GEO Case Study: National B2B Manufacturer Dominates AI Search

How a Multi-Vertical B2B Supplier Beat FDA.gov and 2 Fortune 100 Businesses for #1 Position in AI Search. Competing Against Industry Giants in 5 Different Markets

Domain authority +67% in 7 months. #1 AI search ranking. 587% branded search growth during a complete site redesign. 60% increase in leads. All new leads are higher quality. Here’s how we did it.

Most B2B companies face competition in one vertical. This client competed in five categories. Each vertical is dominated by specialized competitors with 10+ year head starts and enterprise marketing budgets.

The traditional SEO playbook says: pick one vertical, dominate it, then expand.

We did the opposite.

We positioned the client as a leader across all five verticals simultaneously and achieved #1 ranking in Google AI Overview ahead of government agencies like FDA.gov and Fortune 500 competitors Cardinal Health and McKesson.

Domain Rating went from 21 to 35 in 7 months. Branded searches increased 587%. 345 keywords improved positions during a complete website redesign and Google Core Update.

But here’s what matters most: The client now owns the #1 position in AI search for medical packaging queries, with a 12-18 month window before competitors catch up.

 

Company Profile

Industry: Multi-vertical B2B Manufacturer

Location: New Jersey and California

US market position: Newer entrant competing against 50+ year incumbents with higher authority websites, larger marketing budgets, and several Fortune 100 brands.

Service model: B2B supplier with e-commerce capability

 

The Competitive Math

Client starting position (July 2025):

• Domain Rating: 21
• Referring domains: 117
• Marketing budget: Boutique agency retainer
• Market recognition: Limited outside the parent company’s existing network

Average competitor position:

• Domain Rating: 60-80
• Referring domains: 2,000-10,000+
• Marketing budgets: $500K-$5M+ annually
• Market recognition: Decades of industry presence

 

Additional Complexity: Site Redesign During Optimization

Complete website redesign launched:

• URL structure changed across multiple categories
• Content migrations affecting the medical and cannabis sections
• Technical implementation challenges
• Month 6: Google Core Update hit

Standard agency recommendation: “Wait until the site stabilizes, then restart SEO.”

We continued optimization throughout the transition.

The Strategic Question

How does a DR 21 supplier compete against DR 70-80 competitors across five verticals simultaneously while managing a site redesign and core update without a multi-million dollar marketing budget?

 

The Strategic Approach

Why We Rejected Conventional SEO Wisdom

Traditional B2B SEO strategy for this situation:

1. Focus on one vertical
2. Wait for site stability before optimization
3. Target high-volume keywords only
4. Build links slowly over 18-24 months
5. Ignore AI search (too new, ROI unclear)

 

Why this approach fails for underdogs:

Single vertical focus = 80% of revenue opportunity untouched.

Waiting for stability = 12+ months of competitor advantage.

High-volume keywords = direct competition where giants already dominate.

Slow link building = never closing DR gap (21 vs. 70-80).

Ignoring AI = missing 12-18 month first-mover window

 

Strategic Thesis 1: AI Search First-Mover Advantage

Timeline analysis (Q4 2024 – Q1 2026):

• Q4 2024: Enterprise competitors not optimizing for AI search
• Q1 2025: ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI Overview, gaining B2B adoption
• Q2 2025: FDA.gov, industry publishers ranking in AI, but not optimizing
• Q3-Q4 2025: First-mover window still open
• Q1-Q2 2026: Competitors begin recognizing AI as a distinct channel
• Q3+ 2026: First-mover advantage compresses

Opportunity: Position client #1 in AI search before the market catches up.

