Earning Citations and Mentions for AI Answers SKILL.md

This is the exact file agents read, including the credit header and licence notice. Save it as ai-citation-earning/SKILL.md.

---
name: ai-citation-earning
description: "Get named in AI answers by earning authentic, accurate mentions on the sources engines cite: build a citation map from real prompts, find gaps on review platforms, editorial comparisons, media, communities and video, create citable assets such as original data, run honest outreach and community participation, and track mentions and cited-source presence with a risk register for tactics to avoid. Use whenever someone asks how to get mentioned in ChatGPT or Perplexity recommendations, 'best X' AI answers, digital PR for AI search, brand mentions for LLMs, Reddit or review sites for AI visibility, or how competitors get cited."
license: CC-BY-4.0
metadata:
  author: Afeez Adebayo
  author_url: https://afeezadebayo.com
  author_linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afeez-adebayo/
  author_x: https://x.com/za_icon
  source: https://afeezadebayo.com/skills-md/marketing/aeo-geo/ai-citation-earning/
  category: marketing
  subcategory: aeo-geo
  version: "1.0.0"
  created: "2026-10-10"
  updated: "2026-10-10"
---

# Earning Citations and Mentions for AI Answers

Ask an AI assistant "what's the best accounting software for a small agency?" and the answer is built from many voices: review sites, comparison articles, forums, videos, media and vendor pages. A brand that only talks about itself on its own site rarely makes those lists. A brand that independent sources discuss, accurately and in context, usually does. [Consensus, from citation studies by Ahrefs, Semrush, Profound and others]

This skill finds the sources AI answers draw on for your topics and builds an honest plan to be present in them.

## Operating principles
1. **Find the sources first.** Collect what engines actually cite for your prompts before pitching anyone.
2. **Authentic only.** Google states that seeking inauthentic mentions isn't as helpful as it might seem and that spam systems also protect AI features. [Confirmed] Fake reviews, planted forum posts and paid placements in "best of" lists risk penalties, removals and public embarrassment.
3. **Give sources a reason.** Original data, expert commentary, useful tools and real customer outcomes get mentioned; announcements rarely do.
4. **Accuracy over volume.** One accurate, detailed mention on a source engines trust beats many thin ones.
5. **Think in topics.** The aim is "[brand] + [topic]" in the same context, repeatedly, across independent sources.

## Source types AI answers draw on
| Source type | Examples | How to be present |
|---|---|---|
| Review and comparison platforms | G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, app stores, niche directories | Complete profiles, invite real customers to review, respond to reviews |
| Editorial comparisons | "Best X for Y" articles by publishers | Offer accurate product info, demos and data; never pay for ranking |
| Industry media | Trade publications, newsletters, podcasts | Original data, expert commentary, contributed articles |
| Communities | Reddit, Stack Exchange, Quora, industry forums, LinkedIn | Staff with clear affiliation answering questions helpfully |
| Video | YouTube reviews, tutorials, webinars | Your own tutorials, creator partnerships disclosed properly |
| Reference | Wikipedia, Wikidata, standards bodies, academic work | Only via notability and proper processes |
| Partners and customers | Integration directories, case studies on customer sites | Joint content, accurate partner listings |

## When to use, and when not to
Use it when competitors dominate "best X" and "X vs Y" answers, when the brand is accurate but rarely mentioned, when launching into a new category, and when digital PR needs a measurable goal.

Don't use it to fix access or wrong facts on your own site (`ai-crawler-access`, `brand-accuracy-ai-answers`).

## Inputs to ask for, in one message
1. The prompt set and the baseline results, including cited URLs.
2. Competitors that appear in answers.
3. Assets available: data, experts, customers willing to speak, tools.
4. Existing review profiles and their state.
5. PR and community resources available each month.

## Workflow

### Step 1. Build the citation map
Run the prompts in each engine and collect every cited URL. Group by domain and source type. Count how often each appears and which competitors they mention.

### Step 2. Find the gaps
For each frequently cited source, note whether you're mentioned, mentioned wrongly, or missing, and what it would take to be included accurately.

### Step 3. Prioritise sources
Score by citation frequency, relevance to revenue prompts and feasibility. Usually: fix your own review profiles first, then editorial comparisons, then media and communities.

