And Zeros Logo
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
    • Branding
    • Platform
    • Growth
  • Portfolio
  • Zero Crossing
  • Contact
    Contact
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Email:
    hello@andzeros.com
    Phone:
    ‪(505) 395-6413‬
    LinkedinInstagram
    Get in Touch

    • Subscribe
    Subscribe
    And Zeros Logo
    • Home
    • About
    • Services
      • Branding
      • Platform
      • Growth
    • Portfolio
    • Zero Crossing
    • Contact
      Contact
      Location:
      Santa Fe, New Mexico
      Email:
      hello@andzeros.com
      Phone:
      ‪(505) 395-6413‬
      LinkedinInstagram
      Get in Touch

      • Subscribe
      Subscribe
      • Home
      • About
      • Services
        • Branding
        • Platform
        • Growth
      • Portfolio
      • Zero Crossing
      • Contact
        Contact
        Location:
        Santa Fe, New Mexico
        Email:
        hello@andzeros.com
        Phone:
        ‪(505) 395-6413‬
        LinkedinInstagram
        Get in Touch

        • Subscribe
        Zero Crossing Tag
        HomePosts Tagged "Zero Crossing"

        Tag: Zero Crossing

        Abstract editorial-style visualization of a five-step weekly AEO workflow with compounding growth chart, textured analog design elements, and retro-inspired data blocks on a dark cinematic background.
        SEOAI
        May 21, 2026By Doug Saltzman

        The Five-Step Weekly AEO Cadence That Produces Compounding Results

        A working weekly AEO program runs five activities, every week, sustained over time:

        • Monday: review citation movement from the previous week
        • Tuesday: publish one substantive piece of content
        • Wednesday: one outreach for earned mention
        • Thursday: refresh one existing page
        • Friday: five-sentence internal report

        That’s the entire operational cadence and the teams winning AEO in 2026 aren’t doing more than this. The teams losing AEO are either doing nothing, doing five things in a sprint and then disappearing for a month, or doing 20 things one week and zero the next.

        Cadence beats intensity.

        The compounding only happens when the rhythm is sustained.

        Why is cadence the metric that matters?

        Most marketing teams measure AEO programs by output.

        Pieces published per quarter, Reddit threads commented on, and podcasts pitched. The output metrics produce a comfortable narrative. TLDR: more work equals more results.

        The output metrics are wrong for AEO!

        AEO citation share is a function of sustained presence in the source types that drive citations. A team that publishes one excellent piece per week for 52 weeks will outperform a team that publishes 200 pieces in Q1 and then disappears until Q4. The compounding effect requires the rhythm.

        There ar three reasons cadence matters more than volume.

        One: AI engines reward source consistency.

        When an AI engine evaluates whether a brand is a defensible source on a topic, it looks at the consistency of the brand’s presence over time. Sporadic publication patterns signal inauthentic engagement with the topic. Consistent publication patterns signal genuine expertise. The engines weight the second pattern higher.

        Two: maintenance work compounds.

        Citations decay. The work to maintain inclusion is structural, not optional. A team running a weekly cadence does refresh work routinely. A team running on sprints does it only when they remember. The first team maintains citation share. The second team watches it decline.

        Three: the team builds pattern recognition.

        The Monday citation review, run weekly, produces something that quarterly reviews can’t: pattern recognition. The team learns what types of content earn citations in their category. They learn which competitors are gaining and losing share, and why. They learn how the engines respond to different content structures.

        What does Monday citation review actually involve?

        On Monday morning block 60-90 minutes on the senior AEO operator’s calendar. Open the previous week’s citation data. The activity has four parts.

        Part one: read the citation share dashboard.

        Look at the headline number. Citation share across your priority 20 buyer prompts, current week vs previous week. Note the direction and magnitude of change.

        If your citation share is flat, the analysis stops here and the rest of the time goes to forward-looking work. If your citation share moved meaningfully (more than 2 percentage points in either direction), continue to part two.