 

Execution:

• Developed proprietary Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) methodology
• Created 100,000+ specialized content pieces, establishing entity relationships
• Built semantic connections from the entities to the brand
• Entity-rich schema markup connecting the client to regulatory terms
• Multi-tiered link building targeting industry authority sites

Target: AI platforms (ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI Overview, Gemini, Sonar)

Goal: Become the most-cited source for the industry’s supplier queries

 

Strategic Thesis 2: Multi-Vertical as Strength

Conventional positioning: Five verticals = diluted focus, weaker than specialists

Our repositioning: Rare combination = competitive moat

Client’s unique combination:

• Specialized industry compliance
• Industry certifications (quality management)
• US manufacturing (domestic supply chain)
• E-commerce capability (transactional, not just informational)
• Multi-vertical coverage

Competitor analysis:

• Vertical 1 specialists: Strong compliance, no e-commerce
• Vertical 2 specialists: Compliance focus, limited other verticals
• Vertical 3 distributors: Scale, no specialized industry certifications
• Vertical 4 Competitors: Volume capability, no regulatory compliance
• Vertical 5 suppliers: ESG positioning, limited technical capability

The client offered all capabilities. We made this explicit to AI algorithms and search engines.

 

Strategic Thesis 3: Off-Page Authority During Site Instability

Site redesign problems:

• URL structure changes
• Migration timing during the optimization period
• Technical issues post-launch
• Google Core Update mid-engagement

Traditional approach: Pause SEO, fix technical issues, restart.

Our approach: Build off-page authority unaffected by on-page changes.

 

Focus areas:

• Domain authority development (DR building)
• Brand mention campaigns across industry sites
• Link acquisition from authoritative domains
• Entity establishment in knowledge graphs
• AI platform citation building

Result: When the site stabilized, the authority foundation already existed. Technical fixes accelerated existing momentum rather than starting from zero.

 

Strategic Thesis 4: Traffic Quality Over Volume

Avoided vanity metrics. Focused on business impact.

Metrics prioritized:

• Engagement rate (time on site, pages per session)
• Conversion rate (quote requests, contact forms)
• Branded search growth (brand awareness indicator)
• Position for buyer-intent keywords (not informational queries)
• AI citations for supplier recommendation queries

Metrics deprioritized:

• Total impressions without context
• Rankings for high-volume informational terms
• Traffic without engagement
• Links from irrelevant domains

 

 

Are you competing against enterprise companies with 10x your domain authority?

Most B2B companies face the same competitive math this client did: DR 21 vs. DR 70-80 competitors, limited budget, multiple verticals.

The question isn’t whether you can compete. The question is whether the AI search window is still open in your industry.

Schedule 20-Minute Assessment → We’ll tell you whether your competitors are already optimizing for AI search or if the first-mover window still exists. Click here to get in touch with us.

 

 

Generative Engine Optimization Tactical Execution

Phase 1: AI Search Positioning (Months 1-4)

Objective: Establish the top 3 AI citations before competitors recognized the channel

Tactics deployed:

• Entity-rich schema markup connecting the client to top industry certifications and compliance
• 100,000+ specialized content pieces distributed across industry sites, directories, and regulatory resources
• Multi-tiered link building: Tier 1 (authority sites), Tier 2 (industry directories), Tier 3 (topical relevance)
• Brand mention campaigns targeting niche forums, compliance resources, and industry publications

Measurement tool: LLM Rank Tracker monitoring citations across ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI Overview, Gemini, Sonar

Results (4-month period):

• 283 AI citations across platforms
• Google AI Overview: 79 citations, 1.69% market share
• Ranking: #1 most-cited domain
• Competitors surpassed: FDA.gov (1.65%), Fortune Business Insights (1.39%), Cardinal Health, McKesson, Fisher Scientific, 2,000+ other domains
• Vertical 1 queries: 47% visibility, position 4.3 average
• Query “specialized long tail query 1”: Position 2.0

Cross-platform visibility achieved:

• ChatGPT: 10-20% on Vertical 1 queries
• Gemini: 5-10%
• Claude: 15-22%
• Google AI Overview: 10-16%
• Sonar: ~10%

Phase 2: Domain Authority Acceleration (Months 1-7)

Objective: Close the DR gap with competitors

Starting position (July 2025):

• Domain Rating: 21
• Referring domains: 117

Target position: DR 35+

Target timeline: 7 months

 

AI Search Visibility Tactics Employed:

• High-authority link acquisition (DR 50+ sources)
• Industry directory placement (niche-specific, industrial supply, regulatory compliance)
• Content partnerships with authority publishers
• Brand mentions on government/regulatory sites

Results (July 2025 – February 2026):

• Domain Rating: 21 → 35 (+67%)
• Referring domains: 117 → 339 (+222 domains)
• Timeline: 7 months
• Industry context: Typical organic DR growth is 5-10% annually. The client achieved 67% in 7 months.

