, and Wellness were well above it.

    The pattern makes sense when I look at how information-heavy each category is. When a chatbot can answer the question completely, such as summarizing drug interactions, explaining deductibles, or giving a quick overview of a fund, search volume is more likely to fall. When people need to compare prices, complete a transaction, or navigate to a specific site, search demand tends to hold up better.

    Image

    That is why transactional verticals such as SaaS, Lifestyle, Insurance, and Travel are growing or staying close to flat. Information-heavy verticals such as HealthTech, FinTech, and Wellness are seeing the largest declines.

    Before reacting to broad claims about AI-driven search decline, I would benchmark these findings against the specific vertical in question. HealthTech and FinTech teams should expect more exposure than the overall 29% decline suggests. SaaS and Lifestyle teams have more reason to challenge the idea that search demand is simply collapsing.

    Search demand is being redistributed

    The headline number gets attention, but the offset is just as important. Demand did not vanish. It moved to a different set of words, and those are the terms I would want to understand first.

    Among the high-volume keywords tracked, 40.7% are in measurable decline, meaning they lost more than 15% of their volume over the past year. Within that group, the average decline is -41%, and 112,378 keywords lost more than 40% of their volume. For brands that depend on those terms, the impact is significant.

    Image

    At the same time, 20.1% of keywords are growing by more than 15%. When I add up the volume on both sides, the decline and growth almost cancel each other out.

    The 285,489 declining keywords represent roughly 10.29 billion monthly searches. The 140,835 growing keywords represent roughly 10.31 billion monthly searches. Across the entire dataset, the net change is +16.8 million searches per month.

    Fewer keywords are growing than declining, but the growing keywords carry more volume each. That is why the totals balance out. In practical terms, I see demand relocating more than shrinking.

    The vertical-level growth-to-decline ratios show where that new demand is landing. Lifestyle leads at 2.6x, with 40% of keywords growing versus 15% declining. SaaS follows closely at 2.5x, with 48% growing versus 19% declining. HealthTech sits at the other end with an inverted ratio of 0.4x, making it the most disrupted vertical in the set.

    Image

    The first audit I would run is simple: pull the tracked keyword set, filter it by year-over-year volume change, and see which side of the ledger the portfolio sits on.

    Non-branded queries are the most vulnerable

    I see non-branded queries as the easiest ones for AI chatbots to replace. When a search term does not include a brand name, the user is not necessarily trying to reach a specific site or source. The full exchange can happen inside the chat window.

    Across the dataset, 90% of all tracked search volume is non-branded. HealthTech, at 99.6%, and Wellness, at 98.5%, are the most exposed. Insurance, at 73.8%, and SaaS, at 82.0%, are less exposed, and both are growing overall. SaaS volume is up 48% year over year, while Lifestyle is up 40%.

    If I wanted to identify the content most at risk, I would start with keyword patterns. They offer one of the clearest signals in the study.

    Image

    The reason SaaS and Lifestyle can be heavily touched by AI and still grow comes down to what happens after the AI answer. If AI recommends a project management platform or a couch, many people still search for the specific brand, retailer, review, or product page before buying. The AI answer creates a downstream search.

    HealthTech and FinTech often behave differently. A drug-interaction question or a “what is a deductible” query can be answered completely inside the chat window. There may be no next step that sends the user back to Google.

    If a category produces complete AI answers with no natural next click, I would treat AI visibility as a core strategy, not an SEO side project. In those cases, showing up in the answer may be the entire opportunity.

    70% of consumers use AI more, but only 17% use search less

    The keyword data shows what is happening in the index. The survey data shows what is happening in the minds of the people doing the searching.

    Image

    Search behavior is spreading across more platforms. Many people are adding AI to their routines without giving up Google.

    Social platforms are also acting like search engines in a way they did not a few years ago. YouTube leads at 68%, followed by Reddit at 57%, Instagram at 42%, Facebook at 40%, and TikTok at 33%.

    If I had not already prioritized YouTube and Reddit, I would move them up the list. Both rank ahead of TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook as search destinations, and both can also surface in Google results, which gives visibility there a compounding effect.

    What has actually moved from Google to AI

    More than a third of respondents, 35%, say they have not replaced traditional search with AI for anything yet. Among those who have, how-to guides and tutorials have taken the biggest hit.

    Image

    For purchase research, 47% of consumers start with a traditional search engine, tied with online retailers at 47%. Only 13% start with an AI chatbot, and shoppers check an average of three online sources before making a purchase.

    The number I would bring to a strategy meeting is this: nearly one in five consumers, 18%, have bought something based on an AI recommendation without checking it against a separate search.

    That creates a different kind of buyer journey. In that path, the brand may never receive a search-driven touchpoint. To be considered, the brand has to be one of the names the chatbot returns.

    Gen Z and millennials are 2.5x more likely than baby boomers to buy based on an unverified AI recommendation, at 20% versus 7%. Across all consumers, 59% say they are likely to visit a brand’s website after an AI chatbot mentions or recommends it.

    Image

    That is the emerging conversion funnel I am watching closely. Brand mentions in AI answers are starting to function like rankings. Visits to a brand’s website after an AI mention are starting to look like the new click-throughs.

    Trust is still mixed. In the survey, 33% of consumers trust AI and traditional search equally, 46% trust search more, and 20% trust AI more.

    More than half of consumers, 56%, are at least somewhat skeptical of AI product recommendations. I read that as a sign that people are willing to let AI filter and shortlist options, but many still want to verify before they buy.

    The 5-year outlook: Google is not going away, but the shift matters

    When asked whether Google will still be their primary search tool in five years, 52% of consumers say yes, including 17% who say definitely and 35% who say probably. Another 27% are unsure, while 20% say probably or definitely not.

    Image

    The top reasons people prefer AI over traditional search are better summaries across sources, at 21%; faster and more direct answers, at 20%; and the ability to ask conversational follow-up questions, at 19%. More personalized results and avoiding website click-throughs were much lower, at 6% and 4%.

    When asked what would bring them back to traditional search, the top answer was AI giving unreliable answers, at 35%. That means much of this shift depends on whether AI maintains trust as adoption scales. More accurate search results followed at 29%, then a preference for multiple source links at 22%, and privacy concerns at 20%.

    The 20% who expect to leave Google are not the majority, but I would not dismiss them. A strategy does not need to be rebuilt entirely around them today, but brands do need to appear where those users are already moving.

    What this means for content and SEO strategy

    I see Gartner’s 25% prediction as a useful directional warning. The real shift may be steeper, but calling it only a decline misses the more important story. Total search volume is basically flat. What has changed is which searches carry the demand.

    AI visibility is not just a threat to manage. I see it as a distribution channel. With 59% of consumers saying they are likely to visit a brand’s website after an AI mention, GEO has become a meaningful part of brand discovery.

    Earned media, credible third-party coverage, and strong entity signals all help brands appear in chatbot answers. That is why digital PR and GEO are becoming more closely connected.

    Search is moving, not disappearing.

    The brands that lose will be the ones still optimizing mainly for queries that AI now answers better. The brands that win will be the ones building enough authority to become the answer, whether that answer appears in Google or inside a chatbot.

    Methodology

    This study combined two data sources to test Gartner’s 2024 prediction that traditional search engine volume would fall 25% by 2026.

    Fractl and Search Engine Land analyzed Semrush search volume data for 1,010,848 high-volume keywords with 10,000 or more monthly searches each, covering 379 brands across eight verticals: FinTech, HealthTech, Wellness, Travel, Education, Insurance, SaaS, and Lifestyle. The dataset represented 35.4 billion in aggregate monthly search volume. Keyword-level year-over-year volume change was measured as of April 2026 and classified as declining, meaning more than 15% loss; stable, meaning within 15%; or growing, meaning more than 15% gain. Query pattern groupings, including “What is X,” “Best X for Y,” “X vs. Y,” and “How to X,” were applied at the keyword level.