        Part two: identify the prompts driving the change.

        Not all prompts move equally. Drill into the prompt-level view. Identify which specific prompts gained or lost citation share. Most weeks, the aggregate movement is concentrated in 2-4 specific prompts, not distributed evenly.

        Part three: name the most likely cause.

        For each prompt with meaningful movement, name one likely cause in one sentence. Examples:

        • “Citation share dropped from 31% to 22% on prompt 7. A competitor (HubSpot) published a definitive comparison guide on April 14 that’s now appearing as the top citation across ChatGPT and Perplexity.”
        • “Citation share increased from 12% to 18% on prompt 12. Our pricing page refresh on April 22 added structured data that’s getting picked up by Claude and Gemini.”

        The discipline of naming a cause forces the team to develop hypotheses rather than just observe data.

        Part four: identify the top action for the next week.

        Based on the movements and hypotheses, identify the single highest-leverage action the team will take this week to improve citation share in the priority prompts. Not three actions. One action. Specific, owned, and dated.

        The Monday review ends when the action is named, owned, and dated. The rest of the week executes against it.

        What should Tuesday’s publish look like?

        Tuesday is publish day. One piece. Not three. Not five. One.

        The single most important AEO finding from Q2 2026 was that brands gaining citation share published less, not more. The eight B2B SaaS brands that gained meaningful citation share in Q2 each published one major piece in the quarter, not five.

        Depth beats breadth.

        The publish on Tuesday should be one of three types: a definitive piece (3,000-5,000 words, designed to be cited), a cluster support piece (800-1,500 words, supporting a definitive piece), or a maintenance refresh that’s substantial enough to count as new.

        In aggregate: 4-6 definitive pieces, 12-20 cluster supports, 4-6 refreshes per year. That’s 20-32 pieces per year, or roughly one per Tuesday with appropriate gaps. This is dramatically less than most content teams publish. The reduction is the point…. I can see you smiling now!

        What does Wednesday outreach for earned mention involve?

        Wednesday is the day that breaks most AEO programs.

        The Monday review is comfortable (it’s data work). The Tuesday publish is familiar (it’s content work).

        The Wednesday outreach is uncomfortable for most marketing teams because it’s relationship work, and relationship work doesn’t fit cleanly into marketing function org charts.

        The activity is one substantive outreach per week aimed at earned-media-light placements. Niche podcasts. Vertical publications. Industry conferences. Wikipedia contribution opportunities. Guest posts on established industry blogs.

        The outreach is targeted, not spray-and-pray. The Monday review should have surfaced which earned-media targets matter most for your priority prompts.

        Expected hit rate: 1 in 5 outreaches converts to a real placement. Expected timeline: 4-12 weeks from outreach to publication. At 52 outreaches per year, that’s roughly 10 earned-media placements per year. Across two years, 20 placements. Each one compounds… not to shabby now.

        A senior person should do this work. A junior contractor running automated outreach will get a 1-in-50 response rate. A senior strategist who has actually engaged with the target’s content for three months will get a 2-in-5 response rate.

        What does Thursday’s page refresh involve?

        Thursday is maintenance day. Pick one existing page that’s losing citation share and refresh it.

        A real refresh has six elements:
        Updated data, strengthened answer block, improved schema, new examples, stronger internal linking, and re-publication signaling. Not just changing the date.

        Maintenance is the most-underrated AEO activity. Most teams skip it entirely. It’s invisible work but it does keep your priority pages in the AI citation pool, which matters because citation half-life means pages drop out without intervention.

        What does the Friday five-sentence report look like?

        Five sentences:

        Sentence 1: Citation share number, current week.
        Sentence 2: Movement direction and most likely cause.
        Sentence 3: Top action for next week.
        Sentence 4: Owner and deadline for the top action.
        Sentence 5: Confidence rating (high/medium/low) with one sentence of context.
        

        The CMO reads it in 30 seconds. The format forces specificity, produces decisions, surfaces confidence, builds pattern recognition over 52 weeks, and makes AEO legible at executive level.