 

Phase 3: Priority Vertical Breakthroughs (Months 5-12)

Objective: Achieve page 1 rankings in the highest-value verticals

Focus areas:

1. Vertical 1 (highest margin, core differentiator)
2. Vertical 2 (emerging market, lower competition)
3. Vertical 1A (unique offering, underserved queries)

Vertical 1 tactics:

• Technical content addressing regulatory compliance questions
• Compliance documentation
• Product-specific optimization including certifications and compliance
• Service descriptions

Vertical 2 tactics:

• Compliance-focused content (state regulations, safety)
• Brand eco-friendly positioning
• Custom manufacturer capabilities

Vertical 1A tactics:

• Product assembly content
• Fulfillment information and process
• Industry Compliant fulfillment positioning

Results – Vertical 1:

• 22 keywords entered top 10 (90-day period)
• “high intent niche keyword 1”: Position 4.5
• “high intent niche keyword 1: Position 101 → 11.6 (+89.5)
• “product specific keyword”: Position 86.5 → 6.2 (+80.3)
• “complaint product keyword”: Position 75 → 4.4 (+70.6)

 

Results – Vertical 2:

• Category performance: +18.84 average position improvement (highest across all categories)
• “commercial intent keyword 1”: Position 21.4
• “commercial intent keyword 1”: Position 90.5 → 19.8 (+70.7)
• “product specific keyword”: Position 90.8 → 12.6 (+78.1)
• 37 keywords tracked, all showing upward trajectory

Results – Vertical 1A:

• “commercial intent keyword 1”: Position 98 → 11.4 (+86.6)
• “commercial intent keyword 1”: Position 40 → 1.5 (+38.5)
• “niche companies keyword”: Position 35.5 → 9.3 (+26.2)
• Vertical 1A services page: 109 clicks, 20,600 impressions

 

Phase 4: Portfolio-Wide Position Improvements (Months 9-12)

90-day analysis compared to the previous 90 days:

Keywords tracked: 657

Position improvements:

• 345 keywords improved (52.5%)
• Average improvement: +23.4 positions
• 68 keywords entered top 10 (from positions 11+)
• 20 keywords entered top 3 (from positions 4+)
• 79 keywords entered positions 11-20 (from positions 21+)

Net portfolio movement:

• Previous period average position: 24.71
• Current period average position: 19.39
• Improvement: +5.32 positions across the entire portfolio

Top 10 position gains:

1. Position 101.8 → 8.9 (+92.9)
2. Position 101 → 11.6 (+89.5)
3. Position 98 → 11.4 (+86.6)
4. Position 98 → 14.7 (+83.3)
5. Position 86.5 → 6.2 (+80.3)

Category performance rankings:

• Cluster 1: +18.84 avg (37 keywords)
• Cluster 2:+12.82 avg (15 keywords)
• Cluster 3: +11.82 avg (29 keywords)
• Cluster 4: +5.29 avg (124 keywords)
• Cluster 5: +2.93 avg (110 keywords)
• General Industry Keywords: +2.34 avg (335 keywords)

 

Phase 5: Branded Search & Traffic Quality (Months 1-12)

Objective: Convert visibility to qualified traffic and brand awareness

Branded search results (12-month period):

• Previous period: 72 clicks
• Current period: 495 clicks
• Growth: +587.6%

Branded CTR:

• Current period: 9.43%
• Growth: +233.3%

Brand misspelling variants appearing in search data is significant because it shows that users are typing from memory (heard brand offline, saw at trade show, AI recommendation) rather than clicking search results.

