How Large Language Models Source Brand Reputation Across Languages and Markets

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate how people form impressions of organisations, yet most monitoring is done in English, assuming an English query returns a representative picture. We measure how far that holds. We queried three grounded LLMs (GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Perplexity Sonar Pro) about 66 brands from eleven Northern, Baltic, and Central European markets, in twelve languages across four families (Germanic, Uralic, Baltic, Slavic), generating 35,640 responses. Multilingual embeddings (BGE-M3) allow cross-language comparison without translation. Three results emerge. First, AI-constructed reputation is language-bound: mean cross-language cosine similarity is 0.825, same-family responses are more similar than cross-family (0.844 vs 0.820; d = 0.31), and sentiment varies by language (F = 268.5, eta^2 = 0.077), with Uralic and Baltic languages most positive and Germanic, including English, most critical; clustering recovers the Slavic and Baltic families (cophenetic 0.915). Second, query language shifts which brands are recommended far more than how they are described: moving from an English query to a brand's home language raises recommendation share by 0.80 for local champions but only 0.15 for global multinationals (t = -8.84, p < 0.001), with no comparable reversal in sentiment. An English-only audit therefore understates a local champion's AI visibility. Third, response stability varies more with model choice than with language (eta^2_model = 0.32 vs eta^2_language = 0.01, on a five-iteration replication over a 20-brand subset). These results indicate that English-only AI reputation monitoring leaves a measurable language blind spot, concentrated in the visibility of locally headquartered brands.

People increasingly get answers straight from AI search engines like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Gemini rather than scrolling search results. Brands that once focused on search engine optimization (SEO) must now optimize for how these engines represent, cite, and recommend them -- a shift variously called Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), and AI Search Visibility. We treat AEO and AI Visibility as part of GEO, and study how to measure brand visibility across AI engines: what they value when they cite a brand, which sources they rely on, and what content large language models surface. The hard case is everyone outside the already-authoritative top brands -- SMEs, D2C brands, creators, and early-stage startups. We analyze 100K+ prompt responses across 100+ brands tracked on Ranqo between March and May 2026. First visibility runs form a clear three-tier brand-stature ladder: global household names (e.g., Stripe, Nike) appear in 73% of relevant AI answers on their first run; established mid-market and regional brands (e.g., Olipop, Klaviyo) in 44%; niche and small brands in just 11% -- about 30 percentage points per step. When engines cite sources, about 78% go to corporate websites; among non-corporate sources YouTube leads, ahead of Reddit, editorial media, and Wikipedia. The highest-leverage page is the ranked "best-of" listicle, the most-cited content format at about 21% of all citations. Sentiment is the unstable signal: whether a brand is framed positively or negatively flips about 6.7 times more often than whether it is mentioned at all. These findings provide a first large-scale baseline for measuring GEO: AI brand visibility can be measured, differs by platform, and varies strongly by brand maturity. We close by proposing seven v1.1 protocols to test whether specific recommendations can causally improve AI visibility.

Prior work on AI brand visibility measures the firm: does a model recommend a company, and does that track its reputation. This study asks the question one level down, in categories where the buyer picks a person. It issued 2,400 grounded API calls in one two-hour window on 24 July 2026: 120 buyer-intent prompts, four models (GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.6 Flash, Perplexity Sonar Pro, Grok 4.5), five iterations each, four European markets and five query languages. Every response was coded for whether it named an individual professional, by a rule cascade that never consults a roster and that drops detections resolving to a same-named American city (precision 96.9%, recall 61.7%, so every rate below is a lower bound). All inference corrects for clustering within prompt: intraclass correlation 0.258, effective n 407 against a nominal 2,400. Models named an individual in 25.8% of responses. Category dominates: real estate 35.4% and car dealerships 32.9% against insurance 9.1% (chi-square 159.3, p = 5.8e-8 after correction). Models differ four-fold, from Grok 38.0% to Gemini 9.3%. Citation type predicts naming and citation volume does not: naming responses cite the individual's own site 2.6 points more often (95% CI +1.4 to +3.9) and category portals 4.3 points more often, and cite firm-owned pages at the same rate (44.1% against 45.5%). On nine matched translation pairs, English prompts named an individual in 36.7% of responses against 15.6% for the same question in the local language (OR 3.14, clustered p = 0.074, so the direction is clear and the design cannot close it). A 939-person roster built from public LinkedIn search matched 128 of 27,293 name-shaped mentions (0.47%), 26 of the 939 people were ever named, and the roster-derived rates of 0.0% to 25.4% measure that overlap. Roster-based measurement of individual AI visibility sees a small and unrepresentative slice of what models do.