Featured | 2026-07-02 | 10 min read
AI Search Strategy: How to Get Your Business Found and Cited
Build a GEO strategy around buyer questions, verifiable sources, consistent measurement, and fixes that help customers choose you.
Direct answer: An AI search strategy improves the information AI systems can use to describe, cite, and recommend your business. Start with real buyer questions, record the answers and sources, fix the most important evidence gaps, and repeat the same checks. Measure qualified enquiries separately from mentions and citations.
Written by: Esmail Hanif, AI Visibility Strategist & Founder, Martecks
What does GEO actually change?
A buyer asks an assistant to compare three providers. Your website might never receive a visit, even if the answer discusses your business. That makes accuracy and inclusion worth measuring alongside search traffic. Neither replaces the need to win customers.
Generative engine optimization, or GEO, is work intended to improve your presence in generated answers. AEO and GEO overlap in everyday use; there is no universally enforced boundary between them. SEO still matters because search-based answers need accessible source material.
Profound University teaches a useful operating cycle called SAGE: Setup, Analyze, Generate, Engineer. Its Marketing Engineering course adds the discipline of turning recurring work into tested systems. For a business owner, the practical question is simpler: what evidence is missing, who can fix it, and how will we know whether the fix helped?
Start with a buying decision, not a visibility score
Pick one service, one audience, and the market you actually serve. An emergency plumber in Milton needs to be considered for urgent local jobs. Appearing in a generic explanation of plumbing is a different outcome.
Collect questions from enquiries, sales conversations, Search Console, and customer support. Keep unbranded discovery questions separate from questions that name your company. Asking whether your company is good almost guarantees its name enters the conversation; it does not test whether an assistant would discover it independently.
Search volume helps estimate demand for related Google searches. It is not the number of people asking an AI assistant that question. Do not multiply a keyword estimate by your missing-mention rate and call the result lost customers.
| Question | What it tests | Evidence to prepare |
|---|---|---|
| Who handles emergency drain repairs in Milton? | Unprompted consideration | Service coverage, real hours, contact details |
| Should I repair or replace a damaged drain? | Decision support | Inspection criteria and limits of each option |
| Does this plumber charge a call-out fee? | Purchase uncertainty | Current fee policy and what a quote includes |
| Is this named company reliable? | Brand accuracy and reputation | Relevant reviews, credentials, documented work |
Expand the questions without making a page for each one
Google says its AI features may use query fan-out: searching related subtopics to assemble an answer. A request for a reliable emergency plumber can involve location, availability, repair type, and evidence of reliability.
Use those questions to inspect your coverage. Hours and call-out fees probably belong on the service page. A detailed repair-versus-replacement decision may need its own guide. Two nearly identical articles targeting slightly different wording rarely help the reader.
Generated question suggestions are hypotheses. They are not a record of the hidden searches an AI platform actually ran, and they are not measured demand. Validate them against customer questions and the sources visible in real answers.
Save a baseline you can repeat
Start small enough to inspect every answer. Ten relevant questions checked repeatedly are more useful than hundreds you never read. This is a manageable starting sample, not a statistically representative survey of your market.
Record the exact question, date, product, available model and search settings, language, location context, answer, and linked sources. Note whether the company was merely mentioned, actually recommended, or cited through its own website. Check that the name refers to the right business.
Keep the original question set stable. Add new experiments separately. Otherwise, a rising score may reflect easier questions rather than better visibility. Consumer apps and API tests can also produce different results; label which surface you tested.
Let the sources tell you what kind of fix to investigate
Open the citations. A list of domains is not enough: read the passage about the company, check its date, and ask whether it actually supports the answer. A visible citation is evidence you can inspect, not a complete explanation of the model's reasoning.
Profound's citation-data lesson distinguishes content you control from outside coverage. That distinction prevents a common mistake: writing another blog post when the missing evidence is a review, an accurate business listing, or a genuine service capability.
| What you observe | First action | Who controls it |
|---|---|---|
| Your service page omits the relevant town | State the real service area and useful local details | Your business |
| A directory lists old opening hours | Correct the listing through its normal process | Shared with the platform |
| Independent comparisons omit your product | Offer relevant evidence to the publisher, without demanding inclusion | The publisher |
| Reviews repeatedly describe slow responses | Investigate and improve response handling | Operations, then customers |
| Your page is cited but the fee is misrepresented | Check both the page wording and cited passage before changing anything | Depends on the source of the error |
Make your pages useful before adding more pages
Check access first. Can the relevant crawler fetch the page without an error or challenge? Can the important answer be read as text? For Google's AI search features, the page must be indexed and eligible to appear with a snippet. Google says no special AI schema or extra machine-readable file is required.