Traffic volume (12-month period):

• Total clicks: 2,700 (+205%)
• Total impressions: 684,900 (+193%)
• Homepage clicks: 677 (+460%)

 

Traffic quality metrics:

Organic Search vs. Paid Search comparison (12-month period):

• Engagement rate: 62.21% organic vs. 54% paid (+15%)
• Time on site: 46 seconds organic vs. 21 seconds paid (+119%)
• Events per session: 6.86 organic vs. 5.26 paid (+30%)
• Conversion rate: 2.22% organic vs. 1.16% paid (+91%)

Industry benchmarking:

• B2B manufacturing average engagement: 50-60%
• Client organic engagement: 62.21%
• Client homepage engagement: 81%

Conversion results:

• Key events (quote requests, contact forms): +172% YOY
• Overall engagement rate: 69.4% (+55% YOY)

 

The Breakthrough Moment

Month 6: The Branded Search Signal

Branded search volume: 72 → 495 clicks (+587.6%)

Standard interpretation: Brand awareness is increasing.

The actual signal: Misspelling variants appearing in data show something more.

What this means: Users typing from memory, not clicking links. When analyzing the data and seeing the substantial increase in LLM mentions, this shows the viability of AI search and its benefit in increasing brand awareness.

B2B buying pattern: Buyer encounters brand → validates online → contacts sales.

Misspellings indicate the first part is happening at scale. Users actively seeking the brand after offline/AI exposure.

 

Month 8: Position 2.0 for Perfect-Fit Query

Query: “long tail query featuring Vertical 1 complaint product”

Search volume: ~20 searches/month Position achieved: 2.0

Why this mattered more than high-volume rankings:

This query indicates a buyer who:

• Requires a US-based supplier (domestic supply chain)
• Needs this very specific product
• Requires FDA-compliant certification (quality compliance)
• Currently evaluating suppliers (research phase)

Position 2 for this query = appearing before almost everyone for the exact ideal customer.

Compare to: Position 15 for “broad search term” (50,000 searches/month, mostly informational traffic).

Buyer-intent keyword at position 2 > informational keyword at position 15.

 

Month 10: The 79-Keyword Inflection Point

Keywords sitting in positions 11-20: 79

Movement pattern (90-day analysis):

• Not stagnant at positions 11-20
• Recently moved from positions 30-100+
• Average improvement across these 79: +15-25 positions in 90 days

Status: Mid-breakthrough, not plateau.

Implication: One additional optimization push → page 1 for 79 keywords.

Traffic impact estimate: +30-50 clicks/day if these keywords reached positions 1-10.

 

Month 11: AI Citation vs. Organic Ranking Correlation

Pattern observed:

• Keywords ranking #1 in AI search began improving in organic search
• Example: FDA Compiant specific queries
  • AI visibility: 47%
  • Organic position improvements followed 30-60 days later
  • “specific vertical 1 product name”: Position 86.5 → 6.2

Hypothesis: AI citations created brand mentions → signals to Google → organic ranking improvement.

Validation: Branded search increased 587% (users searching for the brand after AI recommendation).

 

Month 12: The Competitive Moat Realization

Competitor analysis (February 2026):

• FDA.gov: Not optimizing for AI search. Authority from domain age only.
• Fortune Business Insights: Publishing content, not optimizing for AI citations.
• Cardinal Health: Traditional SEO approach. No AI-specific optimization.
• McKesson: Enterprise SEO team. No AI search focus yet.
• Fisher Scientific: Strong domain authority. No GEO implementation.

Client position: #1 in AI search (1.69% market share in Google AI across 200 prompts).

Window identified: 12-18 months before competitors begin AI optimization.

Market timing: Early 2026 = first-mover advantage still exists. Mid-2026+ = competitive response expected.

 

SEO + GEO Results Summary

Authority Metrics (7-Month Period)

Domain Rating:

• Starting: 21 (July 2025)
• Ending: 35 (February 2026)
• Growth: +67%
• Industry context: Typical organic DR growth is 5-10% annually

Referring Domains:

• Starting: 117
• Ending: 339
• Net growth: +222 domains
• Growth rate: +189.7%

Competitive positioning:

• Client DR 35 is now alongside established B2B suppliers
• New market entrants typically: DR 10-20
• Major competitors: DR 60-80

 

AI Search Results (12-Month Period)

Google AI Overview:

• Citations: 79
• Market share: 1.69% (4,679 total citations analyzed)
• Ranking: #1 most-cited domain
• Ahead of: FDA.gov (1.65%), Fortune Business Insights (1.39%), 2,000+ analyzed domains