### Step 4. Create something worth citing
| Asset | Why it works |
|---|---|
| Original survey or usage data | Journalists and engines cite numbers with sources |
| Annual index or benchmark | Repeatable, referenced year after year |
| Expert commentary on news | Fast, quotable, builds topic association |
| Free tool or calculator | Linked and recommended in communities |
| Customer outcomes with permission | Concrete proof for comparison writers |

### Step 5. Outreach
Personal, specific pitches to editors of cited comparisons (corrections and new data), journalists covering the topic, podcast hosts and community moderators where appropriate. Offer facts, not demands.

### Step 6. Community participation
Staff answer real questions with disclosed affiliation, link only when it helps, and never use sock-puppet accounts.

### Step 7. Measure
Track new mentions, their accuracy and whether they appear among cited sources in the next prompt runs.

## Risk register
| Tactic | Risk |
|---|---|
| Paying for placement in "best of" lists without disclosure | Misleading to readers; may breach advertising rules; spam signals |
| Fake or incentivised reviews | Platform removals, legal action in some markets |
| Undisclosed staff posts on Reddit | Bans and public backlash |
| Self-published "top 10" lists ranking yourself first | Low trust with readers, editors and engines; easy to expose |
| Mass guest posts for links | Link spam policies |

## Worked example
A project management tool was absent from AI answers for "best project management software for agencies". The citation map showed 60% of citations came from five comparison articles, two review platforms and a popular Reddit thread. The team updated their review profiles and invited 200 real customers to review, sent comparison editors a short brief with current pricing and an agency-specific feature list, published an agency benchmark from anonymised usage data, and had their head of product answer agency questions on Reddit with clear affiliation. Three of the five comparisons added the tool, and mentions rose from 0 to 9 of 20 tracked prompts over a quarter.

## Output format
```
# Citation earning plan: <brand>, <topics>, <date>
## Citation map (domain, type, frequency, competitors named, our status)
## Priority sources and the ask for each
## Assets to create (owner, date)
## Outreach and community plan
## Risk notes
## Measurement: mentions, accuracy, appearance in cited sources
```

## Pitch template for a comparison editor
```
Subject: Updated facts for your "[article title]"
Hi [name],
Your [article] is one of the clearest guides on [topic]. We noticed [our product] isn't included / is listed with [outdated fact].
Current facts (checked [date]): pricing [x], key features for [audience] [y], source links [z].
Happy to give you a demo account or answer questions. No pressure to include us; we just want readers to have accurate information.
[name], [role]
```

## Edge cases and judgement calls
| Situation | What to do |
|---|---|
| Comparison editors ask for payment | Decline paid placement; offer facts and access instead, or treat it as clearly labelled advertising |
| Negative reviews dominate a cited platform | Respond professionally, fix real issues and invite satisfied customers to review |
| Competitors run fake reviews | Report through the platform; don't retaliate in kind |
| No customers willing to be named | Publish anonymised outcomes with permission and clear methods |
| Community bans self-promotion | Contribute expertise without links; respect the rules |

## Handoffs to related skills
- Original data and citable pages: `answer-ready-content`
- Accurate bios and facts: `entity-optimisation`
- Correction requests: `brand-accuracy-ai-answers`
- Measuring mentions: `ai-visibility-tracking`
- Product reviews and comparisons: `ai-commerce-product-visibility`

## Quality bar: what an excellent plan includes
- A citation map from real prompts across engines.
- A specific, useful ask for each priority source.
- Only authentic, disclosed tactics.
- Success measured in accurate mentions on cited sources.

## Common mistakes
- Pitching before knowing which sources engines cite.
- Chasing links instead of accurate mentions.
- Using undisclosed or fake accounts.
- Announcing products instead of offering data or expertise.
- Ignoring review profiles that engines cite often.

## Questions to ask before you plan
- What data or expertise can the business share that others can't?
- Which customers would speak publicly?
- Who will own community participation, with disclosed affiliation?

## Self-check before you answer
- Is the plan based on a citation map from real prompts?
- Is every tactic authentic and disclosed?
- Does each priority source have a specific, useful ask?
- Is success measured in accurate mentions and cited-source presence?

## Official documentation
- Google: generative AI features in Search, site owner guide (inauthentic mentions): https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide
- Google spam policies: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies
- Google reviews system: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/reviews-system

---
Created by Afeez Adebayo, Marketing, SEO & Growth Expert
Website: https://afeezadebayo.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afeez-adebayo/
X: https://x.com/za_icon
Source: https://afeezadebayo.com/skills-md/marketing/aeo-geo/ai-citation-earning/

Licence: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may copy, share and adapt this skill, including for commercial use, as long as you credit Afeez Adebayo and link to the source URL above. Keep this notice in any copy or adapted version.