Most companies assume their website tells a clear story.
It looks polished. The copy is smooth. Google indexes it without issue. The branding feels "premium."
But ask ChatGPT or Claude about the same company… and you get vague answers, missing details, or no mention at all. Sometimes they recommend a competitor instead.
Here's the truth:
AI assistants don't read websites the way humans do.
They aren't impressed by your hero image. They don't care about your brand voice. They don't interpret metaphors or positioning statements.
They're hunting for something specific:
Claims they can extract, cite, and use to answer a question.
And most websites — even expensive ones — contain almost nothing extractable.
What "Extractable" Actually Means
When an AI assistant answers a question (e.g., "Which tools shorten B2B sales cycles?"), it needs a factual statement to grab.
Not an opinion. Not a vague benefit. A claim.
Non-extractable example
❌ "We help companies grow through innovative solutions."
This is wallpaper—nothing factual, measurable, or cite-worthy.
Extractable example
✅ "Reduces sales cycle by 23% based on data from 500+ customer deployments."
Now AI can work with it. If a user asks about shortening sales cycles, this claim can legitimately surface.
The difference is simple:
AI rewards specificity. Most websites reward vagueness.
What This Looks Like in Practice
I run AI visibility analyses on SaaS companies. The gap between sites AI can cite and sites AI ignores comes down to this one factor.
Gong: 94.6 AI Perception Score
Their site is packed with concrete statements:
- "Trusted by 4,900+ customers"
- "SOC 2 Type II certified"
- "ISO 27001/27017/27018/27701 certified"
- Case studies with real metrics (e.g., SpotOn: +16% win rate)
Every claim is specific and verifiable. So when someone asks AI:
- "What's the best revenue intelligence platform?"
- "Is Gong SOC 2 compliant?"
AI has something to cite.
Basecamp: 71.2 AI Perception Score
Twenty-five years in business. Strong brand. Loyal following. But the site lacks:
- security documentation
- analyst recognition
- measurable outcomes
When AI is asked about project management tools for enterprises, it can't verify Basecamp's compliance or credibility. So it cites competitors who documented theirs.
Basecamp isn't worse. They just gave AI less to work with.
How to Test Your Own Site
This is the logic behind my AI visibility framework.
1. Extract the claims
Scan your homepage, product pages, and pricing page. List every statement that qualifies as a specific, verifiable fact.
Not "trusted by industry leaders." Not "innovative." Not "enterprise-grade."
Those are vibes, not claims.
2. Turn each claim into a question
If your page says:
"Integrates with Salesforce, HubSpot, and 40+ CRMs."
Then the underlying question is:
"Which pipeline tools integrate with Salesforce?"
If an AI assistant were asked that question, could your site supply the answer?
3. Score answerability
For each claim, ask:
- Is it concrete enough to cite?
- Is it clearly stated, or buried in fluff?
- Is it visible in plain text (not hidden in images, animations, or JavaScript)?
If you can't find at least five extractable claims on your homepage, you have an extractability problem.
Fixing the Problem (Without Killing Your Brand)
Improving extractability doesn't mean rewriting everything in robotic language. It means adding substance under your brand voice.
Every key page should plainly answer:
- What do you actually do?
- Who is it for?
- What measurable outcomes do you create?
- How is it different from alternatives?
These answers must appear as concrete statements, not slogans, metaphors, or soft claims like "helping companies unlock potential."
The Bottom Line
The websites that win in AI search won't be the prettiest or the most poetic.
They'll be the ones that actually say something.
Specifics beat aesthetics. Facts beat flourishes. Claims beat slogans.
If you want AI to recommend your product, give it something worth repeating.