    Fractl and Search Engine Land also surveyed 1,004 U.S. consumers about their search habits, AI tool adoption, and purchase research behavior. The sample was 52% women, 46% men, and 1% nonbinary, with 49% millennials, 26% Gen X, 16% Gen Z, and 9% boomers. The median respondent age was 41, with a range of 18 to 82.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • Train Your AI Salesforce Before Competitors Win Buyers

    Train Your AI Salesforce Before Competitors Win Buyers

    I started this series with a simple observation: AI systems do not always give the same answer to the same question. My argument was that this inconsistency is not just randomness. It is confidence loss across a pipeline we can measure, diagnose, and improve.

    As I worked through the AI engine pipeline gate by gate, I eventually reached the won gate. That is where three kinds of clicks appear: the imperfect click of search, the perfect click of recommendations, and the agentic click of agents.

    That is also where I realized this conversation could not stay inside marketing. When an agent makes the purchase, it becomes a client I have to satisfy directly.

    The funnel now runs through machines that connect directly to the business itself. SEO therefore becomes part of something larger: assistive agent optimization, and ultimately AI-era business engineering.

    To understand why, I need to connect the pieces. The framework explains why AI systems make the decisions they make and what shapes those decisions. When I apply those principles across the business, the goal becomes clear: organize the company so search engines, AI assistants, agents, and people can find it, understand it, recommend it, and buy from it.

    Everything Builds On SEO

    The process sits above the familiar disciplines I already work with: SEO, content, PR, paid media, and digital marketing. It helps me prioritize the actions that most affect recommendations and visibility.

    Here is the part every SEO should value: assistive agent optimization is built on SEO. It does not replace it.

    I think of it like a Russian doll. SEO sits at the center. It draws from the open web, the same crawled and indexed foundation search has always used.

    At that core are two parts of the algorithmic trinity: the search engine, which indexes and ranks information, and the knowledge graph, which stores entities and the relationships between them.

    The next layer is assistive engine optimization. It adds the third component: the large language model. The LLM provides reasoning, grounding, and conversation.

    Instead of returning only a list of links, it evaluates corroborating evidence and answers the user directly. This layer builds on traditional SEO with entity corroboration, machine-readable proof, and signals that help AI systems understand what content actually means.

    The outer layer is the agent. It introduces what the layers below it never had: direct access to business systems through protocols such as MCP. An agent can check inventory, compare prices, and complete transactions without visiting a page or clicking through a search result. This is where AI stops recommending and starts acting.

    Each layer depends on the one beneath it. The stronger the SEO foundation, the more effectively I can build everything above it. That makes SEO more central to digital marketing, and to the business itself, than it has ever been.

    Image

    If I understand how machines read the web, I hold the foundation every other AI-facing initiative depends on.

    The Funnel Has Not Changed, But The Build Direction Has

    The acquisition funnel has not fundamentally changed since marketers first drew it in the 1800s. Awareness still sits at the top, consideration in the middle, and decision at the bottom. The customer still moves downward while the brand tries to catch them. What has changed is where I have to stand to catch them.

    Traditional marketing stood in front of people in the real world, on billboards, shelves, and stages. Digital marketing did the same online through SEO, paid search, social media, and content. AI-era marketing extends that logic again.

    Now I have to stand where I always stood and also inside the AI engines. Those engines put brands in front of buyers, present the best solution, and increasingly make the purchase.

    The modern buyer mixes all three modes in a single purchase, so I have to be present in all of them. The client still travels from the top of the funnel down, but the engines learn from the bottom up. That is how I need to build for them.

    Marketers draw the funnel top-down because that is the customer path. But businesses have always had a reason to read it the other way. Winning the result for your own name is the cheapest and highest-converting move because it reaches the warmest traffic: people already at the door.

    I have made that case since 2012, when I started working on brand SERPs. Your name is the one search result you can most completely own, yet the industry ignored it for years.

    Comparison and consideration queries come next because they sit near the purchase, where buyers are most likely to convert. Awareness is the last thing I build, because those people often do not yet know what they want or what the solution might be.

    The engines make this flip unavoidable. Search engines let users move between sites on the way down the funnel, so top-down building could still work. Assistive engines pull the funnel inside themselves. Now I build from the bottom up because that is how the machine learns who to trust.

    Agents push this even further. The funnel goes dark, and the choice often goes with it. Each step takes more of the journey out of my hands, and each rewards the same brand: the one built from the bottom up.

    The Agentic Spectrum Decides How Much Must Change

    Two ideas tell me how much of a business has to change. The first is the delegation boundary. The second is the agentic spectrum.

    • The delegation boundary is the micro view. It tracks how much of one buyer journey, from searching to comparing to choosing to buying, a person hands to a machine.
    • The agentic spectrum is the macro view. It asks what share of the clientele has gone agentic and how quickly that share is growing.

    The micro view tells me how to win one buyer in the moment. The macro view tells me how much of the business has to change to keep winning buyers over time. This is the number I would start measuring first.

    Image

    Here is why it reorganizes the business, not just the marketing. When the agent makes the purchase, it becomes a client I have to satisfy directly, even as it acts for the person behind it. It answers to one priority: keeping its own user happy.

    That means the sale turns on confidence. Can the machine trust the business to meet the need and keep its client satisfied?

    That confidence has to clear a much higher bar than search or assistive engines required. It runs across the full funnel. If I earn it across the stack, I become the brand the agent buys from.

    Preparing for that is what AI-era business engineering means. Pricing, qualification, product data, checkout, service, and retention all need to be built so an agent can transact as cleanly as a person can.

    The agent navigates the whole funnel on its own. I have to convince it at every stage, from awareness to the final yes, while getting almost no visibility into the journey. What I do get is granular measurement at negotiation and transaction stages. The agent tells me what it wants, and I either satisfy it or I do not.

    That is why I need to build the business to work cleanly with agents and people alike, from the top of the funnel to the moment the deal is struck.

    Translating what a company does for humans into something machines can read and act on used to feel optional. Ignoring search engines and assistive engines was never wise, but many companies survived it. In the age of agents, ignoring the engines hands a growing share of the clientele to competitors.

    Your Untrained Salesforce Is Already Selling

    Every business now has a salesforce it never hired: Google, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot, Siri, Alexa, and many more. The number keeps growing as major tech platforms add AI answers inside social media, video, search, operating systems, and workflow tools.

    The apps people already use now embed assistants that recommend tools, vendors, and products. A buyer does not need to open a separate AI engine for this to happen.

    Those engines reach prospects in explicit, implicit, and ambient ways. However they appear, the outcome is the same: they work around the clock, speak to prospects in rooms I will never see, and decide whether to recommend me or a competitor.

    The default state of that salesforce is untrained. If someone asks about my category, it answers with the brands it happens to understand, and that may not be mine. It may hedge on basic facts, confuse the brand with a namesake, cite proof that does not exist, recommend the wrong use case, or name a competitor at the exact moment the user was looking for me.

    The cost is real, but it often never appears on a dashboard. I cannot watch the AI research the brand, evaluate it, recommend it, or talk a buyer out of choosing it. It all happens inside the machine. That is why I pay attention to three taxes: invisibility, ghost, and doubt.

    Image

    AI engines recommend the solution they are most confident in, and that is not always the best solution. It is often the one they understand best. The recommendation depends on what they grasp and how confident they are in it.

    So if my solution is truly the best, I have to train them. I have to educate them and brief them. They answer to the user, and my client is their client. They retain that client by surfacing the strongest solution they can see.

    The practical question is simple: have I made it unmistakably clear that I am the best answer to the specific problems I solve, for the ICP I serve?

    Three Taxes Quietly Cost Recommendations

    I pay a tax at every stage of the funnel for as long as this AI salesforce is not working explicitly in my favor.

    Someone types the brand name directly into an engine, and instead of a clean answer, it hedges with phrases such as “claims to be,” “reportedly serves,” or “says on its website.” Worse, it may start offering alternatives.

    Search engines usually do that only when a competitor pays heavily to appear on the brand SERP. Otherwise, the brand owns its own name.