        Where do most teams get stuck?

        Typically we see three failure modes:

        The cadence becomes intermittent.
        A launch happens and they skip a week. Then a conference. By month four, the rhythm is broken.

        The senior operator role is unfilled or junior.
        Work gets delegated. Junior team produces good data and weak strategy. The strategy doesn’t ship.

        The cadence runs but doesn’t connect to broader marketing strategy.
        AEO runs parallel to content, PR, community. Nothing coordinates.

        Fix: protect the cadence ruthlessly. Staff a senior owner. Make the cadence the central rhythm, not a parallel function.

        How long until results show?

        The honest timeline: 30-90 days for early signals, 6-9 months for meaningful citation share movement, 18-24 months for category-level pulling away.

        Days 1-30: learning the cadence. Citation share doesn’t move yet.

        Days 31-90: first content from the cadence starts being indexed. Early citation pickups appear.

        Days 91-180: pattern recognition develops. Citation share starts moving measurably.

        Days 181-365: compounding kicks in. The library of definitive pieces anchors citation share across multiple prompt clusters.

        Months 13-24: the team pulls away from competitors who didn’t start a sustained cadence.

        Teams that quit before day 180 never see the compounding. Teams that maintain the cadence past day 365 build moats that take years to dislodge.

        Frequently asked questions

        What if I’m a one-person marketing team?

        The cadence is designed for a one-person operator. The five activities take 8-12 hours per week for a senior person, which is workable for a solo marketer with AEO as a primary responsibility.

        Can the cadence be run by an agency?

        Yes. Many agencies are starting to package it. The agency runs Monday review and Friday report, drafts Tuesday publish, identifies Wednesday outreach targets, executes Thursday refresh. The in-house team approves and ships.

        What if my CMO doesn’t want a weekly report?

        The five-sentence format is short enough that most CMOs will read it. If not, switch to bi-weekly. Don’t go monthly. Monthly loses too much signal.

        What if I miss a week?

        It happens. Run the cadence again next week as if nothing happened. The damage from a single missed week is small. The damage from quitting after a missed week is large.

        Read More
        Collage of Reddit threads, YouTube videos, LinkedIn posts, forums, GitHub repos, and niche blogs illustrating how AI engines pull citations from non-Tier-1 sources across the web
        AISEO
        May 19, 2026By Doug Saltzman

        Why 97.4% of AI citations come from places PR teams don’t manage

        The short answer

        97.4% of citations in AI-generated answers come from non-Tier-1 sources. Reddit threads, YouTube transcripts, niche forums, vertical publications, long-tail blogs, LinkedIn long-form posts. The other 2.6% comes from the publications most marketing budgets are allocated against. These are your Forbes, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. The implication is that PR-led AEO strategies are optimizing for 2.6% of citations and missing the rest of the market.

        Three things follow:

        • The press release as an AEO tool is functionally dead in 2026
        • The AEO organizational role needs to live across PR, content, and community functions
        • Most marketing budgets are inverted, spending heavily on the 2.6% and ignoring the 97.4%

        This piece walks through the data, the implications for marketing org structure, the budget reallocation that follows, and what an earned-media-light AEO program actually looks like in practice.

        What is the 97.4% finding?

        The 97.4% finding comes from Profound, the AEO platform that raised $58.5M in 2025. Profound analyzed a large sample of AI-generated answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews, then categorized the cited sources by publication type. The methodology is public and the finding has replicated across every independent test I’ve seen since.

        The categorization split sources into two buckets:

        Tier-1 publications include Forbes, Bloomberg, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Reuters, the Economist, the Washington Post, Wired, the Atlantic, and a small number of equivalent global publications. These are the publications most public-relations efforts are oriented toward securing coverage in.

        Non-Tier-1 sources include everything else. Reddit threads. YouTube videos and their transcripts. Niche industry publications. Long-tail vertical blogs. LinkedIn long-form posts. Substack newsletters. Forum communities. Wikipedia. Vendor blogs. Comparison sites. Review platforms. GitHub repositories. Podcast transcripts.