Then inspect the answer itself. A service page should explain the job, where it is available, relevant exclusions, the pricing process, evidence of experience, and the next step. Put the answer under a descriptive heading. A table helps with a genuine comparison; it does not manufacture credibility.
For example, replace “fast service at affordable prices” with your actual booking hours, the conditions for emergency attendance, and how fees are agreed. Do not invent a response-time promise because a competitor advertises one.
Use the service page scorecard to find omissions. For access problems, start with the AI crawler readiness checker. Neither tool can certify that an AI system will recommend you.
Build independent proof without manufacturing praise
Your own website can explain your offer. It cannot substitute for independent experience. Accurate profiles, relevant customer reviews, partner references, and credible editorial coverage can give buyers additional evidence to inspect.
Ask customers for honest reviews without filtering requests to only happy customers. Correct inaccurate directory details. When approaching a publication, offer something relevant: a documented project, a useful dataset, or expertise its readers need. Payment or outreach does not guarantee editorial inclusion, much less an AI citation.
Content engineering improves what you publish. Citation engineering examines the broader sources describing you. Keep both connected to facts: a real service weakness needs an operational fix, not more favourable copy.
Separate access, visibility, and business results
Do not collapse every signal into one success number. A verified bot request shows access activity. It does not prove the page appeared in an answer. A brand mention does not prove a recommendation, and a recommendation does not prove a sale.
For a simple illustration, if your brand appears in 12 of 40 valid collected answers, its observed mention rate is 30% in that sample. That is not 30% of the market. Report failed checks separately rather than silently treating them as missing mentions.
Compare periods with the same questions and collection method. Inspect a change before rewriting the page: platform behaviour, source changes, brand matching, or a failed collection can all affect the report. Keep historical snapshots so you can investigate later.
| Signal | Useful for | Does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Verified crawler requests and status codes | Diagnosing access failures | A citation or recommendation |
| Mentions in a fixed answer sample | Tracking observed inclusion | Total audience reach |
| Cited URLs and supporting passages | Finding evidence to examine | Why the engine selected the source |
| Identifiable AI referral visits | Measuring some click-through traffic | Every AI-influenced visit |
| Qualified enquiries and sales | Assessing commercial value | AI causation without attribution evidence |
Automate the reporting, keep judgement accountable
The useful connection to marketing engineering is repeatability. A weekly system can collect the same checks, preserve answers and sources, calculate changes, and prepare a short review. It should not invent a strategic explanation for every fluctuation.
Use code or spreadsheet formulas for counts and percentages. Use an LLM to help group evidence or draft a diagnosis, with source references attached. If a page could not be retrieved, record the failure; do not replace last week's valid record with an empty result.
Profound's lesson on conditionals recommends routing findings according to significance. Apply that to your own business: routine movement can wait for a digest, while an incorrect phone number or a blocked priority page deserves attention. A person should approve public claims and outreach.
Test the workflow against saved examples: no change, a failed fetch, an ambiguous company name, and a genuine information change. Fix the collection step when data is missing instead of repeatedly rewriting the analysis prompt.
A realistic first month
Treat the first month as a baseline and improvement cycle, not a deadline for guaranteed citations. For the plumbing example, completing a useful service page and correcting inaccurate hours are worthwhile even before any visibility change is measurable.
| When | Work | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Choose one service and record a repeatable question sample | Saved answers, citations, settings, and enquiry baseline |
| Week 2 | Inspect cited evidence and fix the clearest owned-page gap | One accurate, useful service page with a change log |
| Week 3 | Correct profiles and pursue relevant independent proof | Verified details and documented outreach, not promised placements |
| Week 4 | Repeat the checks and review enquiries | Comparable observations and the next evidence-backed action |
Common questions
Do I need Profound to start? No. A spreadsheet and carefully recorded manual checks can establish a small baseline. Paid tools become useful when collection, history, team access, and analysis outgrow that process. Compare their actual coverage before buying.
How long does GEO take? There is no dependable universal deadline. Correcting a page happens on your schedule; crawling, retrieval, and answer selection do not. Check that the change is accessible, then look for repeated observations rather than celebrating one favourable answer.
Can a well-structured page guarantee citations? No. Clarity helps a reader understand and verify an answer. It does not oblige an engine to select it. Relevant evidence, technical eligibility, and competing sources still matter.
Should I create more content or improve outside mentions? Inspect the missing evidence first. If your page fails to answer a buyer's question, fix it. If the answer depends on independent experience, another self-published claim will not supply that evidence.