Total AI platform coverage:

• Total citations: 283
• Unique queries with citations: 97
• Platforms: ChatGPT, Claude, Google AI Overview, Gemini, Sonar

Vertical 1 authority for specific compliant product:

• Visibility on Vertical 1 product queries: 47%
• Average position in AI recommendations: 9.8
• Google AI Overview average: 4.3 (top 5)

Cross-platform visibility:

• ChatGPT: 10-20%
• Claude: 15-22%
• Google AI Overview: 10-16%
• Gemini: 5-10%
• Sonar: ~10%

 

Organic Search Results (12-Month Period)

Traffic volume:

• Total clicks: 2,700 (+205%)
• Total impressions: 684,900 (+193%)
• Homepage clicks: 677 (+460%)

Branded search:

• Clicks: 495 (+587.6% from 72)
• CTR: 9.43% (+233.3%)
• Misspelling variants: 4+ variations tracked

 

Priority Vertical Performance (90-Day Period)

Vertical 1:

• Keywords entering top 10: 22
• Keywords in top 20 overall improvements: 9 (45%)
• “high intent, short tail term”: Position 4.5
• “vertical 1 long tail keyword 1”: 101 → 11.6 (+89.5)
• “product specific keyword”: 86.5 → 6.2 (+80.3)
• “product specific keyword”: 75 → 4.4 (+70.6)
• “vertical 1 high intent keyword”: 73.3 → 2.0 (+71.3)

Vertical 2:

• Average position improvement: +18.84 (highest performing category)
• Keywords tracked: 37
• “high intent keyword”: Position 21.4
• “high intent keyword 2”: 90.5 → 19.8 (+70.7)
• “product specific keyword”: 90.8 → 12.6 (+78.1)

Vertical 3:

• Position 98 → 11.4 (+86.6)
• Position 40 → 1.5 (+38.5)
• Position 35.5 → 9.3 (+26.2)
• Vertical 3 services page: 109 clicks, 20,600 impressions

Other category performance:

• Vertical 4: +12.82 average (15 keywords)
• Vertical 5A: +11.82 average (29 keywords)
• Vertical 3: +2.93 average (110 keywords)
• General Keywords: +2.34 average (335 keywords)

 

Portfolio-Wide Position Improvements (90-Day Analysis)

Keywords tracked: 657

Average changes:

• Improving keywords: +23.4 positions average
• Declining keywords: -16.85 positions average
• Net portfolio movement: +5.32 positions

Breakthrough metrics:

• Keywords entering top 10 (from 11+): 68
• Keywords entering top 3 (from 4+): 20
• Keywords entering positions 11-20 (from 21+): 79

Position distribution changes:

• Top 3 (positions 1-3): 9 → 29 (+222%)
• Top 10 (positions 1-10): 221 → 289 (+30.8%)
• Top 20 (positions 11-20): 447 → 526 (+17.7%)

Average portfolio position:

• Previous period: 24.71
• Current period: 19.39
• Improvement: +5.32 positions

 

Traffic Quality Metrics (12-Month Period)

Organic vs. Paid Search comparison:

Engagement rate:

• Organic: 62.21%
• Paid: 54%
• Difference: +15% higher

Time on site:

• Organic: 46 seconds
• Paid: 21 seconds
• Difference: +119% longer

Events per session:

• Organic: 6.86
• Paid: 5.26
• Difference: +30% more

Conversion rate:

• Organic: 2.22%
• Paid: 1.16%
• Difference: +91% higher

Overall engagement:

• Site-wide engagement rate: 69.4% (+55% YOY)
• Homepage engagement rate: 81%
• Industry average: 50-60%

 

Conversion Results (12-Month Period)

Key events: Increased +172% YOY

Engagement rate:

• Current: 69.4%
• Growth: +55%
• Industry benchmark: 50-60%

Note: Conversion events track inquiries, not closed sales. Revenue impact depends on sales follow-up and close rates.

 

Timeline Context

These results were achieved during:

• Complete website redesign (URL structure changes)
• Multiple content migrations (medical, cannabis sections affected)
• Google Core Update (mid-engagement period)
• Technical implementation challenges post-launch

Standard industry practice: Pause SEO during site instability.