        The split is 2.6% Tier-1, 97.4% non-Tier-1.

        This is a structural finding, not a noise pattern. It holds across query types (definitional, comparison, buying). It holds across categories (B2B SaaS, healthcare, e-commerce, professional services, financial services). It holds across the four primary AI engines tested. The replication consistency is what makes it worth building strategy around.

        Why does this break the traditional PR-AEO assumption?

        The traditional assumption among CMOs and PR teams is that Tier-1 placements drive AI visibility. The reasoning runs roughly like this: Tier-1 publications have the highest domain authority. AI engines preference high-authority sources during retrieval. Therefore Tier-1 placements should produce disproportionate AI citation share.

        The data disagrees in three specific ways.

        AI engines prefer passage relevance over domain authority during retrieval.

        When an AI engine generates an answer, it doesn’t just rank sources by authority. It retrieves passages that directly answer the question. A 200-word Reddit comment that answers the question precisely will beat a 2,000-word New York Times article that addresses the question peripherally. The retrieval mechanics favor specificity. Tier-1 publications optimize for comprehensiveness, which is the wrong target.

        AI engines weight conversation density as a quality signal.

        Reddit threads in particular benefit from comment density. A thread with 200 substantive comments signals to the retrieval system that the topic has been examined from multiple angles. The engine reads this as triangulated truth and weights it higher than single-author sources. Tier-1 publications are structurally single-author and lose this signal.

        AI engines have been deliberately tuned away from over-reliance on traditional media authority.

        The major AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Perplexity) have all faced public scrutiny for reproducing media biases. The response has been to broaden citation source diversity. Internal retrieval mechanisms increasingly weight earned-media-light sources that traditional authority models would have under-cited. This is policy, not accident.

        The combined effect is that Tier-1 placements still contribute to brand awareness, executive credibility, and capital-markets perception. They do not drive AI citation share. The two outcomes have decoupled, and most marketing teams have not noticed yet.

        What sources actually drive AI citations?

        Working from the Profound data and three months of independent replication on And Zeros client work, the citation source breakdown by category looks roughly like this:

        For B2B SaaS:

        • Reddit threads: 32% of citations
        • Niche industry publications: 12%
        • YouTube videos and transcripts: 9%
        • Comparison pages from established SaaS companies: 7%
        • Wikipedia entries: 5%
        • Vendor blog posts with original data: 4%
        • G2 and Capterra-style review platforms: 3%
        • LinkedIn long-form posts: 3%
        • Substack and other newsletter platforms: 2%
        • GitHub repositories and documentation: 2%
        • Founder podcasts and interviews: 1.5%
        • Long tail: 19.5%

        For healthcare:

        • Regulated authorities (FDA, NIH, CDC): 41%
        • Major medical reference sites (Mayo Clinic, WebMD): 28%
        • Academic and peer-reviewed sources: 9%
        • Patient experience forums and Reddit: 6%
        • Professional medical publications: 5%
        • Long tail: 11%

        For e-commerce:

        • YouTube product reviews and unboxings: 24%
        • Reddit lifestyle and category subreddits: 18%
        • Review platforms (Trustpilot, Sitejabber): 11%
        • Comparison sites and shopping guides: 9%
        • Brand blogs with original data: 6%
        • Influencer blog content: 5%
        • Long tail: 27%

        For professional services:

        • Vertical industry publications: 28%
        • LinkedIn long-form posts (especially by named experts): 14%
        • Industry conference content and slide decks: 9%
        • Niche newsletters: 8%
        • Reddit threads in industry-specific subreddits: 7%
        • Long tail: 34%

        The patterns differ by category but the structural finding holds: Tier-1 publications appear in single-digit percentages across all of them. The 97.4% non-Tier-1 finding is not a B2B SaaS quirk. It’s a property of how AI engines retrieve citations across the board.