    AI can raise the alternative on its own, purely because it is uncertain. That is why brand SERP and AI résumé protection are no longer optional.

    That hedge and nudge are the doubt tax. I pay it when the engine lacks enough independent corroboration to commit. It sits at the understandability layer, and the cost is every prospect who came looking for the brand by name and left with doubt.

    The ghost tax appears when a prospect asks the engine to compare the category and name the best options. The engine lists several brands, but mine is missing. It knows I exist, yet it does not surface me because its confidence in my credibility is too low.

    The invisibility tax appears at the top of the funnel. Someone asks a question I am well qualified to answer, and I am nowhere in the response because the engine never identified me as belonging in that conversation. I never see it because the conversation ends without me.

    I need to track these taxes across every engine and every layer, and I should not use only my own account. It is biased toward me. The right approach is proper tracking, neutral testing, and better questions.

    The funnel query pathway is the best way to read this over time and across the web. What I am measuring is leakage at each layer. Because the system is opaque, I read the macro trend rather than overreacting to one response.

    Image

    Then I build from the bottom up and clear the taxes in revenue order.

    • I clear the doubt tax first because it affects the warmest traffic.
    • I clear the ghost tax next because it affects buyers comparing close options.
    • I clear the invisibility tax last because it sits furthest from the purchase.

    That is the funnel flip again. AI engines have turned the old top-down playbook upside down.

    The Algorithmic Trinity Is Where The Work Lands

    I train the AI salesforce in three places, and I need to be present in all three for that training to hold.

    • Large language models do the reasoning at the moment of the query. This is the intelligence layer: ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.
    • Search engines index and rank fresh content. This is the information layer: Google and Bing.
    • Knowledge graphs store entities and verified relationships. This is the verification layer: Google’s Knowledge Graph, Wikidata, and Bing’s entity graph.

    Those three layers are the algorithmic trinity.

    I may be aiming at dozens of platforms and surfaces where this salesforce appears, but there are only a few machines at the root. At mass-market scale, the practical LLM list narrows quickly to ChatGPT and Gemini. There are two major web indexes, Google and Bing, and two major knowledge graph owners, Google and Bing again.

    Everything I train reaches back to the same small set of underlying systems. The corroboration work I do for one engine often strengthens the foundation for all of them.

    That is why the effort compounds. The knowledge graph confirms the entities the LLM reasons about. The search engine surfaces the fresh content the LLM grounds on. The AI salesforce becomes fully trained when all three converge on the same answer about the brand.

    That convergence is where I win: independent systems reaching the same conclusion about who I am, what I do, who I serve, and why I am credible. When I give them that picture in detail, they can hold it with confidence.

    At that point, the trinity can surface the brand at the bottom of the funnel, recommend it over competitors in the middle, and advocate for it at the top across search engines, assistive engines, and agents.

    The results vary because each platform mixes technologies differently, but the direction starts to favor the trained brand.

    Google owns all three layers and remains the dominant force across search and assistive engines, so it remains the main target.

    I am not suggesting that I ignore smaller players such as Claude or DuckDuckGo. They matter to the audiences that use them. But for most brands, users, and SEOs, the major public engines are still the key to commercial success.

    Image

    A tight digital footprint, cleaned up and optimized on-site and off-site, feeds the trinity. At mass-market scale, that means Gemini and ChatGPT, Google’s and Bing’s knowledge graphs, and Google’s and Bing’s search indexes.

    The useful side effect is that this strategy also helps with smaller players.

    Third-Party Proof Is What AI Believes

    Knowing where the work is ingested is only half the job. I also need to know which evidence the AI salesforce believes. Not all evidence carries the same weight, and the gap between weak and strong proof is often the differentiator.

    The weakest evidence is what a brand publishes about itself, in its own voice, on its own properties: homepage copy, about pages, and product descriptions. I call this first-party evidence. It is a claim and a baseline, but it proves little on its own because the engines know who wrote it.

    If I surface a client outcome, case study, or customer review on my own off-site channel, I move up to second-party evidence. The substance is no longer entirely my assertion, even though I still control the publish button.

    Then there is evidence I had no hand in publishing: clients and partners describing their own experiences, an independent journalist’s article, an analyst report, or coverage controlled entirely outside my reach. That is third-party evidence, and it is the strongest proof the salesforce can read because I could not directly shape it.

    It is also the category many brands lack because it requires real-world activity, not just publishing. First-party claims, second-party corroborates, and third-party proves. Without proof, nothing stands.

    Three Levels Of Effort Create Different Outcomes

    Most brands sit at the bottom without consciously choosing to. The minimum-effort brand keeps a website, runs some content marketing, responds to occasional mentions, and otherwise lets the ecosystem do what it does. It appears in machine-readable form but does not shape that form.

    Because minimum effort is treated as normal, many companies land here and never recognize it as a decision. Their AI salesforce is barely trained.

    The next level appears when a brand notices specific problems and fixes them: an incorrect fact in an AI Overview, a competitor outranking it for a query, or a structured data gap. Those fixes help, and the brand becomes better positioned.

    But the work is still symptom-driven. It patches what breaks loudly without building the discipline that prevents the next break. The salesforce is partially trained, but problems are driving the strategy.

    The systematic brand runs an operational discipline against the pipeline every week: entity home maintenance, evidence harvested from service teams, machine-readable proof, distribution across publication tiers, and continuous monitoring of the brand SERP and AI résumé.

    Image

    Most companies are not organized to make that happen naturally. But if I can harvest, codify, and distribute the evidence created by business operations, I can train the AI salesforce to work in my favor around the clock.

    I would start from the entity home. I would organize the brand SERP and the AI résumé, then optimize the digital footprint wherever the brand appears. That is understandability, and it is the most important first move.

    With the core entity locked, I can build credibility on top of it through engagement, reviews, client feedback, PR, and evidence that the business is genuinely good at what it does.

    Deliverability follows because work on the brand SERP and AI résumé already strengthens credibility and reach. Then I can spread the same discipline across every entity the company owns: products, services, and people.

    For each entity, I need the right content, presence where the audience is looking, a path down the funnel, and a clear connection back to the entity home. I need to walk the walk and apply the mirror principle.

    The Salesforce Is Already Working

    In 2026 and beyond, the AI salesforce operates inside the supply chain as well as the sales funnel. AI sits at the gates that decide whether to include a brand in what it knows, whether to deploy it in an answer, and whether to reselect it after every transaction.

    Every outcome customers experience feeds back into the system for the next prospect who has never heard of the brand. That is the convergence this series has been pointing toward. The salesforce is selling 24 hours a day, for the brand or for a competitor. The difference is how well it has been trained.

    This is why I see the discipline as AI-era business engineering, not just AI-era marketing. It is not a content tactic. It is a reorganization of how the business operates so pricing, qualification, product presentation, sales, retention, and customer success all create machine-readable evidence as a byproduct of doing the job.

    SEOs Are In The Best Seat In The Room

    When I speak with entrepreneurs and CEOs, I use nine questions to show where the company stands.

    Tech, bottom to top: Is our entity home locked down so engines have one source of truth about who we are? Is our structured data complete enough for them to verify what we claim? Are we discoverable across every engine when topical questions appear?

    Marketing, bottom to top: What does our brand SERP look like today, and what does the AI résumé say when engines are asked about us directly? Where is our third-party corroboration weakest, and what are we doing about it this quarter? Which topical territory do we own in the engines, and which territory do we want but not yet hold?

    Branding, bottom to top: Does our brand story match what AI is currently saying about us, and where is the gap? Are our client outcomes being engineered into machine-readable evidence, or are they dying in CRMs and quarterly retrospectives? Are we placing proof now for the categories we want to own in three years?

    Image

    All of those questions run from the bottom up, which is ironic because marketers usually work the funnel from the top down. The customer is the one moving from top to bottom, looking for a solution.

    So I take a step back and read the funnel from the bottom up. Everyone is building the same thing: understandability, credibility, and deliverability. They are just approaching it from different ends.

    The business builds from the foundation up: know who you are, know who you serve, become credible, then reach the right people.

