How Language Models Learn Taste: Brand Preference in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a major way for consumers to find products, but we do not yet understand how brands compete in this new channel. We study brand dynamics in LLM recommendations using skincare products -- a category where consumers cannot easily judge quality before buying and must rely on brand reputation -- across three commercial LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash), with a robustness check on search goods. In three experiments, we find: (1) a Conditional Monopoly where well-known brands get recommended 100% of the time (IAI = 10.0) when all products have the same specifications, but this dominance disappears with less than a +0.1-star rating advantage for a competitor; (2) authority-style marketing language, including fabricated clinical-evidence claims, breaks this monopoly at a Bias Surplus Value equal to +0.17 rating points, with each model responding differently; and (3) a social dilemma in multi-brand GEO competition: when all brands adopt the same optimization strategy, individual payoff falls from +0.802 to +0.007 in our payoff proxy, and non-participating brands receive zero recommendations in our tests. Our results suggest that generative engine optimization (GEO) should be studied not only as a security risk, but also as an emerging marketing practice that shapes market competition.

Large language models (LLMs) based AI systems increasingly mediate what billions of people see, choose and buy. This creates an urgent need to quantify the systemic risks of LLM-driven market intermediation, including its implications for market fairness, competition, and the diversity of information exposure. This paper introduces ChoiceEval, a reproducible framework for auditing preferences for brands and cultures in large language models (LLMs) under realistic usage conditions. ChoiceEval addresses two core technical challenges: (i) generating realistic, persona-diverse evaluation queries and (ii) converting free-form outputs into comparable choice sets and quantitative preference metrics. For a given topic (e.g. running shoes, hotel chains, travel destinations), the framework segments users into psychographic profiles (e.g., budget-conscious, wellness-focused, convenience), and then derives diverse prompts that reflect real-world advice-seeking and decision-making behaviour. LLM responses are converted into normalised top-k choice sets. Preference and geographic bias are then quantified using comparable metrics across topics and personas. Thus, ChoiceEval provides a scalable audit pipeline for researchers, platforms, and regulators, linking model behaviour to real-world economic outcomes. Applied to Gemini, GPT, and DeepSeek across 10 topics spanning commerce and culture and more than 2,000 questions, ChoiceEval reveals consistent preferences: U.S.-developed models Gemini and GPT show marked favouritism toward American entities, while China-developed DeepSeek exhibits more balanced yet still detectable geographic preferences. These patterns persist across user personas, suggesting systematic rather than incidental effects.

Asked what to study, which career to pursue, or what product to build, large language models (LLMs) often recommend AI-related options. We ask where this tendency comes from by comparing models before and after fine-tuning and by varying how questions are asked. First, pretrained models already include explicit AI/ML terms in the recommendations of 27% of their responses, and their released instruction-tuned versions do so in 59%. Second, fine-tuning models ourselves shows that this rise is not inevitable: general instruction tuning leaves the rate unchanged, but removing the 7% of instruction examples that concern AI cuts it by 14 percentage points, below the level of the pretrained models it starts from. Data rewarding helpfulness raise it by 9 points, while data ranked by the preferences of diverse simulated users lower it by 9. Finally, with models held fixed, asking for the "best" option or for what to do "right now" raises the rate by 8 and 18 points, whereas telling the model it is an AI advisor adds 4. Overall, the tendency starts in pretraining, and what models learn afterward, together with how a question is phrased, decides how strongly it appears.