Our approach: Continued off-page optimization, building authority unaffected by on-page changes.

Result: When the site stabilized, the authority foundation already existed.

 

 

Want to know where you actually rank in AI search?

Most B2B companies don’t know if they appear in ChatGPT, Claude, or Google AI Overview when buyers research their industry.

This client went from zero AI visibility to #1 position ahead of FDA.gov and Fortune 500 competitors. But the window is closing as competitors begin AI optimization in 2026.

Get Your AI Search Competitive Analysis → We’ll run your domain through the same LLM Rank Tracker tool used in this case study. You’ll see:

• Your current AI citation count across platforms
• Competitors appearing ahead of you
• Your market share vs. industry leaders
• Whether first-mover window still exists in your vertical

No cost. No pitch. Just data showing where you stand. Schedule a call now.

 

 

The B2B Methodology Advantage

Why Standard SEO Case Studies Don’t Apply to B2B

E-commerce case study pattern:

• Target high-volume keywords
• Optimize for product categories
• Measure success by total traffic
• Conversion rate: 2-4%
• The sale happens on the website

B2B reality:

• Buyer-intent keywords get 10-50 searches/month
• The decision involves 5-12 stakeholders
• Research phase: 6-12 months before contact
• Conversion = inquiry, not sale
• Sale happens through the sales team

The standard SEO approach optimizes for the wrong metrics.

 

B2B Challenge 1: Low-Volume, High-Value Keywords

Example comparison:

“one word industry keyword”

• Search volume: 50,000/month
• Position achieved: Not prioritized
• Searcher intent: Student researching paper, consumer looking for moving boxes, designer seeking inspiration
• Business value: Zero

“complaint specific keyword”

• Search volume: 50/month
• Position achieved: 4.5
• Searcher intent: Procurement manager researching compliant product suppliers
• Business value: High (qualified buyer, specific need, compliance requirement)

Our approach: Ignore search volume and optimize for buyer intent.

 

Results:

• “complaint specific keyword”: Position 4.5
• “complaint specific keyword 2”: Position 2.0
• “complaint specific keyword 3”: Position 11.4
• “complaint specific keyword 4”: Position 4.4

These queries combined: ~200 searches/month total.

Traffic generated: 50-80 clicks/month.

Quality: Every click = qualified buyer researching specific solution.

Compare to an e-commerce strategy targeting a “broad term” (50,000 searches/month, mostly irrelevant traffic).

 

B2B Challenge 2: Multi-Touch, Long-Cycle Buying Process

B2B buyer journey:

1. Problem recognition (internal discussion)
2. Solution research (Google, AI platforms, industry contacts)
3. Supplier identification (evaluating 5-10 options)
4. Internal validation (engineering, procurement, quality, operations review)
5. RFQ process (formal quote requests)
6. Sample evaluation (product testing)
7. Contract negotiation
8. Purchase decision

Timeline: 6-12 months from step 1 to step 8.

 

Buyer encounters the supplier 8-15 times during research:

• Google search (organic results)
• AI platform recommendation (ChatGPT, Claude)
• Industry directory listing
• Branded search (after hearing name offline)
• LinkedIn presence
• Content on regulatory compliance
• Technical documentation
• Case studies/certifications

Our approach: Multi-channel visibility, ensuring the buyer sees the brand multiple times across the research phase.

 

Channels established:

• Organic search: 2,700 clicks (positions 1-10 for buyer-intent keywords)
• AI search: #1 citations across platforms
• Branded search: 495 clicks (indicating offline/AI exposure driving subsequent searches)
• Authority sites: 339 referring domains (appearing in industry resources)

Result: Buyer encounters brand 4-6 times during 6-12 month research phase.

Standard SEO focuses on a single touchpoint (organic search). B2B requires an orchestrated presence across multiple discovery channels.

