Getting Found ≠ Getting Chosen
"Should we be doing that?"
A couple of weeks ago a VP of Marketing asked me this after they learned a direct competitor was posting 4(!) videos every day on YouTube.
Four? Damn. I was skeptical. But I get where the question comes from.
It exposes the 2 fears almost every founder or marketing leader I talk to has...pretty much all the time:
- Are we falling behind our competitors?
- Are we falling behind on AI?
Ask both at once? Of course she felt like they should be doing it, too.
But, like I said, I was skeptical. So I went and looked at said competitor's channel before offering my opinion.
They were posting 4 videos every day.
But 100% AI. No humans anywhere in them.
The voiceover? The b-roll? The animations? All 100% AI generated.
And no through-line connecting any of it because each video was built to answer a different LLM prompt, not to build consistency around any message or theme.
These videos had very little views on YouTube, which, I don't think matters to them. It's likely just a volume play to improve LLM visibility.
Which is fine, until someone actually checks your work...
I went deeper on this exact idea on YouTube. Same argument, different angle, plus a specific example I didn't get into here. Also...I'm doing more YouTube now! Come check me out there.
94% of buyers fact check AI citations
Someone shared TrustRadius' Buying Disconnect Report in my feed around the same time I had this call with the aforementioned prospect.
The stat that jumped out to me was this: 94% of B2B buyers using AI to research software fact-check everything they find.
So when someone fact-checks your work after seeing something in ChatGPT, what's actually behind the citation?
It got me thinking about that direct competitor posting 4 AI generated videos every day.
They aren't the only ones. I've talked to plenty of SaaS founders and CMOs that are shifting resources almost exclusively toward initiatives like that to improve LLM visibility.
If everything is a volume play, what's left for that inevitable fact check?
Why are people fact checking?
I think it's fair to say most of us have a healthy skepticism when it comes to what we find/read in ChatGPT and other LLMs.
Trust, but verify kinda thing.
And when it comes to trust, buyers are looking for 2 things:
- Accuracy. Is the information correct, well-founded, thought through. This is table stakes. If you're not clearing that bar, none of the rest matters anyway.
- Delivery. Not just what you're saying, but where you're saying it, how, and who's delivering that message.
So when someone fact-checks the citation, they're not only checking for accuracy. They want to see who and where this information comes from.
- Are their individuals they can follow that are consistently sharing the same message?
- Are their resources where they can learn more? A newsletter, video series, blog, etc., that they can follow along with?
They're not looking for more information at that point. They're looking for confirmation that you can be trusted.
If all they find is AI slop meant to game LLMs? I think that does the opposite.
Getting found is not the same as getting chosen
Getting found, you can manipulate.
Four AI videos a day is one way to do that.
Getting chosen is a completely different game. It's trust, it's confirmation, it's a real point of view that holds up once someone actually looks.
I don't think the brands publishing the most AI content right now are going to win on volume alone.
The ones that win are the ones creating something worth sticking around for.
- A unique framing of the problem.
- A consistently positioned solution.
- Something that adds to the conversation instead of just occupying more of it.
None of that happens through volume.
It happens when you've got a clear, consistent message — and real people repeating it, in public, everywhere someone might go looking.
Getting found gets you the citation.
Getting chosen gets you the call.