Brand Pairs

Generative artificial intelligence changes how firms reach customers, but standard marketing data do not record how often users see and notice a firm's name in generated answers. We develop Generative Marketing Mix Modeling (GMMM) to estimate the causal effects of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and Generative Engine Marketing (GEM). For GEO, GMMM combines repeated generated answers with question counts, shares of use across generative systems, and notice probabilities. For GEM, it combines records of sponsored placements with notice probabilities. GMMM compares expected business responses under alternative treatment sequences and establishes sufficient conditions for identifying the resulting effects. We investigate the empirical performance of the proposed method using simulated answers to product recommendation in English and Japanese.

Production content-generation systems must integrate a user's immediate task, long-term brand identity, historical evidence, and revision feedback. We present Aegix Pulse, a production-oriented three-stage architecture that separates current-task clarification and Task Persona finalization, long-term Account Profile (Brand DNA) assembly, and controlled generation and revision while preserving provenance across content versions. We evaluate four preregistered claims using 96 synthetic social-media generation tasks. Four initial-generation conditions progressively introduced a Task Persona, Account Profile, and successful-history style evidence, while two revision conditions compared plain and context-preserving revision. The experiment produced 480 completed generation records and 1,440 blinded LLM-Judge evaluations, supplemented by human review. Adding the Account Profile increased mean brand-consistency scores by 0.1562 points on a five-point scale compared with Task Persona alone (Holm-adjusted p=.1224). Preserving task and brand context during revision increased mean task-preservation scores by 0.2917 points compared with plain revision (Holm-adjusted p=.2432). Neither improvement was statistically conclusive after multiple-comparison correction. Task Persona alone showed a small observed effect, while successful-history evidence provided no additional improvement in brand consistency under the current setting. Human validation did not consistently reproduce the LLM-Judge effect directions and showed low inter-reviewer agreement. These findings provide preliminary evidence for persistent brand context and context-preserving revision while identifying priorities for stronger evidence processing and evaluation.

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly enact market-facing promises through chatbots, recommendation systems, automated decisions, and generative interfaces. Their failures, misuse, and misrepresentation raise a question that conventional brand-crisis models do not fully specify: how do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system, developer, deployer, vendor, and user? This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources. It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal. The framework proposes that incident configuration shapes actor-specific attribution; attribution informs capability, integrity, fairness, and relationship appraisals; and public moralisation may, but need not, escalate an incident into scandal. The theory offers a reconciliation of findings that algorithm involvement can buffer negative brand reactions in some settings while robot and chatbot failures can redirect responsibility to an associated firm in others. It introduces accountable transparency as a proposed response configuration that combines timely notice, an intelligible account, role-responsibility acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse. The evidence supports conditional, proximal inferences about blame, trust, satisfaction, firm evaluation, and communication credibility more strongly than claims about durable reputation, brand equity, or market performance.

When a generative search interface answers a commercial question, which market's products it names is decided before the model reasons about the products. We report a controlled probe of 234 runs against the logged-out ChatGPT web interface and the OpenAI API, collected on 29 and 30 August 2026 across four exit countries and six query languages, with six identical runs per cell. Three results. First, the top recommendation is unstable: it changed across six identical runs on four of six prompts, and that rate was identical in the browser interface and in the API with web search both enabled and disabled, so instability is a property of the system and not of the surface. Second, query language, and not location, decides whether local suppliers appear at all. Where the query language matched the country, a global brand won 1 of 24 runs; asked in English on the same connections, local brands took 0 of 6 runs in Estonia and Turkiye. Third, language and location are separable and act on different things: holding the query language fixed and moving only the exit IP moves the market whose brands are named while the answer stays in the query language. We show this on two unrelated pairs, Turkish asked from Berlin and Russian asked from Tallinn, and in both the answer names the resident country's suppliers. A minority language occupies a middle tier: Russian asked from Estonia names an Estonian supplier in 4 of 6 runs and a global one in all six, where Estonian names a local supplier in every run and English names none. A negative control in a second category, coded with the same instrument, shows no language effect at all, and disconfirms our own expectation: that category does have domestic suppliers and none was named in any language, which points the explanation at whether a category is nationally regulated rather than at whether it is nationally supplied.

