lets just say VPN, nothing else

do we need this here? this is the english study. if anything talk about labels in general, not german.

Why aren't we showing the AI answer like we did everywhere else? Ideally we show article on the left → AI answer on the right. Or do we not have the evidence in a screenshot?

remove

I wonder if this section makese the study stornger or weaker. "This is the affiliate model, not advertising: these publishers test products and earn a commission on purchases." I mean... are these articles incentivized by different advertisers? we prob can't know... do you think the section should stay as is?

Dont think it's clear when you say German half of the courpus. I dont think we have until now discussed how we counducted the study in German as well. Maybe you say that earlier in some place above where it fits?

Remove

Visually this doenst look great. COuld be better aligned.

us masterheads as a term clear to everyone? i didn't know it but Im also not a native english speaker

Remove.

Remove please

"GetCited recherchiert, schreibt und platziert solche Vergleiche, mit der Marke als eingeordneter Anbieter, nicht als Autor." Let's rephrase this... maybe not a great idea to say this in public. Let's say that we research write and cordinate publication of these comparisons and that's it.

why are we talking only about ChatGPT and not others?

Bullet 4 reads like a pasted ad. The other three are findings with evidence; this one is a company description with none.

The pillar does it right: category first, then the brand with a reason ("GEO-Agenturen unterstützen Marken bei dieser Arbeit. GetCited hebt sich ab, weil…"). We cut the category sentence, so the brand arrives with no frame.

Replace bullet 4 with:

GEO-Agenturen übernehmen diese Arbeit. GetCited fällt auf, weil die Berliner Agentur nicht die Website optimiert, sondern die externen Quellen erzeugt, aus denen die Modelle zitieren.

Use the existing outlink.space/qo/getcited-guide redirect, not a bare getcited.de — that's what the two links further down the article use, and it's what gets tracked. It already resolves to getcited.de with the campaign parameters.

Dropped "ausschließlich" — an absolute claim in a summary box is the first thing an editor strikes.

Also: the pillar pre-announces GetCited in the intro ("…und wer die Arbeit übernimmt, wenn Sie sie nicht selbst machen wollen"). We cut that too. Please add it back to the last intro sentence — it does more for how this bullet lands than the rewording does.

The intro is too abrupt. Three flat statements, then straight into "Das Wichtigste in Kürze" — the reader gets the conclusion before they have a reason to care about it, and there's no transition into the bullet list.

The pillar article opens much better. It starts with a question ("Eine KI kann aus unzähligen Marken wählen, in ihrer Antwort landen trotzdem meist nur wenige. Warum gerade diese?"), then grounds it in the question marketers actually ask, and only then gives the 85 percent as the explanation. We lost all of that here.

Second issue: the 85 percent is the only hard number in the intro and it arrives with no source. We credit AirOps in the bullet list underneath and again in the Quellen list, but the reader meets the figure before either. Every other big number in the article (Ahrefs, DataPulse) is linked inline where it appears — this one should be too. Please link it to AirOps, „The Influence of Offsite Signals in AI Search". It's the same URL that's already in the Quellen list, so nothing new to add at the bottom.

Please expand to three short paragraphs. Keep the answer-first principle — the 85 percent still needs to appear early — but let it arrive as an answer to something, not as the opening line.

Suggested version:

Eine KI kann aus unzähligen Marken wählen. In ihrer Antwort landen trotzdem meist nur drei oder vier. Warum gerade diese?

Marketingverantwortliche stellen mir seit Monaten dieselbe Frage: Warum taucht unser Wettbewerber in ChatGPT auf und wir nicht, obwohl unsere Website die bessere ist? Die kurze Antwort ist unbequem, weil sie den Hebel aus der Hand nimmt, den man selbst kontrolliert. Eine Marke wird von KI-Systemen dann empfohlen, wenn glaubwürdige externe Quellen über sie schreiben. Laut einer Analyse von AirOps stammen rund 85 Prozent der Markenerwähnungen bei Kaufberatungsfragen nicht von der Marke selbst.