    The marketer wants the maximum audience and starts with reach, then works down to who the brand is and why it should be trusted.

    AI starts at the bottom. Who are you? Are you credible? Only then will it put the brand in front of more people.

    The SEO is the person who can see that it is all the same system. I understand that I must work from the foundation up, the way the machine does, and then meet the customer coming down from the top.

    I should build for the customer, but work upward toward them. That has always been the stronger approach, and AI engines have now made it obvious.

    The business now has two kinds of clients: the human and the agent. I need to speak to both. The agent is emulating a person and reflecting the world’s view of the brand, so pleasing the agent and pleasing the human are closely connected.

    That is what makes SEO impossible to sideline. I am well positioned to tell the business and the marketers what must change to satisfy the agent without losing the human.

    Whether agents represent 5% of the business today or nearly all of it, the agentic share will grow year after year. That means I have to step out of the SEO corner and look at the wider business. I am in a rare position to see business, marketing, and machines at the same time.

    The audience used to be only human. Now it includes machines, too, and I am the one who can speak to both.


    This is the 19th and final piece in my AI authority series, and it has been a long journey. My thanks to Danny Goodwin, Angel Niñofranco, and the Search Engine Land team for their immense support throughout.

    When I started, the framework was a complete idea, but I had not fully worked through all the details. Week by week, I worked through each of the 15 gates, and every one turned out to be more intricate, more in-depth, and more thought-provoking than I expected.

    What I have finished is a practical framework for SEO, marketing, and business in the AI age, one that search professionals, marketers, and business leaders can apply to real business problems.

    Series Index

    Parts 1 through 18 built this framework step by step: cascading confidence, assistive agent optimization, the AI engine pipeline, infrastructure gates, competitive gates, the entity home, the push layer, annotation, topical ownership, the funnel flip, the framing gap, pipeline repair, the delegation boundary, funnel query pathways, macro measurement, customer-success proof, AI opinion formation, and the collapse of paid and organic visibility across AI surfaces.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • AI Search Trust Is Falling: What Marketers Must Fix

    AI Search Trust Is Falling: What Marketers Must Fix

    A year ago, I saw 82% of consumers say AI-powered search was more helpful than traditional search. By 2026, that number had fallen to 54%, a 28-point drop in sentiment in just 12 months.

    That does not mean people are abandoning AI search. In fact, 70% of consumers say they are using AI tools for search more than they did last year. The tension is clear: adoption is rising, but trust is slipping.

    That is the core issue I believe search marketers need to solve in 2026. It is no longer enough to appear in AI answers. I need my brand, and the brands I work with, to be visible, accurate, credible, and trusted when AI systems surface information.

    To understand the shift, Fractl partnered with Search Engine Land to expand our 2025 research. We surveyed 1,008 U.S. consumers and 150 marketers to compare how consumer trust, marketer adoption, and brand strategy are changing in the AI search era. Disclosure: I am the co-founder of Fractl.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Survey chart showing changes in AI tool usage for searching over the past year, with 70% reporting an increase.",
  "caption": "AI tool usage for searches is booming, with a striking 70% of users reporting increased activity in the past year. A detailed breakdown reveals various degrees of change.",
  "description": "This image features a survey chart depicting changes in AI tool usage for searching over the past year. 70% of consumers reported increased usage, with 25% saying it increased significantly, and 45% somewhat. Around 22% saw no change, while 3% observed a decrease. The survey highlights the growing reliance on AI for search. Source: How AI Is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights."
}
```

    Here is what I believe the data means for 2026 search strategy.

    Consumers are using AI more, but trusting it less

    AI search adoption is no longer the main story. Seventy percent of consumers report increased use of AI tools for search over the past year, while only 3% say their use has decreased. The bigger question is whether people trust what those tools return.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Chart showing AI vs traditional search helpfulness from 2025 to 2026, with generational breakdown.",
  "caption": "A comparative study indicates a decrease in those finding AI more helpful than traditional search from 2025 to 2026, with variances across generations.",
  "description": "The image illustrates a drop in the perceived helpfulness of AI over traditional search from 82% in 2025 to 54% in 2026, depicting a 28-point decline. It also shows detailed distribution data for 2026, with 17% finding AI much more helpful and 6% much less so. Generational breakdown reveals varying degrees of AI helpfulness agreement: Gen Z at 47%, Millennials at 53%, Gen X at 58%, and Baby Boomers at 63%. Keywords: AI, traditional search, generational analysis, helpfulness, distribution."
}
```

    One surprising finding is that baby boomers now find AI more helpful than Gen Z, 63% to 47%. That challenges the assumption that younger users automatically embrace AI while older users lag behind. What I see instead is a more complicated market where trust has to be earned across every generation.

    In 2025, only 3% of consumers said AI was less helpful than traditional search. By 2026, that skeptic group had grown to 17%, nearly six times larger than the year before. Even among the 54% who still find AI helpful, enthusiasm is softer: 37% say it is only somewhat more helpful, while 17% say it is much more helpful.

    I think hallucinations and low-quality AI content are changing how people evaluate the entire channel. Consumers may use AI because it is convenient, but convenience does not automatically create confidence.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Chart showing trust shift in brands using AI for marketing: 20% in 2025 to 39% in 2026, distrust doubled.",
  "caption": "In just a year, distrust in brands using AI for marketing doubled, with Gen Z showing the highest trust decrease.",
  "description": "This infographic highlights a study comparing trust in brands using AI for marketing from 2025 to 2026. It shows a significant rise in distrust, from 20% to 39%. The 2026 distribution reveals 46% of respondents unchanged, 25% somewhat decreased, and 14% significantly decreased trust. By generation, Gen Z leads with a 54% trust decrease, followed by Millennials at 40%, Gen X at 33%, and Baby Boomers at 32%."
}
```

    AI content volume has become a brand trust risk

    In 2025, 20% of consumers said heavy AI use would reduce their trust in a brand. In 2026, that number rose to 39%. For me, that makes AI content scale a reputational issue, not just an operational decision.

    If I publish AI-assisted content at scale without disclosure, strong editorial standards, or obvious quality signals, I am asking my audience to trust a process they are increasingly skeptical of. That is a risk more brands need to take seriously.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Survey results on AI content labeling show high support across text, video, images, and audio formats.",
  "caption": "A significant majority supports the labeling of AI-generated content, highlighting a demand for transparency across multiple formats.",
  "description": "This infographic presents survey results on the necessity of labeling AI-generated content. It shows that 84% support labeling for written text, with 91% for video content, 90% for images, and 87% for audio content. The data underscores a strong demand for transparency in media generated by artificial intelligence. This graphic is sourced from a study on AI's impact on SEO trends by Fractl and Search Engine Land."
}
```

    Gen Z is especially strict. Fifty-four percent of Gen Z consumers say heavy AI use in a brand’s marketing would decrease their trust, compared with 32% of baby boomers and 33% of Gen X. Women are also more likely than men to penalize brands for heavy AI use, 44% vs. 34%.

    That matters because Gen Z is often the audience most likely to engage deeply, share content, shape online conversations, and influence long-term organic visibility. If that audience matters to a brand, AI-generated filler is not a harmless shortcut.