The rapid proliferation of Agentic Artificial Intelligence fundamentally disrupts traditional customer loyalty paradigms. As AI evolves from passive recommendation algorithms to autonomous, goal-directed agents capable of executing purchasing decisions, the conventional understanding of consumer-brand relationships requires a structural reevaluation. By synthesizing extant literature across human-machine teaming, consumer decision-making, and algorithmic trust dynamics, we demonstrate that traditional loyalty models fail to account for algorithmic bounded rationality and constructed autonomy. To address this, we introduce the Dynamic Verifiable Multi-Agent Human Agentic Loyalty Loop (DVM-HALL) model. We formalize brand choice via a softmax probability formulation where human emotional equity, agentic machine-experience utility, calibrated trust, delegated authority, and verifiable execution jointly determine selection. The model features recursive updating mechanisms to dynamically calibrate trust and delegation after each interaction. Crucially, the framework integrates a verifiable execution layer for Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and tokenized loyalty settings, incorporating execution risks -- such as gas costs, slippage, MEV exposure, and smart-contract vulnerabilities -- as core predictors of agentic brand preference. Furthermore, we introduce the Net Human-Agent Score (NHAS), an auditable, risk-weighted metric designed to measure human-agent alignment using human feedback, execution logs, benchmark comparisons, and verifiable receipts. Finally, we propose a comprehensive three-stage empirical validation plan spanning controlled shopping experiments, multi-agent market simulations, and DeFi testbeds. This framework provides the foundational theory required for brands to navigate the impending transition toward machine customers.

Teams measuring whether large language models (LLMs) recommend a brand face a reproducibility problem: ask the same question twice and the answer moves. Practice resamples each prompt a few times (commonly five) and averages, treating within-prompt resampling as the source of the noise. But a measured brand score moves for at least four separable reasons: within-prompt resampling, prompt paraphrase, model identity, and query language. We specify a crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embed the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target reliability. We apply it to a fully crossed corpus of 12,933 LLM responses on 20 Central and Eastern European brands, 8 languages, and 3 models (GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Flash in parametric mode, Perplexity in grounded retrieval), with a stability subset of 1,435 cells resampled about five times. The outcome is per-response multilingual sentiment polarity. Query language is the largest systematic facet (26.5% of the variance of one response) against 1.5% for brand identity (ICC 0.0146), so a single AI answer carries almost no brand-discriminating signal. Once a cell term isolates pure resampling, resampling is 34.8% of variance and the brand-in-context interaction 29.6%; brand-by-language is 8.6% (a bilingual penalty) while brand-by-model and brand-by-prompt are near zero. Per unit of query budget, adding languages and models reduces relative-error variance far more than adding repeats: a repeat past the fifth reduces it by only 0.0003. Brand-ranking reliability stays low, near 0.01 for a single answer and about 0.36 at the full crossed design, so reliability is bought by spreading across languages and models, not by repeating one prompt.

Vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly read news and web content as images, where the publisher's identity is visually present. We show that VLMs carry a strong source-credibility prior keyed on outlet identity, and study it along three axes. (i) Cross-model benchmark. We introduce CueTrust, a cross-model diagnostic that measures which surface source cue overrides an article's content evidence via a Source-Override Index (SOI). Across seven VLMs and five cues, the vulnerability profile is model- and scale-dependent, and the override is outlet-identity-specific and encoding-invariant, firing from the masthead name, the logo image, or the bare domain, but not from a named author, in-text authority, or page layout (clean negative controls). (ii) Mechanistic account. For the brand cue, we give a full mechanistic account: swapping only the masthead moves credibility across an approximately 11 log-odds range that tracks professional ratings (rho = 0.88 with Media Bias/Fact Check). The prior is dual-coded (name and logo), strengthens with scale, is causally formed at layers 19-21, carried by interpretable seed-stable sparse-autoencoder features, and recurs at the same relative locus in a second model family. It overrides content (about 1.8x) as a signal-magnitude effect within a shared pathway, not a privileged route. Steering the localized direction selectively reduces the override (41% reduction) and generalizes to held-out outlets, confirming the prior is causally used, not merely decodable. Deployed VLMs may thus defer to source identity over the evidence in front of them, a reliability failure we can measure across models, localize, and causally probe. We release the stimulus suite and CueTrust.