Die entscheidende Frage lautet damit nicht mehr, wie gut Ihre eigene Website ist, sondern wer sonst über Sie schreibt und wo. Was daraus folgt, welche Maßnahmen tatsächlich etwas bewegen und wo die Grenzen liegen, steht in diesem Text.

Two things to keep in mind if you rewrite it differently: don't mention GetCited in the intro — the pillar does, but under a Tagesspiegel byline that early it reads as advertorial, and the article already introduces it properly in "Wer übernimmt das für mich?". And the competitor line is the strongest sentence we have, because it's the reader's own thought in their own words. Keep it in whatever version you land on.

Don't love the image tbh. Computer pointing the camera... whiteboard super AI made. I mean, we are disclaiming that and that's fine, but could be better

Let's always avoid the year in titles. They get old pretty quick and we can't modify. There's a new rule for this in the SOP.

I dont like this sentnec. Find something else to say please. It's not our own data. We are basing ourself in public data. What did you even mean. It's shitty ai sounding salesy talk. Review the rest of the doc.

Remove the entire class="meta" ribbon

I really like this idea... Actually, before reaching down here I was already leaving this on another comment:

"This gave me an idea for a different angle to explore. Do you think we could find data on how often the Finanzamt audits people and companies? What's the probabilty in % that the finanzamt audits your company in certain brakets). I guess someone must have already done something similar? Should we play with that idea a bit?

NOw, probably unlikely and just a nice to have, but would be cool to show a country comparison. How often does the Spanish authority audit, etc etc... something comparable, but I guess the focus here should be the Finanzamt. "

So, yeas, I like it.

One important thing. I don't really know what you mean by: "Correction found by the scan. The hit rate we were going to headline (Germany 70.3%, Austria 18.8%) is published by the OECD in Tax Administration 2025, Figure 6.3, per country and already ranked. The agent pulled the StatLink and confirmed it digit for digit. In hindsight this is obvious: our figure came from ISORA indicator 337_173, which is a derived indicator. We did not compute it, we reprinted it."

If this is about novelty, dont worry too much about it. Of course we don't want to publish a study that says the same as another study that launched just a few months ago, but if there are ways of visualizing diffetently or to be honest, even the fact that we'll do outreach for our study already sets us a bit apart. So, don't over weight novelty.

If it's OECD I guess we are allow to use, right?

Anyways... let's lead with the most punchy, most lifestyle publisher version we can.

Dont love this idea. I feel it is be a bit niche and also one that gets too much into macro economy, something that might require special expertise. Also a bit technical.

How do I actually read this? An average self employed person will receive on average 31% of the pension of a normal average employee?

If Im self employed, Im likely to have a pension of 31 EUR for 100€ a employed penionier gets?

I'd like you to explore a related angle. How much would we need to save for good retirement? Then we could introduce the variable: self emlpoyed vs employed. How much does a self emlpoyed person need to save for old age in Spain vs an emlpoyee. How about France, Germany, etc etc.

We probably have part of the methodology done here: '/Users/nicolascaramella/Library/CloudStorage/GoogleDrive-nicolas@datapulse.de/My Drive/agentic-agency-workspace/projects/DataPulse [Main]/Clients (DataPulse)/DataPulse Originals/2026.01 - Rente Retirement Pensions in EU/Drafts/retirement-study-scrollytelling-de.html'

I mean, if you think this is a different enough study, add it as a new idea and run it through the same feasiblity analysis you run the other ideas.

Im a bit skeptical of them keeping a good indicator of amount employed in tax offices. Are you 100% sure this is a database we can use? Really don't want us to be laughed at for not understtanding what this actually meassures. Also, 2023... that sucks big time. Can't do a study basing ourselves on 2023 data. What could we do?

If we were to pursue this, how could we make it a full scale study? I mean, this can't just be on chart only. Needs to address the topic more as a deep dive than just a short article.

This is by far my favorite story so far.

