The answer is built from your work. The citation goes to someone else.
AI engines summarise, synthesise, and cite. For publishers, which sources get named is the new distribution question — and almost nobody is measuring it.
Zero-click was bad. This is different.
Search taught publishers to live with zero-click — the answer lifted into a snippet, the traffic never arriving. AI answers go further: they synthesise across sources, produce a complete response, and cite a handful of publications by name.
Being one of the cited names is now a distribution channel in itself — the difference between being the authority on a topic and being invisible on it. And unlike search rankings, almost no publisher is measuring which topics they're cited on and which they've lost.
Citation is the new distribution.
Topic authority
Which publications engines treat as the source of record on a topic — and whether that's you.
Referral traffic
Cited publications get named and linked. Uncited ones get synthesised into an answer with no attribution and no click.
Competitive citation share
Across the topics you cover, how often are you cited versus rival publications?
Brand authority signal
Being repeatedly cited by AI is becoming a credibility marker in itself — with advertisers, with sources, and with readers.
You're not trying to be recommended. You're trying to be sourced.
For most brands, the goal is being named as a recommendation. For publishers, it's being cited as evidence — a different mechanic entirely, driven by whether an engine considers your reporting authoritative, parseable, and worth attributing.
This is why generic AI-visibility advice fails media. You don't need to appear in a shortlist of vendors. You need to be the source an engine reaches for when it answers a question in your beat.
Citation, not recommendation
Being mentioned is worthless if the engine sources a competitor's coverage of the same story.
Beat-level, not brand-level
You can be the cited authority on one topic and invisible on the next. Measurement has to be topic by topic.
Engines disagree sharply
Publications favoured by one engine are frequently ignored by another. A blended number is useless here.
Which topics you own, and which you've lost.
Citation share by topic
Across the topics in your coverage area, how often are you cited — and by which engines?
Competing publications
Which outlets get cited instead of you, topic by topic.
Cited vs mentioned
Being referenced in passing is not the same as being the source. We track both, separately.
AI-sourced traffic
Readers arriving from AI engines, and what they do next.
We measure citation. We don't take a position on licensing.
Whether AI engines should be training on and summarising journalism is a live legal and commercial question, and it isn't ours to settle. What we do is show publishers what's actually happening — which engines cite whom, on which topics, and how it changes over time. Whatever you decide to do about it, you should be able to see it first.
Questions publishers ask
Is being cited by AI actually worth anything?
Increasingly, yes — cited publications get named and often linked, while uncited ones get synthesised with no attribution. It's becoming a real referral channel and a credibility signal in its own right.
Can we track citation by topic rather than just overall?
Yes — and for publishers that's the only measurement that means anything. You can be the cited authority on one beat and invisible on the next.
Do the engines cite the same publications?
Frequently not. Engines diverge sharply on which outlets they treat as authoritative, which is exactly why we report engine by engine rather than blending.
Does paywalled content get cited?
It varies by engine and by how much is accessible. We show you what's actually happening rather than theorising about it.
Does this help us decide about AI licensing deals?
It gives you data you currently don't have — how often each engine cites you and how that's trending. What you do commercially with that is your call, not ours.