When a large language model (LLM) answers a question about a company, it grounds the answer in retrieved web sources, and those sources decide what the model says. Most analysis of AI brand visibility looks at the answer text. This study looks one step earlier, at the citations. We merge three Rankfor.AI datasets covering 128 brands across 12 home markets and 13 languages, and analyse 167,551 URL-grounded citations (189,974 total attribution rows). We classify each citation by domain and source type and measure where AI gets its brand information, by language and by market. Four patterns hold. First, AI grounds brand answers overwhelmingly in third-party sources: 85.7% of citations point to sites the brand does not own, against 14.3% owned. Second, the source base is concentrated and long-tailed: 80% of citations come from about 18% of domains, fitting a Zipf law (alpha = 0.86, R^2 = 0.983). Third, one reference site dominates almost everywhere: Wikipedia is the most-cited domain in 11 of 12 languages, the exception being Lithuanian, where the business daily vz.lt edges it (4.38%). Fourth, the source mix is market-specific at the margin: for 46 Polish national brands the most-cited domain is YouTube, and four HR and careers portals supply 637 citations against 297 for Polish Wikipedia, about twice as many.

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.

Large language models now mediate how buyers discover products and services, making the competitive structure of AI-generated recommendations a strategic concern for brands. A basic question has lacked large-scale empirical answers: in a given category, which brand does a model recommend, and how concentrated is that ownership? Across 3,750 responses spanning 50 brands, five industries, and 250 brand-free category queries on three models (GPT-5.2, Google Gemini 3 Flash, and Perplexity sonar-pro), each query repeated five times under a dice-roll stability protocol, we propose three exploratory metrics: the Category Ownership Index (COI), a brand's share of mentions within a category; the Competitive Vacuum Index (CVI), flagging categories with no single leader; and the Displacement Score (DS), quantifying asymmetric substitution between brand pairs. In this sample, recommendation concentration was moderate: the mean Gini coefficient was 0.28 (95% CI [0.16, 0.41]), below the 0.60 power-law threshold we set. Competitive vacuums were rare, appearing in 8.0% of queries, so the models named at least one sampled brand in most cases. Cross-model agreement on the top-recommended brand was 41.6%: a top position on one model did not reliably hold on another. Displacement was industry-dependent, from co-recommendation in consulting (0.4:1) to one-directional substitution up to 4.3:1, with an unweighted mean of 2.4:1 across the five industries. A BERTopic check placed only 4.2% of discovered topic clusters outside the original categories. Within the scope studied, these results sit in tension with a strong winner-takes-all narrative around AI recommendation, and the three metrics offer a candidate, reproducible procedure for competitive-intelligence analysis that future work can validate.

AI-mediated answer systems increasingly determine how brands and organizations are represented to users. Existing approaches reduce visibility to mention rate or citation frequency. This paper argues that aggregate metrics are insufficient because entities exhibit systematically different AI visibility error profiles. We introduce Per-Entity Bias Mapping (PEBM): a ten-dimensional framework distinguishing raw from verified mentions. Three failure modes are identified: (1) underrepresented entities suffer invisibility due to weak knowledge graph presence; (2) large entities suffer the Brand Hallucination Paradox -- model familiarity creates stronger surfaces for plausible but incorrect completions; (3) CEE entities face a structural infrastructure gap across knowledge graphs, NER, and entity linking. A fourth dimension, Parametric-Retrieval Lag Asymmetry, describes divergence between retrieval-augmented and parametric memory update cycles. A full-scale empirical study (n=100 Hungarian B2B entities, 1,400 probe runs, 2,062 sources) finds Tier 1 brands produce 52.69% fabricated citations versus 37.87% for Tier 3 entities (+14.82 pp; p=1.67e-11), supporting the Brand Hallucination Paradox. Regulatory-framed queries elevate fabrication to 56.77% versus 37.59% baseline (+19.2 pp). We identify rejection-induced confabulation escalation: agentic quality filters function as hallucination accelerators in compliance contexts. We introduce ghost cartography as a unifying mechanism: entities in sparse latent regions produce confident output interpolated from neighboring dense regions, yielding a two-dimensional confabulation space (fabricated presence vs. frozen representation).

