Insights
Watch out for misleading data
SEOs and marketers are always buried in data.
As research reports keep pouring out of companies that sell AI tracking software, it's easy to get distracted by their findings. The tools are useful, but we can't ignore the inherent bias or accept conclusions at face value.
Three issues I found in the latest studies:
1. Confusing behavior with preference
One study argues that because users spend nearly half their time scrolling back up the page in Search they are re-reading and weighing options, and so links get more impressions.
A simpler explanation is that AI features push organic results further down, forcing users to scroll past them and back up again. Layout friction isn't the same as active deliberation.
2. Selective data
An analysis of 500,000 prompts excluded navigational searches entirely. Ignoring high-volume queries where AI is less present inflates the perceived dominance of AI features across all of Search.
3. Reach vs. intent
AIOs have 2.5 billion monthly users, but that doesn't mean people CHOSE to see one. Passive exposure isn't active preference.
When Google places an AI box in front of someone there's no proof that person had an active intent to use AI (unlike someone who specifically chooses to navigate to a chatbot like ChatGPT or Claude).
We can't manage AI visibility through a dashboard alone. Test prompts yourself, verify citations, and trace where information originates.
Tools and studies are useful, but they shouldn't replace your own professional scrutiny.
Why the best article doesn't always win
65% of people in my LinkedIn poll agreed that a well-known brand publishing a "good" article would outrank an unknown site publishing a "great" one.
Google's AI Overviews (and other AI models) increasingly rely on signals that help them assess trust and credibility at scale. Brands that are frequently mentioned, widely recognized, consistently cited, and visible across multiple channels send strong trust signals.
When two pieces of content are competing for attention, those signals can act as a tie-breaker, or even outweigh differences in content quality.
That's not the same thing as the 'best' article on the topic. You need the most recognizable one, and lesser-known sites face a structural disadvantage that quality alone can't overcome.
AI systems have limited citation slots and default toward sources they can confidently surface without reputational risk.
This is a meaningful shift in how search ROI works. Technical SEO and link building used to compensate for a weak brand, but that gap is closing.
What protects your organic traffic now is brand authority built through consistently relevant content, Digital PR, and a presence that shows up across more than one channel.
Two things worth doing now
1. First, treat Digital PR as an SEO investment. Earned coverage builds the citation signals that make AI search more likely to pull from your content.
2. Second, don't optimize for being easy to excerpt because that's not a distinguishing factor. You need to be the most credible reference on a topic.
So yes, create great content (because quality still matters), but don't assume that's enough on its own.
The biggest PR opportunity for DuckDuckGo
β
βAfter DuckDuckGo posted on X about searches for "no ai," I had to try this:
There's a certain irony here, since Google pushes us to stay within Google and use every AI feature they can serve up.
So, I asked the obvious question: "why does Google show DuckDuckGo when I search for no AI."β
β
Observation #1
DuckDuckGo turned resistance to AI search into one of the most effective PR opportunities in its history.
The company has framed itself as the search engine that gives users a choice, while portraying Google as removing that choice.
β
They were also efficient at supplying journalists with data that supports the narrative. After Google's AI announcements at I/O 2026, DuckDuckGo quickly publicized statistics showing app installs peaking at over 30%, while traffic to its AI-free search page surged as well.
From a PR perspective, DuckDuckGo has successfully transformed itself from:
- the privacy search engine
- into the privacy search engine and the anti-forced-AI search engine.
Every complaint about incorrect information, cluttered results, publisher traffic losses, or the inability to disable AI Overviews became free advertising for DuckDuckGo's alternative positioning.
Observation #2
Reddit users created the marketing.
Thousands of discussions across subreddits such as r/technology, r/degoogle, and r/SEO soon became a distributed word-of-mouth campaign.
β
Users started recommending DuckDuckGo as the escape hatch. Google Search amplified the message by surfacing those discussions and directing dissatisfied users straight to a competitor.
The lesson for brands is that positioning sometimes comes from your customers firstβnot your marketing team.
DuckDuckGo thought it was offering 'Optional AI', but users said, "finally, someone lets me turn this stuff off."
The second version is much stronger positioning.
For marketers, here's a useful question to ask:
"What frustration are people discussing in communities related to my market, and could my product/service become the obvious answer to that conversation?"
Do you follow me on LinkedIn? I share regular tips and stories I don't have room for here. Come and join meβ.