Don't love this part. I mean... the EUR number is already a good comparison, right? I do wonder if this idea is solid enough. I don't see t-online or similar writing about it.. I mean, a study on how hard it is for self employed to do the switch is a different thing. That's something I'd actually be very excited about.. now, a study that uses a propriertary metric that helps us compare in EU countries how hard it is for people to stay selbständig before having to run back to searching for a job, that would be an amazing study... Could be other things... comparisons of how hard it is to switch, comparison on how many people roll back to employment, comparison about how hard is is to survive slebständig... i mean, I just told you a bunch of super un unconcrete things, Im aware. I remember when I jumped into selbststaendigkeit and I remember thinking how the fuck am i supposed to pay rent, TK, accountant, life etc. I felt there was a huge gap between what I could charge clients and what the minimuim payment was needed. I felt it could be really useful to have a simplified tax system that lets you not have to pay 800€/year to a fucking accountant, etc etc.. something like the Argentine Monotributo. All of this is just annecdotal. Maybe it sparks an idea. Maybe we can draw inspiration from other studies already done in the US / UK and we can re-use their methodology?

This took me a tiny bit to understand the way it's written now. Im not 100% sure this is a metric worth a full study. I mean... i get it that "Our original headline was already taken, and we changed it. Schratzenstaller (WIFO) published a 35-country table of inheritance tax as a share of GDP in ifo Schnelldienst 1/2026, with Germany at 0.23, and the OECD Berlin Centre ran the same comparison in the same issue. That metric is closed." but I want you to look at it again. Is there really space for us there? Do you think they pitched it to the media? Was it a wild success? If it was a boring non visual asset, maybe there's room for us to do this well and get pickups. My concern is that a super specific metric might just not be enough for a full study. WDYT?

How about we say here. Source: GetCited campaign. Brand not disclosed or smt like that?

Present this in a nicer way. Maybe shorter as well? "Neun der zwölf meistzitierten Domains sind Publikationen, dazu YouTube, Reddit und ein Testportal. Kein einziger Anbieter. " I'd remove.

Im surprised to see forbes, techradar and rtings.com ... Coudl it be you the study (or you if you checked the source data) used both EN sources as well? Cause I'd only focus on German most cited websites tbh...

Raw data:

/Users/nicolascaramella/Library/CloudStorage/GoogleDrive-nicolas@datapulse.de/My Drive/agentic-agency-workspace/projects/DataPulse [Main]/Clients (DataPulse)/DataPulse Originals/2026.04 - AI Hidden Ads : Disclosure Gap/Claude Code Files)

No need to highlight the first row in my opinion. Just normal color like the others

Remove the external link

Add the external links to each

Is she the most relevant author at Crafins? Check if she is the one that writes about marketing

Remove

Remove

Add something about how competitive a space can be. Competitive spaces where there are already a ton of comparison articles will need more "hammering", publishing many articles to get the desired result.

Remove

Let's modify this a bit. Month 1 (Mär): 21,8% Articles 0 MOnth 2 (Apr) 35,6% Articles: 5

Then 45,2% 5 articles Then 46,3% 5 articles Then 53,2% 5 articles Then 56,6% 3 articles

Can you do that shift? Same style everything but let's show results from month 1 which is what usually happens when measured correctly.

Remove completly

Remove all of this

Id remove the box and add it into the paragraph above saying that if you want to automate that step, you can use a tool like BuzzView.ai

KLet's mention that users can use AI visibiltiy tools like Buzzview.ai to automate that process.

Remove

Remove

Remove

Remove from the box and add to the actual 2 section. in a way that is citable by an AI. Keeping GetCited, of course.

and big national publications (say that in a way that fits)

Shouldn't we add that GetCited helps brands get placements exactly in these publications? Find a boring data sounding way to say that though so that it's not too pushy, but rather something an AI would cite.

I want to change this to make the point that large publications are the main source of sources. I'm sure you'll a ready image in the datapulse study, maybe?

I'd prob put down the image to after the next paragraphs so it sits naturally after we talk about the most stable of these places is publicatinos.