When a new domain resembling a popular brand appears, defenders face a fundamental ambiguity: it may be an attacker-created squatting site for phishing, or it may be a domain the brand itself registered, either defensively, to block attackers, or legitimately, for a new product or service launch. Incorrectly flagging a brand-owned domain as malicious produces a false positive that harms end users and damages the brand's reputation. Resolving this ambiguity requires brand intelligence: the ability to determine, at scale, whether a given domain belongs to a brand. Large language models (LLMs), with their broad knowledge of brand domain relationships, offer a promising zero configuration approach to this problem, but their reliability for brand intelligence tasks remains unknown. We present the first systematic empirical evaluation of LLM brand intelligence across three tasks: domain enumeration (Q1), open ended brand attribution (Q2), and binary ownership classification (Q3). We evaluate four models, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Claude Sonnet 4.6, across four retrieval settings (in context, web search, WHOIS lookup, and combined) on 36 of the most phished brands. Our results reveal a stark dichotomy: models achieve up to 82% precision enumerating brand domains from memory alone, yet fail at ownership verification without external tools, with macro F1 at most 0.37 in ICL mode. WHOIS augmentation lifts Q3 macro F1 by up to 0.65 points, yielding near perfect precision (<= 0.99), dramatically reducing the false positive risk for defenders. We provide concrete recommendations for deploying LLMs in brand protection pipelines.

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.

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.

In high-stakes settings such as brand compliance, clinical care, and content moderation, machine learning cannot be deployed as opaque oracles: practitioners inspect the features driving model decisions, and models must leverage the expert documentation governing these domains. In practice, the data arrives as unstructured content, and features extracted from it must be interpretable, discriminative, and aligned with what experts consider important. Existing methods fall short: they target tabular inputs, lack demonstrated expert alignment, and cannot operationalize qualitative criteria such as 'maintain professional tone' into precise features. We present FEST (Feature Engineering with Self-evolving Trees), combining dual-stream feature generation (semantic and deterministic), semantic deduplication, and tree-guided iterative evolution to discover auditable features from raw text and images. FEST leads in 17 of 20 classifier-task combinations across brand classification, content authenticity detection, and stress detection, with a mean gain of 4.2 pp over the strongest baseline across five classifiers. An LLM-as-judge evaluation shows FEST achieves 60-80% coverage of expert-designed brand features at strict semantic-alignment thresholds, corroborated by a human expert study rating features highly on relevance, clarity, and actionability. When seeded with expert guidelines, FEST refines qualitative criteria into operational features, improving accuracy by 6-12 pp on average across brands. To enable systematic evaluation of expert alignment in automated feature engineering, we release BrandGuide, the first dataset pairing expert-designed features with 1M+ assets across 2,683 brands. By grounding feature engineering in expert knowledge, FEST opens a practical pathway for interpretable ML in domains demanding human oversight.

The same prompt -- "best CRM software" -- reaches AI assistants from buyers in widely different contexts: a solo founder, an enterprise VP, a UK SMB owner. We audit how strongly that contextual variation reshapes which brands the model recommends. The audit samples 2,000 runs over a design space of 10 personas x 8 prompts x 3 model configurations x N=10 reps, with the two OpenAI cells at full 8-prompt coverage and the Anthropic sonnet-4.6 / low cell at 4-prompt coverage. Prefixing the user message with a persona drops the recommendation-set similarity (Jaccard) by Delta = -0.12 to -0.20 relative to a same-persona baseline (clustered 95% CIs exclude zero on all three measured cells; the sonnet cell's CI rests on only 4 prompt clusters and is correspondingly wider). The effect is sharply prominence-stratified: category leaders are persona-resistant (~80% same-brand consistency across personas), but mid-market brands swap up to 75% of the recommendation set as the persona changes. The Anthropic model shows a larger point-estimate effect than the OpenAI configurations, though clustered CIs overlap for the closer contrast (sonnet vs. OpenAI/high); the asymmetry is consistent with Anthropic's more retrieval-unattributed generation route (43-52% recommendations without observed retrieval-layer evidence, vs OpenAI's 8-29%, documented in Jack 2026). Any measurement of AI brand perception must condition on the buyer persona supplying the query: the same prompt produces materially different recommendation sets depending on who the model thinks is asking, and a measurement protocol that aggregates across personas systematically obscures that variation. The effect concentrates at mid-market and is largest on the most priors-reliant generation route in our audit, consistent with persona responsiveness growing as models lean more on training-data priors and richer context integration.