 

B2B Challenge 3: Technical Decision-Makers

B2B buyer profiles:

• Quality Director: Needs certifications, FDA-compliance documentation
• Procurement Manager: Needs lead times, MOQ, pricing structure
• Operations Director: Needs fulfillment capability, service process, logistics
• Engineering: Needs technical specs (standards, material specifications, testing data)
• Sustainability Officer: Needs compostable options, recycling programs, and ESG documentation

Each stakeholder researches different questions.

Our content strategy: Create content for each stakeholder role.

 

Vertical 1 content developed:

• Technical: FDA-compliance requirements, international regulations
• Quality: Industry certification, quality management systems, regulatory documentation
• Operations: Services, fulfillment capability, assembly services
• Sustainability: Compostable options, biodegradable materials, recycling programs
• Procurement: Service descriptions, capability statements, contact information

AI platforms prioritize detailed, technical content over marketing copy.

Example: Query “Complaint product requirements keyword”

Marketing content approach: “Looking for X? Contact us for solutions!” Technical content approach: “X regulations require a triple packaging system: primary receptacle, secondary packaging, outer shipping container. industry standards specify…”

AI platforms cite technical content. Marketing content ignored.

Result: 47% visibility on UN3373 queries, position 4.3 in Google AI Overview.

 

B2B Challenge 4: Domain Authority Gap

Client starting position: DR 21

Competitor average: DR 60-80

Gap: 39-59 points

Standard link-building timeline to close the gap: 3-5 years

Budget required: $200K-500K+

Our approach: Strategic authority building targeting industry-specific sources.

Results (7 months):

• DR 21 → 35 (+67%)
• Referring domains: 117 → 339 (+222 domains)
• Industry positioning: Now alongside established suppliers (DR 35-40 range)

Competitive context:

• New entrants: DR 10-20
• Client: DR 35
• Mid-tier established: DR 35-50
• Major enterprise: DR 60-80

Client moved from “new entrant” tier to “established supplier” tier in 7 months.

 

B2B Challenge 5: AI Search as B2B Research Channel

Consumer buying pattern: Google search → purchase B2B buying pattern: AI platform research → Google validation → supplier contact

Example flow:

Step 1: Procurement manager asks ChatGPT: “What companies provide FDA-compliant X with X certification in the US?”

ChatGPT response includes 3-5 suppliers. Client appears in recommendations.

Step 2: User sees client name, doesn’t click the provided link. Instead, searches “Brand name” in Google (branded search).

Step 3: User explores website, reviews certifications, downloads documentation.

Step 4: User adds to RFQ list.

 

Evidence in data:

AI citations: 283 across platforms Branded search growth: +587.6% Misspelling variants: Users typing from memory after AI exposure

Pattern: AI recommendation → branded Google search → website evaluation.

Traditional SEO measures: Organic clicks.

Reality: AI platforms don’t generate clicks. They generate brand awareness → subsequent branded searches.

Our measurement: AI citations + branded search growth.

Result: #1 in AI search → 587% branded search increase.

 

The Compounding Effect

Each tactic reinforces others:

AI citations → Brand awareness → Branded searches → Domain authority signals → Organic ranking improvements → More AI citations

Link building → Domain authority → Organic rankings → AI platform recognition → More citations → More link opportunities

Technical content → AI citations → Brand searches → Engagement signals → Quality score improvements → Higher organic rankings

B2B SEO compounds faster than e-commerce SEO because:

1. Lower competition for buyer-intent keywords
2. AI platforms heavily weigh technical authority
3. Branded searches signal strong buyer interest (higher conversion intent than generic searches)
4. Multi-stakeholder buying process = multiple search queries per buyer = more touchpoints to optimize

Timeline to compound:

• Months 1-4: Foundation building (DR growth, initial AI citations)
• Months 5-8: Momentum visible (branded searches increasing, positions improving)
• Months 9-12: Acceleration (breakthrough positions, category leadership in AI)
• Months 13+: Compounding returns (established authority drives easier wins)

Client currently: Month 12. Entering compounding phase.

 

The 2026 Implication

The Competitive Timeline

Q4 2024: Enterprise competitors are not optimizing for AI search. The market is unaware that AI platforms function as a distinct channel.

Q1 2025: Early recognition phase. ChatGPT, Claude, and Google AI Overview are gaining adoption in B2B research. Competitors treat AI as a novelty, not an optimization target.