        What does this mean for PR teams in 2026?

        The honest answer is uncomfortable. Most PR teams are working on the wrong problem if their KPIs include AI search visibility.

        PR teams are structurally excellent at:

        • Relationships with tier-1 publication editors
        • Pitching newsworthy stories
        • Managing executive interview opportunities
        • Crisis communications
        • Long-form thought leadership placements
        • Brand perception in capital markets

        None of these activities, executed well, materially move AI citation share in 2026. They move brand awareness, executive credibility, and analyst perception. Those are real outcomes, they are not AEO outcomes.

        The PR functions that do move AEO citation share are different:

        • Strategic appearances on niche podcasts (especially vertical-specific ones)
        • Wikipedia notability work and entity injection
        • LinkedIn thought leadership at the named-executive level (with sustained cadence)
        • Long-form contributor relationships with niche vertical publications
        • Reddit AMAs and substantive ongoing participation
        • YouTube interview placements where the transcript will be indexed

        These activities require different skill sets, different relationships, and different success metrics from traditional PR. They are closer to community management than to media relations.

        Most PR teams are not staffed to do this work. Some PR leaders are aware of the gap, but few have the budget authority or organizational mandate to restructure their function around the new mechanics.

        This is the central tension in the AEO-PR conversation. The gap between what PR teams are good at and what AEO requires is structural, not skill-based. Closing it requires reorganization, not retraining.

        What should marketing leaders do this week?

        Here are three concrete actions for the next seven days:

        One: audit your current marketing budget against the source mix.

        Pull the budget allocation. Map each line item to the AEO source mix. Identify the gap. Most teams will find they’re spending heavily on the 2.6% (Tier-1 PR, paid acquisition) and nothing on the categories that drive the 97.4% (Reddit participation, LinkedIn long-form by executives, niche podcast tour, Wikipedia work, community management).

        The gap is the opportunity. Quantify it.

        Two: identify whether the AEO operator role exists in your org.

        Look at the org chart. Find the person who is explicitly accountable for AEO citation share. If no one is, the role is vacant. If someone is, ask whether they have authority across SEO, content, PR, and community. If not, the role is structurally weak.

        Three: pick one earned-media-light workstream and pilot it for 90 days.

        For most B2B SaaS teams, the right pilot is LinkedIn long-form by named executives. The skills exist internally. The platform doesn’t require external relationships. The compounding starts within 90 days.

        Frequently asked questions

        What if my company has no presence on Reddit at all?

        Start with phase 1 of the Reddit AEO playbook: read every thread your category’s primary subreddit produces for 90 days before posting anything. This is research, not participation. The research phase doesn’t expose you to risk and builds the pattern recognition you’ll need before contributing.

        Does the 97.4% finding hold for B2C brands?

        Yes, with category-specific source mix variations. B2C brands see higher citation share from YouTube and lifestyle subreddits compared to B2B brands that see higher Reddit and LinkedIn citation share. The structural finding holds. The dominant source types differ.

        How does this interact with traditional SEO?

        Traditional SEO and AEO are increasingly different disciplines with different optimization targets, but they share infrastructure (your domain, your content management system, your editorial team). The right approach in 2026 is to run both as parallel programs with shared infrastructure but distinct strategies.

        What if my PR team pushes back on this analysis?

        Most PR teams will. The pushback is usually about Tier-1 brand value, which is real but separate from AEO. The honest framing is; Tier-1 PR delivers brand awareness, executive credibility, and capital-markets perception. It does not drive AEO citation share. Both outcomes matter. We need to fund both, but stop confusing one for the other.

        Read More
        logotype

        Boutique digital marketing rooted in Santa Fe.

        Services

        Branding

        Growth

        Platform

        Contact

        Santa Fe, New Mexico

        hello@andzeros.com

        (505) 395-6413‬

        Working hours

        Mon – Fri : 9am-5pm

        Social

        LinkedinInstagram

        Copyright © 2026 And Zeros LLC. All Rights Reserved.