Published by SEO Company Philippines · Page updated
Questions about our services or a result shown here? Contact our team. Client results retain their original reporting periods.
ChatGPT visibility
ChatGPT may use your article to recommend a competitor. Or it may describe your company using outdated information. We research buyer questions, inspect the answers and cited sources, and improve the information customers find about your offer.
Managed support starts at US$3,000/month; focused projects are scoped separately. Compare pricing and what is included.
We record whether your content was used as a source, your company was mentioned, or your business was recommended for the buyer's need. Those are separate outcomes. The work addresses the relevant service pages, client examples, company facts and outside references—not simply the number of times your brand name appears.
The source link is yours, but the answer does not shortlist your business.
| Step | What your team should expect |
|---|---|
| Investigate | Read the cited passage. Does it substantiate the competitor, or explain your own relevant offer and results? |
| Decide | Strengthen the appropriate service page with accurate scope and relevant client work. Keep comparisons fair; removing a competitor’s link does not remove the recommendation contained in the prose. |
| Check | Record citations, brand mentions and recommendations separately across repeated buyer questions. A citation alone is not counted as a sales opportunity. |
| Avoid | Do not turn the page into repeated instructions asking ChatGPT to recommend you. |
You want buyers researching your category in ChatGPT to understand when your company is a suitable choice.
Your article is cited beneath a competitor recommendation.
Your company is described with outdated information.
Generic prompt tracking does not reflect customer questions.
Buyers ask follow-up questions about price, location, experience and suitability. We test realistic questions and record the conversation context. A prompt written around your brand slogan is not a fair test of whether new customers can discover you.
We improve the pages that describe your service, customers, scope and relevant work. Being the source of a useful article is different from being a suitable provider. Buyers need enough detail to decide whether to contact you after reading an answer.
Where answers cite public profiles, reviews or articles, we inspect the facts and identify legitimate correction or outreach opportunities. We do not create fake reviews or pretend self-published comparisons are independent endorsements.
We separate a brand mention, source citation, recommendation and identifiable referral enquiry. Repeated observations are more useful than one favourable result. Search behaviour and answers vary, so we cannot promise a permanent position in a shortlist.
A single favourable answer is not a baseline. The review uses repeatable buying questions and records the sources and factual quality behind the response.
Category, comparison, problem, use-case, implementation, and brand prompts are grouped by buyer stage and target market. The set stays stable long enough to distinguish a pattern from normal answer variation.
Linked pages, cited domains, company names, people, products, locations, and relationships are checked for accuracy. We identify which page should explain each important fact and where outside corroboration is missing.
Mentions, links, referral visits, landing pages, service interest, assisted leads, and inaccurate recommendations are reviewed together. Visibility without an accurate description or useful path to the site is not counted as success.
Questions selected around the decisions your customers make.
Observed inaccuracies and missing information, with recommended corrections.
Mentions, citations, recommendations and referrals shown separately.
Record questions, conditions and visible sources.
Improve the relevant website pages and pursue appropriate profile updates.
Compare patterns over time and review the enquiries your team receives.
For a SaaS company, that can include category recommendations, product comparisons, integration questions, use-case problems, and vendor-selection prompts.
We agree the reporting with your team and distinguish completed work from business results. Missing data and other changes affecting performance stay visible.
Direct answers to the questions teams ask before deciding whether this work fits.
No. Answers vary with the question, follow-up conversation and whether search is used. We repeat a defined set of buyer questions and record the conditions, so progress is assessed across observations rather than one favourable screenshot.
There is no fixed ChatGPT ranking position to buy. We improve entity clarity, accessible source pages, evidence, independent references, and prompt coverage, then measure how answers change.
Website pages can be a direct or indirect source depending on the ChatGPT experience and query. Clear canonical information also helps other indexed sources describe the brand accurately.
Source improvements can be published quickly, but model and search-system changes do not follow a guaranteed schedule. We agree a review cadence and report the evidence available.
Not from an answer alone. Visible sources and repeated tests can show useful patterns, but they do not expose the entire selection process. We label observations and hypotheses separately.
Tell us about your website, customers and the problem you want to solve. We will discuss fit, responsibilities and a realistic scope before you commit.
Book a meeting