    Disclosure is now a consumer expectation

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Graph showing AI search engine replacement sentiment from 2025 to 2026 and agreement by generation.",
  "caption": "Will AI take over search engines? In 2026, 64% still believe so, with Baby Boomers leading at 80% agreement.",
  "description": "This infographic compares the sentiment of AI potentially replacing traditional search engines from 2025 to 2026, showing a slight decrease from 66% to 64% agreement. Sentiment distribution in 2026 reveals 21% strongly agree and 43% somewhat agree. Generational breakdown indicates that Baby Boomers show the highest agreement at 80%, followed by Gen X at 73%, Millennials at 61%, and Gen Z at 51%."
}
```

    Across every major content format, more than 80% of consumers want AI-generated content labeled. Video leads at 91%, followed by images at 90%, audio at 87%, and written content at 84%. More than half of respondents strongly agree with labeling in every category.

    I do not read that as a mild preference. I read it as a near-universal expectation. The brands that treat AI disclosure as optional are creating a gap between how they operate and what their audiences want.

    Consumers still believe AI will shape the future of search. Sixty-four percent agree that AI will replace traditional search engines within five years, nearly unchanged from 66% in 2025. The channel is not going away. But being present in AI results and being trusted in AI results are now two different challenges.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Graph showing consumer behaviors towards AI summaries in search results, highlighting that 49% read summaries and sometimes click, and 38% skim and scroll past.",
  "caption": "Consumer habits reveal that 49% read AI-generated summaries and sometimes click, while 38% simply skim and scroll past. The dynamics of AI in search is shaping user behaviors.",
  "description": "This image presents a graph detailing consumer behaviors when AI summaries appear in search results. 49% of users read these summaries and sometimes click on the links, 38% skim and scroll past, 8% skip them entirely, 5% read without clicking, and 0% have not noticed AI summaries. This data underscores the impact of AI on search behaviors, emphasizing the importance of engaging summary content. Source: How AI Is Reshaping SEO by Fractl and Search Engine Land."
}
```

    Google still leads on trust, especially for buying decisions

    When consumers are making purchase decisions, 39% turn to Google first. Reddit follows at 15%, AI tools at 14%, and review sites and friends or family each at 11%. The trust people have built with Google has not automatically transferred to AI tools.

    Platform preference also changes by query type. Google dominates five of six major search categories. It is the first stop for local businesses, product research, travel planning, and health questions. YouTube overtakes Google for how-to content, while ChatGPT is now the second-most-used destination for health questions and ranks strongly for product research, travel planning, and how-to content.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Bar chart showing trust in product recommendations, with Google at 39%, Reddit at 15%, and AI tools at 14%.",
  "caption": "Consumers trust Google search results most for product recommendations, at 39%. Reddit follows with 15%, while AI tools like ChatGPT gather 14% of trust.",
  "description": "This bar chart illustrates consumer trust levels in various platforms for product recommendations. Google search results are the most trusted at 39%. Reddit is trusted by 15% of respondents, slightly higher than AI tools like ChatGPT at 14%. Review sites and friends each have an 11% trust level. YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram show much lower levels of consumer trust, with 4%, 3%, and 1% respectively. This data provides insights into consumer behavior and search preferences."
}
```

    That tells me there is no single AI search platform to optimize for. I need to map content strategy to actual user behavior: where people search, what they are trying to decide, and which platforms influence confidence at each stage.

    Before making a purchase decision, the average consumer checks 2.4 platforms. Gen Z checks 2.5, millennials 2.4, Gen X 2.3, and baby boomers 2.2. This behavior is consistent enough that I now think of search optimization as a multi-platform visibility strategy, not a rankings-only discipline.

    A brand that appears in Google results but nowhere else can lose to a brand that appears in Google, shows up in Reddit discussions, gets cited by ChatGPT, and has strong third-party review content. Visibility now has to travel with the buyer.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Infographic comparing search preferences for topics between YouTube, Google, and ChatGPT.",
  "caption": "Explore where consumers prefer to search: YouTube leads in tutorials while Google dominates most categories, with ChatGPT gaining ground in health.",
  "description": "This infographic presents data on consumer search preferences by platform, highlighting YouTube's dominance in how-to guides with 50% and Google's lead in categories like local businesses, travel planning, and health questions. ChatGPT shows notable presence in health queries. The chart uses bars to depict percentage shares, providing a clear visual comparison. Source: How AI Is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights."
}
```

    AI is changing marketing operations quickly

    AI now touches 53% of marketing work on average, up from 38% in 2025. In practical terms, the equivalent of one full workday per week has shifted to AI-assisted workflows in just 12 months. Fifty-nine percent of marketers say AI is involved in at least half their work, while 27% say it is involved in three-quarters or more.

    For SEO and content teams, this means competitors are moving faster. But speed alone is becoming commoditized. Accuracy, original insight, expert judgment, and brand credibility are much harder to copy.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Chart showing average platforms checked before buying by generation, with Gen Z at 2.5, Millennials at 2.4, Gen X at 2.3, and Baby Boomers at 2.2.",
  "caption": "Discover how many platforms each generation checks before making a purchase. This trend highlights a consistent cross-generational habit of research pre-buying.",
  "description": "This infographic from Search Engine Land presents the average number of platforms consumers check before making a purchase decision, segmented by generation. Gen Z checks 2.5 platforms, Millennials 2.4, Gen X 2.3, and Baby Boomers 2.2. It suggests a longstanding cross-generational behavior rather than a trend specific to Gen Z. Derived from 'How AI is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights' by Fractl."
}
```

    Marketers are also feeling pressure to adopt AI. Fifty-five percent of marketing roles report a 7-out-of-10 level of pressure to use it. SEO and analytics teams feel that pressure most, while PR is not far behind. As AI makes generic content easier to produce, the advantage shifts toward what AI cannot automate well: judgment, relationships, trust, and reputation.

    The quality tradeoff is real. Only 26% of marketers say AI made their work both faster and better. Nearly half say it made their work faster but more generic, and 7% report an outright quality decline.

    That is where I see a major competitive opening. If other teams are scaling generic AI content while I invest in original data, expert quotes, third-party validation, and earned brand mentions, I am building assets that are more visible, credible, and retrievable across search engines, social platforms, and LLMs.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Infographic showing increase in marketing work using AI tools from 38% in 2025 to 53% in 2026.",
  "caption": "The role of AI in marketing is booming! By 2026, it’s expected that 53% of marketing work will incorporate AI tools, a significant leap from 38% in 2025.",
  "description": "This infographic highlights the growth of AI tools in the marketing industry, predicting an increase from 38% usage in 2025 to 53% in 2026. It shows bar graphs illustrating that 27% of marketers use AI in 75% or more of their tasks, and 59% use AI in 50% or more. The data, sourced from a study on AI's impact on SEO, suggests a major shift towards AI integration in marketing workflows."
}
```

    AI governance is still too weak

    About three in four organizations conduct human editorial review before publishing AI-generated content. Sixty-two percent check for brand voice, 54% check facts, and 42% conduct legal or compliance review. Only 27% evaluate content for bias.

    That means nearly half of AI-generated content may enter the market without fact-checking, legal review, or plagiarism checks. Too many teams are still relying on surface-level review: Does it sound right? Is the tone appropriate? Are there typos?

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Infographic showing average pressure on marketers by function and generation to adopt AI.",
  "caption": "Understanding AI Adoption Pressures: Marketers face a significant average pressure of 6.4/10, with analytics and Gen Z experiencing the highest demands.",
  "description": "This infographic depicts the average pressure marketers feel to adopt AI, rated on a 0-10 scale. Analytics or marketing data receives the highest pressure at 7.5/10, while public relations faces 5.8/10. By generation, Gen Z feels the most pressure at 6.8/10. Overall, the average pressure level is 6.4, with 55% of marketers experiencing substantial pressure. Keywords: AI adoption, marketing pressure, generational impact."
}
```

    In a year when consumers are already prepared to distrust generic AI content, I see governance as one of the cheapest gaps to close and one of the most expensive to ignore.

    The disclosure gap is just as serious. Heavy, generic AI use is now a brand-trust liability, yet only 20% of organizations always disclose AI use to their audiences. Compare that with the 84% average consumer demand for labeling written content, and the disconnect is obvious.

    The takeaway is not to abandon AI. It is to stop treating governance as optional. Every AI workflow needs accuracy checks, transparency standards, bias review, and human accountability before content reaches an audience.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Survey results on AI's impact on marketing work quality and speed, showing most believe AI made work faster but average in quality.",
  "caption": "AI in marketing: a speedy but average upgrade? Survey reveals 48% say AI quickened work, yet kept quality at bay. Explore the velocity-quality balance.",
  "description": "This infographic illustrates survey results on AI's influence in marketing, revealing 48% feel AI has made work faster but with average quality. Only 26% report both faster and superior quality. The visualization, sourced from 'How AI is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights,' highlights a velocity-quality tradeoff as the prevailing theme in AI-enhanced marketing practices. Additional responses include 13% stating quality remained the same, 7% noting a decline in quality, and 6% believing it’s too soon to tell."
}
```

    AI hallucinations are already a brand problem

    A year ago, about 22% of marketers tracked LLM visibility. In 2026, that figure barely moved to 24%. At the same time, 27% of brands have already been misrepresented in AI-generated responses, and 14% say an AI inaccuracy has affected a customer relationship, sale, or PR situation.

