The AI-visibility hacks everyone's selling? Mostly don't work.

Hey!

A friend messaged me last week: "How do I get my company to show up in ChatGPT's answers?" Fair question, and everyone's asking it right now. A whole cottage industry has appeared to answer it, selling GEO and AEO hacks that promise to get you cited by AI.

I didn't have an answer I trusted. So I did the thing I do. I ignored the agency blog posts and read up on the actual research.

What I found was uncomfortable, in a good way.

What the research actually says

There is one solid, peer-reviewed paper underneath all of this (the original GEO paper, KDD 2024). It found something real: adding statistics, quotes, and named sources to your content measurably lifts your visibility in AI answers, by up to 40%. A lever that works.

Except that is where most of the advice stops reading. A tougher follow-up tested those same tactics under realistic conditions, closer to how AI search actually retrieves and ranks. Most of them washed out. Several actively lowered rankings. The single strongest lever from the original paper was one of the ones that flipped negative.

Why the hacks keep failing

Two reasons, both structural.

First, most of what gets sold was proven once, in one controlled setup, then generalized far past what that setup tested. A lab result is not a durable advantage.

Second, this is a zero-sum game. If a trick works because you found it first, it stops working the moment your whole category copies it. At full adoption the edge converges to zero. That is the part no one selling a checklist mentions.

And some of it never worked at all. Keyword-stuffing still backfires. llms.txt, the file half the internet dutifully added last year, does nothing for search visibility. Google has said plainly that it ignores it.

What moves the needle

The boring stuff. Real substance. Named evidence. Clean structure, so a machine and a human can both find your answer. Genuine, verifiable authorship. None of it is a trick. It is the input quality that both classic search and AI retrieval were built to reward in the first place.

What this means for you

Stop chasing the hack of the month. If you are paying for GEO tricks, you are mostly buying noise. Put that same energy into content that says something specific and true, backs it with real sources, and is structured cleanly. That is the whole secret, and it isn't a secret.

I will be honest about why I find this reassuring rather than annoying. A checklist of hacks feels safer than "just be substantive." But the research keeps landing in the same place, which means the work that compounds is the work that was worth doing anyway. Less magic, more craft.

Go deeper

I pulled the full research together, every study, what holds up and what doesn't, into one write-up:

👉 What the GEO research actually says about AI search​

Honest and with actual links to the studies.

P.S.: If this newsletter has been useful to you, I'd love a short testimonial. It helps more than you'd think. Takes 30 seconds.