A prospective client searches for your business. Before reaching your website, they may encounter an AI-generated summary of what you do, what you're known for and where your expertise lies.

You didn't write it. You can't approve it. And it may shape their first impression before they've read a word of your own marketing.

For businesses accustomed to controlling their corporate messaging, that raises an uncomfortable question: who shapes the story when someone else assembles the evidence?

This is no longer a marginal development. In March 2025, Google said its AI Overviews were being used by more than one billion people. That figure measures use of AI Overviews generally, not searches about businesses specifically.

Beyond the company description

Google explains that AI Overviews and AI Mode may use a technique called “query fan-out”, conducting related searches across subtopics and sources. Responses can include links to material users can explore themselves.

The implication is not that every article, profile or review will be used in an AI-generated answer. Nobody can promise that. It is that a company's own description is only one part of the information available about it.

Outdated executive profiles, contradictory descriptions of expertise and unsupported claims can leave a muddled public record, however polished the homepage looks.

Nor is there a special shortcut to AI visibility. Google's guidance says no additional optimisation is required for its AI search features. Its advice remains grounded in useful, reliable content and established search principles.

You cannot award yourself credibility

A company can call its specialists authoritative, experienced or market-leading. Those claims are easy to make.

Independent reporting offers something different: evidence that a journalist considered someone's knowledge relevant and useful enough to publish.

That distinction has always mattered in PR. It now has a further relevance when businesses are assessed through information assembled from across the web.

Serious coverage, expert commentary and properly evidenced case studies can contribute to the public record surrounding a company and its people. But there is an important limit: press coverage does not guarantee inclusion or prominence in AI-generated search results. Nor can its influence on any particular answer be assumed.

For professional-services firms and specialist businesses, the useful question is not how many times they have been mentioned. It is whether independent evidence supports the expertise they claim.

Put the public record to the test

Imagine a prospective client who knows nothing about your business and looks beyond your website.

Can they establish what the company actually does, who its specialists are and what those people genuinely know?

Are the same areas of expertise reflected consistently in biographies, articles and published commentary?

Are case-study figures, job titles and company descriptions current and verifiable?

Does the business publish material which answers worthwhile questions, or mainly repeat claims about its own quality?

And where journalists have covered the business, does that reporting reinforce its intended position or reveal a more fragmented picture?

These are questions about reputation first, technology second.

More content is not the answer

Flooding the internet with generic articles will not fix an unclear position. More material can simply mean more repetition.

A better approach starts by identifying the subjects a business can credibly speak about. Its specialists contribute evidence and judgement when those subjects become newsworthy. Independent coverage provides corroboration where it is earned. The website reflects the same position accurately, supported by current proof.

None of this requires a promise about how an algorithm will behave. It requires consistency, relevance and evidence.

A reputation beyond the homepage

Businesses cannot dictate how AI systems describe them. Nor can they guarantee which sources those systems will use.

What they can do is build a public record which withstands scrutiny.

The strongest reputations are not simply well described. They are independently supported.

If this approach is relevant to a current challenge, we are happy to discuss it.

Discuss a brief →Back to Insights →