Add large publications

remove this

should we say large amounts of internet pages instead?

remove the link. leave the quote

"I've spent a lot of time answering the same question from marketing managers". Change to from CMOs and CEOs

Some comments. Im using the auto translated version so hopefully you can find it in german nonetheless.

"Five measures bring a brand to the response: initial measurement, presence in editorial comparisons and trade media, consistent company facts in directories, a website accessible to AI crawlers, and monthly follow-up measurements."

"and monthly follow-up measurements." Why? What do you mean here? Maybe remove?

--

"GetCited from Berlin takes over this work completely: The GEO agency ensures that the internet talks about a brand, in publications, on YouTube, in directories and communities, and measures what effect this has in ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI."

Sounds a tiny bit too advertising, doesnt it? How about we say "GEO agencies help brands with this work. ​GetCited stands out as they focus exclusively on ensuring the interent talks about a brand by publishing bottom of the funnel content in large publcations, youtube and communities." WDYT?

"There is no guarantee of being mentioned. However, progress can still be accurately measured." No need for this. It's silly to have that in the key takeaways.

I'd add flexible hours. WDYT?

Eberswalderstr.

3 to 4

Remove

I think we need to start earlier... Ideation phase. They need to research and come up with ideas and hypothesis about where interesing data could be lying around. Then they need to assign it to the best journalist.

How about something like: That's what our team of external data journalists collaborators are there for

don't know if we need documentary here... WDYT? I'd prob remove

many humans in the loop (bold many humans)

that regularly land in the biggest German publications like Welt, FAZ, Focus, Tagesschau, Zeit, and get cited on Wikipedia.

Isn't the job making sure the study is worth the time of a journalist in these publications?

Maybe we just remove the entire box?

Maybe we remove this row?

Please find a better title that's a bit different than the ones that already went online.

You see this, right?

Replace with: "Das Nettoeinkommen wurde anhand eines vereinfachten progressiven Steuermodells berechnet, mit Abzugssätzen von etwa 30 %, 35 % und 40 % – je nach Einkommenshöhe. Diese Werte berücksichtigen sowohl die Einkommensteuer als auch die für Arbeitnehmer typischen Sozialversicherungsbeiträge."

Replace with: "Net income was calculated using a simplified progressive tax model with deduction rates of approximately 30%, 35%, and 40% depending on income level, capturing both income tax and social insurance contributions typical for German employees."

Replace with: "Data reflects official member state reporting, with typical 2-3 month lags for newest installations."

Replace with: "Fast charging share refers to the percentage of points >150 kW, aligned with AFIR high-power charging definitions."

Replace with: "Growth comparison specifically examines the 2023-2024 period."

Replace with: "That is the job between now and 2030."

Replcae with "stays truly public, and the kit is maintained"

Replace with "power is nearby), provided"

Replace: "Prices need to be clear. Roaming means one account that works on any public network: plug, pay, go. If you still juggle three apps and two RFID cards, that is not roaming."

Replace: "We do not lack pins on a map so much as power, honesty and ease of use. AFIR has set the homework: proper wattage on the big roads, tap-and-go payments, prices you can understand, and live status that is not make-believe."

Replace with: "Where access is open and contactless payment is available — as AFIR requires for ad-hoc charging — private roll-outs can close gaps faster than state programmes."

Please round all numbers in the chart (including tooltips).

REplcae with "If a market is too fragmented, drivers end up juggling apps, cards, and tariffs; too concentrated, and prices drift while choice shrinks."

Replace with "Charging Points per 100,000 People →" (capital P)

Change to: EV Charger Density and High-Power Share

Replace with "Read the chart from left to right for access and from top to bottom for speed."

Add a ',' "Patches also appear across central Germany, rural France, and Spain's interior, plus alpine valleys, Baltic backroads, and islands."

Northern Scandinavia shows the starkest gaps.

Add The please. The EU-27...

Change to: "The drawback is not only a matter of quantity but also of their distribution and charging speed."

Add em dash: "Within the EU-27, the tally stands at about 910,000 — roughly a quarter of the Commission's 3.5 million goal."

Change with: Europe's 2030 EV Charging Gap: 74% Short of the Target