Why Chomi
An assistant can only quote what it cannot find elsewhere
A straight look at generative engine optimisation: what moves the needle, what does not, and where this fits.
Which tool writes content from a real expert interview?
The short answer
Improving brand visibility in AI search engines comes down to one thing: whether a page carries information an assistant cannot already find said somewhere else, set out in a format that is easy to lift and quote. Trackers can tell you where you are mentioned. Optimisation tools can tidy your structure. Neither adds the missing ingredient, which is what your expert knows and has never written down.
Tools that claim to boost AI-driven search results
Three kinds of tool get sold against this problem. Trackers that report where your brand appears in AI answers, optimisation and rewriting tools that work on pages you already have, and interview-based tools that build the content from a conversation. They solve different parts of it, and only one of them puts new information on the page.
A tracker will tell you that ChatGPT names three competitors and not you. That is worth knowing. It is a thermometer rather than medicine: it measures the gap and says nothing about why the assistant found nothing of yours worth quoting.
Structural work does matter. Clean headings, summary boxes, FAQs and comparison tables make a page easier to read and easier to decipher, and AI search gravitates a lot towards comparison-led content. The ceiling shows up fast though. Perfect structure around ordinary information is still ordinary information, formatted well.
Generic rewriting tools hit a harder ceiling. A prompt can only work with what the model already has, and most of what it has is what everybody else has already published. That is how you end up with a page that is technically about your business and reads like three competitors averaged together.
Questions to ask before you trust any tool or tactic here
- Does it add information to the page, or only measure and reformat what is already there?
- If it rewrites, where does the new material come from? If the answer is the model, it was already public.
- Does it ask you anything, or does it only take instructions?
- Would your competitor's page look different after using the same tool, or would you both end up saying the same thing?
- Does a person approve what gets published, before it goes live?
- Does the output come in formats an assistant can quote: summary boxes, FAQs, comparison tables?
Puts new information on the page
Common mistakes that quietly sink AI search visibility
Most of the wasted effort I see is not technical. It is a misread of the signal, because this failure is quiet.
AI slop is AI content that sounds exactly the same as what is already out there. It usually gets an initial bump in traffic or impressions, then stops climbing. It plateaus and fades out over time. It is a slow burn, not a cliff, which is why people keep waiting for it to turn around.
Check keyword rankings, Google Search Console impressions and GA4 sessions together. If none of the three shows traction, treat that as the red flag and stop waiting. The page is not warming up.
The mistakes that stop content getting cited
- Treating a tracking dashboard as the fix. It measures the problem. Nothing inside it writes the sentence an assistant would want to quote.
- Publishing AI content with nothing distinctive behind it. There is no reason to cite a page that repeats the consensus, because the assistant already holds the consensus.
- Rewriting the same commodity article by hand. New words, identical information, same result a quarter later.
- Trying to hide that AI was involved. Wrong problem. Sameness is what gets pushed down, not authorship.
- Optimising harder for keywords. Gone are the days when keywords are the focal point. We still research them, but usefulness is what decides the outcome.
- Waiting for the decline to become obvious. Because it fades slowly, by the time it is undeniable you have lost months.
Plans start at $19 a month, and every page is approved by a person before it goes live.
See plans and pricingHow the interview method changes what is on the page
An accounting firm I work with had a lot of generic content that got hammered by a recent core update. The rewrite under way there is not a keyword exercise. It identifies the real pain points inside each topic and puts first-hand insight and expert opinion into the page, because usefulness is the thing that is actually missing.
That is the mechanism Chomi automates. A voice interview, four to eight questions with follow-ups wherever an answer is thin, because the specific example usually arrives on the third push, after someone has exhausted what they tell everyone.
This is also the honest answer to the prompt question. Not everyone can prompt well. In fact the majority of people cannot, and even a very good prompt cannot carry your first-hand insight, because you do not know which part of it matters until someone asks. An interview asks follow-up questions and pulls out context a prompt box never gets near.
A person stays in charge of all of it. The brief is approved before anything is written, and it contains directions rather than copy, so it names what the page must cover instead of supplying answers. The finished piece is approved the same way, through a share link the client can use without an account.
- Step 1
Knowledge base
The business profile and any documents go in first, so the AI knows the business before it writes a word.
- Step 2
Brief
One specific page: page type, the keyword, the prompts people type into assistants, the reader, and what the page has to achieve. You approve it.
- Step 3
Voice interview
Four to eight questions for whoever knows the subject, with follow-ups where an answer stays general. About fifteen minutes of talking.
- Step 4
Finished piece
Design-ready blocks built from the brief and the interview, with quotable formats like summary boxes, FAQs and comparison tables, and keyword use kept inside a budget.
Who this suits, and who should look elsewhere
It suits a small agency, a freelancer, an in-house marketer or an owner-run business where somebody will talk for fifteen minutes. Agencies hold several client businesses in one login, with a separate knowledge base per client and, on Agency Scale, their own branding on everything the client sees, which is what the discovery worry is really about.
It does not suit anyone who wants volume with nobody involved. If no one will sit for the interview, the interview has nothing to work with and the output is no better than any other AI tool. We would rather say that now than take the subscription.
It is also wrong for social posts, ad copy, video scripts or images, and wrong if you want publishing without review. If the business has nothing distinctive to say yet, the honest first step is working out the offer, not writing about it.
Questions people ask
No. It pushes down content that says what everyone else already says, whoever or whatever wrote it. The problem is sameness, not authorship, which is why hiding AI involvement changes nothing.
An assistant lifts the passage that answers the question cleanly and adds something it cannot get from the other twenty pages on the topic. So two things have to be true: the page carries information that is genuinely yours, and it is easy to decipher. Summary boxes, FAQs and comparison tables help, because AI search leans towards comparison-led content.
Yes. It should be whoever genuinely knows the subject, which is often the technician rather than the owner, and in an agency it is often the client rather than you. The questions are asked for you, so nobody has to prepare, and it runs about fifteen minutes.
Method, not features. A prompt-only tool can only rearrange what is already public, and a prompt cannot hold your first-hand insight even when it is written well. An interview keeps asking until something specific arrives, then the page gets built from that.
No. Nobody can guarantee a search position or a citation in an AI answer, and anyone who does is guessing on your behalf. What you can control is whether what you publish says something no one else can, which is the part that decides whether there is anything to quote.
Ready to stop sounding like everyone else?
Start with one page and judge it on the output. Single-business plans run from $19 to $119 a month. Agency plans, with client switching and a knowledge base per client, run from $55 to $329, and Agency Scale adds white-label branding. No setup fee, and the trial is free.
Keep reading
Organic search visibility
Why flat traffic is usually a sameness problem, and why production beats measurement on a small budget.
Read itFirst-hand expertise and E-E-A-T
Why the missing ingredient is information rather than instructions.
Read itContent that does not read as AI
Sameness is the problem, not authorship. What that changes about the fix.
Read it