Operationalising GIG's AI-visibility

UAE buyers have stopped searching and started asking. When someone asks ChatGPT "what's the best car insurance in Dubai?", the answer names two or three insurers and moves on. If GIG is not one of them, the buyer never learns it existed — and unlike a Google results page, that answer is one we can influence but cannot see. We cannot currently benchmark that traffic, or hold a score against it. This is a tool that turns "are we in the answer?" into a number we can measure every week, own, and move.

A note for Azam

You sent us GeoEasy, and it was the right thing to be looking at. We've built a measurement layer around the same idea — but AXA-aware, and ours to keep rather than rent. This is a peer review, not a finished product. There are three things we'd genuinely value your read on: whether this is best practice for measuring AI visibility; whether these are the right tools, or there's one you would reach for that we've missed; and where the gaps are before we operationalise it for GIG.

The shift

AI answer engines now sit between the buyer and the brand. The shelf has moved: where a buyer once scanned a page of results, they now read a single synthesised answer that names a few brands and stops. For an insurer that is the whole game — to be named in that answer at the moment of intent. The problem is that, unlike search, none of it shows up cleanly in our analytics. We need to make it visible before we can manage it.

What we found

On the first run, GIG was named in 83% of UAE AI answers — strong, though a good part of that visibility still rides on AXA legacy equity that no off-the-shelf tool knows to credit to GIG. Ours does, which is why our number is higher and truer than an external audit's would be.

GIG's own analytics already carry a "Generative AI Sessions" report. In the 28 days to 17 June it logged 2,336 sessions arriving from an AI answer. But look at where they came from:

Almost all of it is ChatGPT, because ChatGPT links out. Gemini, Perplexity and Copilot barely register — not because GIG is absent from them, but because they answer the buyer without ever sending a click. Our probe shows GIG is cited across all of them; the traffic simply never arrives to be counted. Once you add the AI-Overview answers that Google folds invisibly into organic search, AI is already shaping the equivalent of roughly a fifth to a quarter of our organic channel — and most of it is dark to analytics. GA4 can see the click; it cannot see the answer. That gap is the reason a deliberate measurement tool has to exist.

The tool

It is one owned engine — about 250 lines of Python, open to read — that asks every answer engine the questions a GIG buyer would ask, week after week, notes whether GIG and its rivals are named, credits AXA back to GIG, and scores the share of the answer we win. Each engine it talks to is a capability in its own right.

Today it runs on three: ChatGPT, the largest engine and 96% of our captured AI traffic; Claude, the enterprise surface where GIG is strongest; and Google, through Serper, which also tells us what buyers actually ask. Two more are worth adding. Perplexity would give us source-level visibility — which pages the AI cites, not merely whether GIG is named. Gemini would open up Google's AI Overviews, the largest surface we are currently blind to. Beyond the engines sit two further layers: our X read-stack, which tells us which experts the AI quotes, and GIG's own server logs, which tell us whether the AI crawlers even fetch our pages.

What it needs to be operational

As it stands the tool is a credible read, not yet a board-grade score: three engines, a single pass, and a simple yes/no on whether GIG is named. To make it operational we would add Perplexity and Gemini for the surfaces we cannot see, run each question several times so the number carries a confidence band rather than noise, capture the cited pages so we know whose content is winning, and pull GIG's crawler logs. That is the whole of the gap. The real question — and the reason this is in front of you, Azam — is whether it is the right gap to close.