    More brands have been misrepresented by AI than have a formal monitoring process. That should concern every search and communications team.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Survey showing QC steps marketers use for AI content: 72% use human editorial review, 62% brand review, 54% fact-checking.",
  "caption": "Marketers prioritize human editorial review in AI-generated content, with 72% ensuring quality through hands-on editing.",
  "description": "This image reveals a survey on quality control (QC) steps marketers take for AI-generated content. It shows 72% conduct human editorial reviews, while 62% focus on brand voice and tone. Additional fact-checking is performed by 54%, with 42% checking for plagiarism or originality and legal compliance. Only 27% perform bias evaluations, and 4% take no additional steps. The data source is 'How AI Is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights'. Keywords: AI content, content marketing, quality control, human review, SEO."
}
```

    If AI is summarizing my category, comparing my product, or explaining my brand incorrectly, that is not only an SEO issue. It is a reputation risk, a revenue risk, and a PR issue waiting to escalate.

    When AI misrepresents a brand, I believe fixing the source matters more than arguing with the output. That can mean reaching out to publishers for updates, correcting owned profiles, improving brand pages, and publishing clear correction content tied to the entity.

    Organic traffic is under pressure, not in freefall

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Chart showing marketing strategies to offset AI impact: GEO/AEO prioritized by 54% of marketers.",
  "caption": "Marketers are turning towards innovative strategies like GEO/AEO, with 54% prioritizing these to counter AI's influence in 2026.",
  "description": "This image presents a chart detailing marketing strategies to address AI's impact. The primary focus is on Generative Engine Optimization (GEO/AEO), prioritized by 54% of marketers, indicating its growing importance. Building brand presence on social platforms tops the list with 59%, followed by other strategies such as creating authoritative content (44%) and increasing social spend (38%). The data is sourced from 'How AI Is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights.' Keywords: marketing strategies, AI impact, GEO, AEO, SEO trends."
}
```

    Half of the marketers surveyed reported organic traffic declines since the launch of AI Overviews, and 61% blame AI. That is meaningful, but it is not the whole story.

    The larger shift is not simply from Google to ChatGPT. It is from search as a destination to search as a behavior. People are asking, comparing, validating, and deciding across platforms, communities, assistants, and review environments.

    The same marketers reporting organic losses are often finding visibility elsewhere. Fifty-seven percent report growth from social platforms such as TikTok, Reddit, and YouTube. Forty percent see growth from AI assistants such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity. Thirty-one percent see growth in direct or branded traffic, while only 10% report no visibility growth anywhere.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Infographic on brand misrepresentation in AI responses with statistics on AI inaccuracies and monitoring processes.",
  "caption": "Discover key insights into how brands experience AI misrepresentation and the importance of formal monitoring processes in this insightful infographic.",
  "description": "This infographic highlights the impact of AI on brand representation. It reveals that 27% of brands have been inaccurately described by AI, with 14% witnessing AI inaccuracies affecting customer or PR outcomes. Only 24% of organizations have a formal process to monitor AI brand mentions, indicating potential PR crises. Data sources include 'How AI is Reshaping SEO: 2025 vs. 2026 Trends & Strategy Insights.' Keywords: AI, brand misrepresentation, monitoring, PR crisis."
}
```

    That is why I think 2026 brand visibility depends on brand mentions and entity authority across the web, not just individual page rankings in Google.

    Marketers are prioritizing the easiest tactics

    Many teams are moving in the right general direction: community building, earned authority, owned audiences, expert content, and traffic diversification. The most prioritized strategies include building brand presence on social platforms at 59%, GEO and AEO optimization at 54%, and creating authoritative expert content at 44%.

    Infographic showing 50% of marketers report decreased organic traffic since Google AI Overviews launched, with response distribution by severity.
    Half of surveyed marketers say organic traffic has fallen since AI Overviews arrived, but the data points to pressure rather than collapse, with 30% reporting no change.

    But the least prioritized strategy is original research and data, at only 15%. I see that as a strategic inversion.

    Original, proprietary research is one of the hardest content assets for AI to replicate or commoditize. It earns citations, attracts links, builds topical authority, and gives journalists, communities, search engines, and AI systems something distinctive to reference.

    In GEO, the same pattern appears. Many marketers are using content-led tactics that AI can easily replicate. Long-tail FAQs can help with AI Overviews, and schema can support structure, but neither one builds credibility by itself.

    Infographic chart showing where brands saw visibility growth: social platforms lead at 57%, followed by AI assistants at 40% and direct traffic at 31%.
    As organic search pressure grows, marketers are finding brand visibility gains across social platforms, AI assistants, direct traffic and Google AI features, according to Fractl and Search Engine Land.

    The stronger moat is entity authority: proprietary data, expert perspectives, topical depth, and third-party validation. These are the assets that make a brand worth citing.

    GEO measurement is lagging behind execution

    Only a little more than half of marketers are confident in their GEO strategy, and only 12% have measurable results. That is understandable for a newer channel, but GEO is becoming too important to manage casually.

    Infographic showing GEO tactics marketers use, led by FAQ and question content optimization at 49%, followed by brand mentions at 43%.
    Marketers are leaning into practical GEO tactics, with FAQ optimization leading the pack, while entity authority, original research and citations trail behind.

    I believe visibility tracking, citation monitoring, branded search lift, and AI-assisted conversion analysis all need more attention. Teams that can prove GEO ROI will be able to defend and grow investment while others are still guessing.

    The main barrier to deeper AI integration is not leadership buy-in. Only 2% cite that as the obstacle. The top barrier is team training and skill gaps at 26%, followed by tool fragmentation at 20%, budget constraints at 19%, unclear ROI at 12%, and legal or compliance concerns at 12%.

    For search teams, that means AI literacy, prompt strategy, content quality control, and GEO measurement skills may be more valuable right now than adding another tool to the stack.

    Infographic showing marketer confidence in GEO strategy, with 61% confident and response distribution led by 49% somewhat confident.
    Most marketers see early signs their GEO strategy is working, but only 12% report measurable results, highlighting a major gap in AI search measurement.

    What I would do for a 2026 search strategy

    First, I would audit the brand’s AI footprint. I would query the brand name across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews, then document what is accurate, what is missing, and what is wrong. Waiting until an AI error becomes a PR issue is too late.

    Second, I would invest in entity authority and original research. AI cannot invent legitimate proprietary survey data, named expert perspectives, verified brand facts, or original market analysis. Those assets become more valuable as AI systems get better at rewarding genuine authority.

    Third, I would distribute visibility across multiple platforms. Google organic remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient. A brand needs a consistent presence in Reddit discussions, YouTube content, AI assistant responses, review platforms, and earned media.

    Fourth, I would build AI content governance, not just AI content workflows. Consumer demand for AI disclosure ranges from 84% to 91% across formats, while only 20% of brands always disclose. That gap is a reputational liability and may become a legal and regulatory one.

    Fifth, I would close the GEO measurement gap. If I can connect AI search mentions to traffic, lead quality, and revenue, I can prove ROI at a time when most teams cannot. That creates a budget and strategy advantage that compounds.

    Finally, I would double down on what AI cannot easily replicate: proprietary data, named experts, human-verified claims, transparent sourcing, and a consistent high-quality brand voice. In 2026, the brands that treat quality as a strategic differentiator are the ones most likely to be surfaced, cited, and trusted.

    Methodology

    Fractl and Search Engine Land surveyed 1,008 U.S. consumers and 150 marketers in Q2 2026. The consumer sample was nationally representative across age, gender, and region. The marketer sample included companies ranging from fewer than 10 employees to more than 5,000 and covered roles in SEO, content, social, analytics, paid media, PR, and marketing leadership.

    Where noted, findings are compared year over year against the same questions asked in Fractl’s 2025 consumer study conducted with Search Engine Land.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • Discover the Best IT & MSP Marketing Agencies of 2026

    Discover the Best IT & MSP Marketing Agencies of 2026

    Last updated: June 5, 2026

    I’m excited to present the top IT & MSP marketing agencies for 2026. Compiling this list was no small feat, as it involved evaluating over 53 candidates using several important criteria:

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Graphical timeline showing marketing strategies under the heading 'Test, Optimize, Perform' by a full-service global marketing agency.",
  "caption": "Embark on a strategic marketing journey with 'Test, Optimize, Perform.' Discover the impact of targeted actions like Facebook microtargets and TV ads in this graphic.",
  "description": "This image presents a graph depicting the strategic steps 'Test, Optimize, Perform' by a full-service global marketing agency. The timeline highlights key marketing approaches such as optimized Facebook microtargets, A/B testing of PR headlines, purchasing local TV ads, and expanding long-tail SEO content. The background creates a visual contrast against the golden curve representing growth and strategic implementation. Keywords: marketing strategy, global agency, A/B testing, SEO, advertising."
}
```
    • Notable Clients (25%): We looked at the top IT & MSP clients displayed on each agency’s website, focusing on recognizable names within the industry and related tech fields.
    • Leadership Experience (25%): This involves a 1-5 ranking based on the marketing and IT/MSP experience of C-suite members.
    • Average Review Score (20%): Each agency’s overall performance was ranked using a 1-5 scale, informed by online reviews.
    • Median Employee Tenure (15%): We considered how long employees typically stay with the agency, which often correlates with customer satisfaction.
    • Founder Led (10%): We favored agencies where the founder remains actively involved, either in daily operations or as a consultant.
    • Year Established (5%): The founding year of the agency was also considered to gauge its resilience in adapting to changing marketing landscapes.
    ```json
{
  "alt": "Lemonade Stand digital marketing agency webpage screenshot featuring a man in an office.",
  "caption": "Discover growth with Lemonade Stand's results-driven digital marketing solutions. Explore strategies that cater to your business needs!",
  "description": "This image displays a Lemonade Stand digital marketing agency webpage. It features large text promoting the agency as a results-driven full-service provider. A man in a plaid shirt leans forward in an office setting next to a company logo on a blue wall. The page includes calls-to-action for quotes and contact. Keywords: digital marketing, agency, business growth, Lemonade Stand."
}
```

    Below, I’ve compiled a table listing these top-performing agencies, along with brief insights into their marketing specializations.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Epsilon webpage highlighting person-first intelligence in retail media with a smiling man and icons.",
  "caption": "Discover how Epsilon Retail Media integrates person-first intelligence with AI, enhancing shopper loyalty and decision-making.",
  "description": "The Epsilon webpage showcases their retail media platform that merges AI with person-first intelligence. The image features a smiling individual beside colorful icons symbolizing connection and decision-making. Epsilon aims to improve shopper loyalty through advanced personalized strategies. The page highlights key offerings and invites users to explore what's new with a prominent call-to-action button."
}
```