Small changes to how a buyer phrases a question -- "best CRM" vs "top CRM" vs "best CRM for a SaaS startup" -- produce substantially different brand recommendations from AI assistants. Across ~6,000 paraphrase runs and ~6,000 same-prompt rerun controls on OpenAI and Anthropic models, the recommendation-set similarity (Jaccard) between two paraphrases of the same underlying buying intent is 0.288 for cosmetic rewordings (clustered 95% CI [0.215, 0.361]) and 0.135 for constraint-adding rewordings ([0.098, 0.175], pooling region/language and specificity-ladder axes) -- both far below the 0.50-0.61 same-prompt rerun baseline. The prompt string, not the underlying buyer intent, is the dominant input to which brands surface. Increasing reasoning effort does not narrow the gap (bounded by +/-0.05). This is a direct challenge to an increasingly popular AEO/GEO practice. Tracking a brand's "AI visibility" by counting brand mentions over a fixed set of prompts produces a metric whose dominant source of variance is which paraphrase the tracker happens to issue, not the model's behavior toward the brand: the same buyer intent in two natural paraphrases produces recommendation sets that overlap 14-29% in Jaccard versus 50-61% for same-prompt reruns. Sampling more paraphrases per intent reduces the artifact in principle, and efficient multi-prompt evaluation methods exist in the academic literature, but the natural buyer-phrasing space is much larger than the benchmark-scale prompt sets those methods have been validated on, and far beyond what any commercial tracker issues per brand-intent combination. Prompt-by-prompt mention tracking is therefore structurally unstable as a unit of measurement; meaningful improvement likely requires a different unit rather than a larger prompt set.

A brand whose customers use both ChatGPT and Claude for product recommendations faces a strategic choice: a single optimization playbook, or one per provider? Across 215 commercially-framed prompts in four measurement batches, the two providers disagree on which brands they recommend roughly two-thirds of the time (cross-provider recommendation Jaccard 0.35, below the 0.50-0.61 same-prompt rerun baseline). The picks diverge. But when neither provider recommends a brand, we classify the failure into one of three modes -- discoverability (the brand never reaches the model), compellingness (it reaches the model but isn't mentioned), or positioning (it's mentioned but not recommended) -- and on 7,763 such joint failures, both providers diagnose the same failure mode 95.1% of the time (clustered 95% CI [94.3%, 95.7%]). Agreement rises monotonically with falling brand prominence, from 81% [78.2%, 84.0%] on category leaders to 99.6% [99.3%, 99.9%] on long-tail regional brands. The two providers reach their picks by measurably different generative routes -- Anthropic recommends from priors 43-52% of the time, OpenAI 8-29% -- but they converge on the failure diagnosis where it matters most for the long tail. Work that addresses the diagnosed failure mode lifts visibility on both providers; positioning - and content-level work for category leaders is more provider-specific.

AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude are recommendation engines, not search engines: they answer commercial queries by directly nominating brands rather than returning a list of links. Marketing to AI is therefore a broader problem than "show up in search" -- positioning, content, and product fit matter as much as discoverability. We audit ~37,000 production runs across four model configurations and 215 commercially-framed prompts spanning 19 sectors, evaluated against a 533-brand reference catalog stratified into five prominence tiers (L1 category leaders to L5 regional players) sourced from external authority lists. The ladder proxies a brand's awareness footprint within its sector, not revenue or market share. The failure mode differs sharply by tier. L1 brands appear in nearly every relevant retrieval but win only 25-41% of the recommendation slots they reach -- the leverage is differentiation, not visibility. L2 challengers carry the highest conversion rates of any tier (37-52%) but lose to persona-mediated substitution on the Anthropic models. L3 mid-market brands are the inflection level: aggregate coverage drops to 88%, conversion to 34-40%, and persona effects peak. L4 specialists and L5 regional players face catastrophic invisibility -- 48-52% never surface in any of the 37,000 runs. No uniform optimization recipe wins; the right marketing investment depends on where the brand sits on the prominence ladder.

Associating user search queries with the correct brand entity is critical for e-commerce product retrieval, yet remains challenging due to the brevity of queries (three to four words on average), their lack of grammatical structure, and a catalog of hundreds of thousands of distinct brands. We formulate this as a brand entity linking task and develop two complementary solutions deployed at scale: (1) a cascaded pipeline that first detects brand mentions via sequence labeling and then disambiguates against a brand knowledge base, and (2) a single-stage approach that frames linking as extreme multiclass classification, directly mapping queries to brand identifiers. Through extensive multilingual evaluation (11 languages) and a controlled online experiment, we demonstrate that the proposed methods substantially improve brand recall while maintaining high precision, leading to measurable gains in customer engagement.