Being cited by AI is not the same as being recommended

Translated from the original Spanish article.

Being cited by AI is not the same as being recommended. Self-promotional articles influence AI citations, but no longer recommendations.

Lily Ray reports, in an article, the results from a sample of queries. They show that, 69% of the time, Google’s AI Overviews (its AI-generated results) leave out of the recommendation the brand that cites itself—in first place, naturally—in a “The best [category] companies”-style list.

In other words: it cites that brand as the source of the list, but in the recommendation, which is the potentially valuable part, it highlights the competition.

In the remaining percentage, the brands that do get recommended as well as cited are the ones already well established in their category.

What worked for years as a strategy to rank on Google, and has lately become popular for getting cited by AI, no longer works.

Granted, strategies like this—“listicles,” as they’re called in this case—have been effective for a while. One could argue that, despite the disservice they do to the trust of readers and visitors, they’re worth using as long as they deliver results. But not even that holds: the same article points out that the penalty can extend to the authority of the entire domain.

There’s room for a broader reflection on brand reputation, which, like any relationship of trust, is cultivated over time. Above all, with honesty and coherence.

I maintain that the brand is still the second most valuable asset in marketing, after the product. A value in itself, capable of placing you in a category with no competition.

In short, it’s an asset worth giving attention and dedication. Especially when the moment points to a reconfiguration of the channels through which a brand connects with its audience—who, by the way, are ultimately people.

There are no shortcuts for this. Nor are they worth looking for. They’re nothing but detours and distractions from the deeper work that really matters.