    Top IT & MSP Marketing Agencies: 2026 Report

    RankCompanyNotable ClientsLeadership Experience (1-5)Average Review Score (1-5)Median Employee TenureFounder LedEstablishedApproach to Marketing
    1First Page SageEquinix, ZPE Systems, iTech4.84.94.3 yearsYes2009GEO and SEO for IT & MSP companies to enhance brand authority and generate organic leads
    2TOP AgencyMicrosoft, Intel4.54.82.4 yearsYes2018IT-focused branding and influencer marketing
    3Lemonade StandRE/MAX, Tocht, Ragnar4.34.03.3 yearsYes2013Full-service MSP marketing
    4EpsilonEpson, Dell, Faraday4.74.34.7 yearsNo2008Enterprise-level marketing for IT clients
    5On24 MarketingPraemium, CloudTek, ConnectWise4.44.34.1 yearsYes1998IT-focused webinar marketing
    6Yes&Avaya, Commscope4.44.51.8 yearsYes1986PPC and branding for smaller IT companies
    7AllianceMBSE Cyber Systems4.14.52.4 yearsNo2008Trade show marketing for IT companies
    8Seota Digital MarketingCinchOps, Spector IT, M2 Technology4.14.64.3 yearsNo2009WordPress web design for MSP & cybersecurity companies

    First Page Sage

    Fps It Msp Website

    First Page Sage stands out as a GEO and SEO agency devoted to crafting thought leadership content that attracts inbound leads for B2B companies. Their specialty lies in IT and MSP sectors, where they generate authoritative content on niche topics like infrastructure comparisons, compliance frameworks, and ROI of managed services. This strategy positions their clients as leading experts before any sales discussions commence.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "ON24 platform promotion with a smiling medical professional and webinar interaction data.",
  "caption": "Discover the next generation of ON24 and boost your virtual engagements to the AI era with cutting-edge tools. See the 30% increase in HCP interactions!",
  "description": "This image promotes the ON24 Intelligent Engagement Platform, featuring a smiling person in medical attire, highlighting its application in hosting webinars and virtual events. A statistic showing a 30% increase in healthcare professional interactions is displayed, alongside action buttons for 'Get Started' and 'Chat Now'. Keywords: ON24, webinars, AI, engagement platform, healthcare, virtual events."
}
```

    With LLMs becoming a core component in how buyers assess vendors, First Page Sage’s prominence as the top-rated GEO agency in America sets them apart. Their commitment to excellence is highlighted by their longstanding IT and MSP client collaborations dating back to 2009, and their review score—the highest on this list—shows the quality and consistency their team has delivered over time.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "Marketing agency homepage with a fish wearing a shark fin and the text 'Harness the Power of &'.",
  "caption": "Unleash creativity with Yes&, where even a fish can be a shark! Dive into innovative marketing solutions with the power of ‘&’.",
  "description": "The homepage of Yes& marketing agency highlights a creative image of a fish wearing a shark fin, symbolizing transformation and potential. The bold text reads 'Harness the Power of &' alongside the agency's logo. This design emphasizes their expertise in tackling complex marketing challenges. The image is accompanied by a menu bar with options like Work, Expertise, About Us, and social media icons, enhancing user interaction and navigation."
}
```
    • Notable Clients: Equinix, ZPE Systems, iTech
    • Leadership Experience: 4.8
    • Average Review Score: 4.9
    • Median Employee Tenure: 4.3 years
    • Founder Led: Yes
    • Established: 2009
    • Approach to Marketing: GEO and SEO development for boosting IT & MSP brand authority and lead generation
    • Contact: First Page Sage Website
    ```json
{
  "alt": "Trade show event with attendees gathered at booths under a modern ceiling, promoting design services.",
  "caption": "Explore dynamic trade show floor planning with engaging booths and interactive exhibits, where everyone fits perfectly.",
  "description": "This image showcases a bustling trade show event with numerous attendees engaging at various booths beneath an architecturally modern ceiling. The scene emphasizes the tagline, 'Trade Show Floor Plan and Design,' suggesting a focus on meticulous venue planning and layout services. A red button invites viewers to 'Get a Quote,' adding an action-oriented element. Keywords: trade show, floor plan, design, event planning, booths."
}
```
    Summary of Online Reviews
    Clients appreciate First Page Sage for its “deeply engaging content driving meaningful leads.” Their team “clearly researched the [IT industry] to produce expert content,” and are described as “great to work with” and “committed to our KPIs.”
    ```json
{
  "alt": "Seota Digital Marketing webpage showcasing WordPress and Shopify services for growth.",
  "caption": "Boost your business with Seota's expert WordPress and Shopify solutions that prioritize SEO for impactful growth.",
  "description": "The Seota Digital Marketing homepage highlights their expertise in WordPress and Shopify website development aimed at driving business growth. The design features a friendly image of a woman gesturing toward a laptop, symbolizing digital connection. The text emphasizes SEO integration as a unique advantage, complemented by a 'Talk to Us Today' call-to-action button. Various accolades and achievements are displayed to establish trust and credibility. The intuitive layout and vibrant colors enhance engagement."
}
```

    Inspired by this post on First Page Sage Blog.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • Master Your Brand with a Strategic Martech Stack

    Master Your Brand with a Strategic Martech Stack

    Struggling with maintaining brand consistency? I’ve learned that it’s not about having more tools, but rather having the right tools, perfectly aligned with your brand’s goals.

