Sample report

AI visibility audit sample for a form-backend product.

This sample uses a developer-tool category and public-style findings. It is not presented as a customer case study.

Executive Summary

The product is understood correctly when named directly, but broad buyer-discovery prompts can omit it while naming better-known alternatives. One AI surface also produced feature wording that should be tightened before the team treats it as buyer-facing language.

Main risk: the product is not always absent because it is bad. It may be absent because AI surfaces do not see enough clear, repeatable evidence that it belongs on the default recommendation shelf.

Test Setup

FieldSample value
CategoryStatic-site form backend / form-to-email API
TargetSample developer tool
CompetitorsFormspree, Formcarry, Basin, Getform, Netlify Forms
SurfacesGemini and Perplexity where available
Blocked surfacesMarked as unavailable rather than substituted

Finding 1: Open Discovery Omission

In a broad prompt asking for a static-site contact-form backend, one AI surface gave a generic hosted-form answer and named competitors in follow-up suggestions, but did not name the target product.

PromptObserved signalInterpretation
I need a form backend for a static website contact form. I want submissions emailed to me without building my own backend. What should I use? Target absent. Competitors appeared in follow-up suggestions. Likely visibility or recall gap, not a product-quality judgment.

Finding 2: Stronger When Requirements Are Specific

When the prompt specified spam protection, setup simplicity, and a generous free tier, the target appeared and was framed positively.

This suggests the product's strongest positioning exists, but may not be retrieved by default unless buyer requirements match the available evidence.

Finding 3: Accuracy Needs Tight Baseline Wording

An AI answer used an overly specific spam-protection phrase that the product team could not confirm. The safer correction is to use the product's own baseline wording around server-side checks, captcha options, firewall, and active spam-check algorithms.

Recommended Roadmap

PriorityActionReason
1Create a concise AI-readable product description.Reduces ambiguity in category and feature claims.
2Add or tighten FAQ wording around spam protection and access-key safety.Prevents AI from guessing overly specific security language.
3Build comparison pages against direct alternatives.Gives AI surfaces clearer first-party evidence for buyer comparisons.
4Monitor broad and named prompts again after changes.Checks whether understanding improves directionally.

Boundary Statement

This report does not prove that changes will increase AI recommendations. It shows current behavior, identifies likely evidence gaps, and gives a practical roadmap for making the product easier to understand and compare.