    I’ve seen marketing teams overwhelmed with tools. The average B2B company might use up to 20 different martech solutions. Despite this, keeping brand consistency at scale can be tough. Fewer than 10% of brands manage to maintain strong cohesiveness across all products and channels. The core issue? Tools rarely work in harmony to support a unified brand experience.

    Managing a brand across various channels, whether through campaigns or social media, can lead to brand elements drifting. It’s those small inconsistencies—a slightly off-color logo here, outdated messaging there—that can gradually erode the hard-earned brand equity.

    The solution isn’t about increasing the number of tools. It’s about selecting the right ones and arranging them with deliberate intention.

    Start with strategy, then stack

    Before diving into an audit of your current software or seeking out new options, it’s crucial to develop a framework for what brand equity means to your organization. David Aaker’s brand equity model—which focuses on loyalty, awareness, perceived quality, and brand associations—is a sound approach. It transforms brand management into a sustainable growth strategy. In terms of a martech stack, this means utilizing tools that both build and protect your brand.

    On the strategy side, platforms like Notion, Miro, and Lucidchart are invaluable. They help document positioning, define messaging, and map out customer journeys. These may not be glamorous, but they provide the solid foundation for successful execution. Without such a framework, design and content teams are left guessing.

    The core of the stack: Digital asset management

    If there’s one tool that differentiates a cohesive brand management stack from fragmented apps, it’s digital asset management (DAM). Unlike typical cloud storage services such as Google Drive or Dropbox, a DAM solution organizes and governs brand assets comprehensively, offering features like approval workflows and version management that cloud storage lacks.

    Consistent branding can increase revenue by 10–20%, and a DAM provides the structure needed to maintain this consistency at scale. By ensuring all team members and partners access the same approved asset library, you eliminate brand drift.

    Modern DAMs further simplify brand management by integrating AI to speed up content discovery and automated metadata tagging, reducing creative bottlenecks and accelerating go-to-market timelines.

    Execution tools that reinforce brand standards

    Apart from DAM, execution tools are essential for converting brand strategy into consistent published content. Depending on your team, Adobe Creative Cloud, Figma, or Canva can be used. They offer varying degrees of design flexibility and guardrails to maintain brand standards.

    Balancing creativity with adherence to brand guidelines is key. Tools with brand templating features allow teams autonomy while ensuring brand consistency. Alternatively, using brand templates within your DAM offers greater control and tracking capabilities.

    For social media and content distribution, platforms like Hootsuite and HubSpot ensure cohesive publishing across channels. It’s crucial these tools connect to your DAM to guarantee only brand-approved content is shared widely.

    SEO tools like SEMrush and Ahrefs help reinforce your brand’s voice and authority online. In today’s market, where SEO extends to geo-targeting, it’s vital to ensure your brand is accurately represented from the start of customer interaction.

    Governance closes the loop

    A martech stack without governance is simply a mix of tools. Governance—including approval workflows and brand monitoring—is what makes your stack effective and protective.

    Incorporating workflow tools into project management or your DAM ensures faster and accountable proofing cycles. Tools like Mention help track external brand perception, highlighting areas of potential drift before they escalate.

    The takeaway

    The aim of a streamlined brand management martech stack is not complexity but efficiency. It should empower any team member or partner to access and create on-brand content swiftly, independently, and without needing constant design team input.

    This requires a strategic approach, a robust DAM as the central hub, integration with execution tools, and governance practices that uphold standards. When these elements work together, your brand transforms from a reactive endeavor to a proactive tool for long-term success.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot
  • Boosting Brand Authority: The Key to Winning in AI Search

    Boosting Brand Authority: The Key to Winning in AI Search

    I’ve discovered a fascinating truth about search in the age of AI: brand authority often outshines topical authority. The landscape of search has shifted, and it’s time for us to adapt.

    While topical authority remains a beloved concept among SEO consultants pitching content, brand authority holds the reins in today’s AI-driven search landscape. Marketers have long discussed brand authority, though it was often dismissed or left to brand teams post-sitemap adjustments.

    AI’s emergence has upended the traditional approach, revealing underlying issues. Search is crucial for the global economy, and the industry’s marketing approach needs re-examination. More content doesn’t automatically confer authority. In fact, AI search champions brands gaining notable visibility, mentions, and real demand.

    Too many SEOs overlook the reasons people choose, trust, and remember brands. In this new world of AI search, such ignorance stands out even more. That’s why brand authority prevails—but not in the way our typical SEO tools might suggest.

    Previously, the meaning of topical authority was intended to highlight genuine expertise through useful work, citations from others, and a growing associated reputation. This builds your brand’s association with a topic, which in turn, creates authority and fosters brand development.

    However, the industry often marketed topical authority commercially, emphasizing volume over value. Technical SEO became a niche, links were outsourced or repackaged, but content was the consistent agency engine.

    Pre-AI, this made sense. Creating good content involved rigorous processes and offered substantial value, earning rankings and supporting commercial interests. In contrast, topical authority introduced the misguided idea that mere keyword coverage equated to expertise, diluting the concept’s original intent.

    Another intriguing aspect of authority is understanding what others say about you, rather than solely focusing on self-published content. Google’s Jun Wu highlighted the importance of ‘mention information’—how search engines discern topics, identify sources, and map relationships.

    Our modern term for this is brand co-occurrence. Being consistently mentioned by authoritative sites and communities solidifies your brand’s association with a topic, elevating market perception and authority.

    ```json
{
  "alt": "The CapmatchOne logo with a gradient circle and bold text.",
  "caption": "Discover innovation with the CapmatchOne logo, featuring sleek typography and a modern gradient circle.",
  "description": "The CapmatchOne logo features bold, modern typography coupled with a gradient circle, symbolizing connection and innovation. The sleek design conveys a sense of progress and creativity. This image can be used for branding or promotional purposes, appealing to audiences interested in innovative solutions and forward-thinking designs."
}
```

    Many might pitch the concept of topical authority as building a comprehensive keyword strategy, but actual authority requires originating valuable data and sharing insights that engage audiences and capture media attention.

    The changing economic landscape of AI means that traditional advertising methods through content must evolve. With AI offering direct answers, the value of certain traditional SEO practices is diminishing. Users, like my AI-liking father, prefer quick, synthesized information over cumbersome web browsing.

    The rise of AI citations in search metrics has become a focus, but they differ from authentic human endorsements. Real influence is reflected through human testimonies, where your brand is discussed, cited, and recommended.

    If measuring brand authority, brand searches present a clearer indicator of growth. If more people search specifically for your brand, it signals rising demand and market presence—a more accurate reflection of impact than solely relying on AI citations.

    Traditional SEO still plays a role, ensuring you’re found where it matters—be it in search rankings or marketplaces. Yet, brand authority distinctly drives recommendations, and AI search is starting to favor consolidated options, often mentioning specific brands and solutions.

    The future echoes the demand for meaningful engagement and widespread brand visibility. Though SEO isn’t dead, a simplistic keyword-centric approach is fading. A holistic approach integrating positioning, PR, reviews, and content as interconnected elements is pivotal.

    In an era where fitness and visibility are equal determinants of success, brands must excel in products and services while ensuring their market presence is robust and omnipresent. After all, brand authority is what truly wins, confirming that mediocrity no longer warrants attention.


    Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.


    crushpress.ai community screenshot