Q2-Q3 2025: First-mover window open. Authority sites (FDA.gov, industry publishers) ranking in AI based on existing domain authority, not active optimization. Direct competitors (Cardinal Health, McKesson, Fisher Scientific) are not implementing GEO strategies.

Q4 2025: Client achieves #1 position. 1.69% market share in Google AI Overview citations. Ahead of government agencies and Fortune 500 competitors.

Q1 2026 (current): First agencies beginning to offer GEO services. Early enterprise adopters are starting AI optimization. Window still open but compressing.

Q2-Q3 2026 (projected): Mainstream adoption begins. Competitors recognize AI as a distinct channel. Enterprise SEO teams begin GEO implementation.

Q4 2026+ (projected): First-mover advantage compresses. Competition increases for AI citations. Defending #1 position requires active optimization.

 

Market Parallel: Mobile Optimization 2010-2014

2010: Early movers launch mobile-optimized sites. Most competitors have desktop-only presence.

2011-2012: First-mover advantage clear. Mobile traffic growing, early adopters dominating mobile search results.

2013: Google announces mobile-first indexing coming. Enterprise response accelerates.

2014: Everyone has mobile sites. First-mover advantage gone. Mobile optimization becomes table stakes, not differentiator.

2015+: No competitive advantage from having mobile site. Advantage only from better mobile experience than competitors.

 

AI search following same pattern:

2024: Early movers begin GEO optimization. Most competitors are unaware.

2025: First-mover advantage clear. AI platforms growing adoption in B2B research.

2026 (projected): Market recognizes AI as a distinct channel. Enterprise implementation begins.

2027 (projected): AI optimization becomes standard. First-mover advantage compresses.

2028+ (projected): No advantage from AI presence alone. Advantage only from better AI positioning than competitors.

Current position: Late 2025/Early 2026. First-mover window: 12-18 months remaining.

 

What Client Achieved in First-Mover Window

Position secured:

• #1 most-cited domain in Google AI Overview (1.69% market share)
• 283 citations across AI platforms
• 47% visibility on Complaint-specific queries
• Position 4.3 average in Google AI Overview recommendations

Competitive moat established:

• DR 35 (authority foundation built)
• 339 referring domains (citation network established)
• Entity relationships created
• 100,000+ content pieces distributed (semantic authority)

Market timing advantage:

• Positioned before competitors recognized the channel
• Authority established before the competition increased
• Brand awareness growing (587% branded search increase)

 

Defense Required vs. Building from Zero

Scenario 1: Client maintains optimization through 2026

Current position: #1 (1.69% market share).

Competitors begin optimization: Mid-2026

Client requirement: Defend existing position, maintain citation volume, optimize for new AI features

Effort: Moderate (defending established position)

Outcome probability: Maintain top 3 position through the competitive window

 

Scenario 2: Client stops optimization now

Current position: #1 (1.69% market share)

Competitors begin optimization: Mid-2026

Client position: No active defense

Effort: None

Outcome probability: Position erodes to #5-10 as competitors optimize, citation share declines from 1.69% to 0.5-0.8%

 

Scenario 3: Hypothetical competitor starting optimization in Q2 2026

Starting position: Not appearing in AI citations Client position: #1 (established)

Competitor requirement: Build from zero, compete against an established leader

Effort: High (building against incumbent)

Outcome probability: Reach top 10, unlikely to surpass established #1

 

Implication: Defending #1 vs. Chasing #1

Client’s advantage: Already positioned. Requires defense, not pursuit.

Competitor disadvantage: Starting from zero while the leader is already established.

Analogy: Client owns the high ground. Competitors must attack uphill.

 

The Current Opportunity Cost

79 keywords currently in positions 11-20 (page 2).

Movement pattern (90-day analysis): Recently moved from positions 30-100+ to positions 11-20. Trajectory: Continuing improvement.

Required action: One additional optimization push → positions 1-10 (page 1).

Traffic impact if optimized: +30-50 clicks/day estimated.

Traffic impact if not optimized: Keywords plateau at positions 11-20, competitors potentially overtake.

 

29 keywords are currently in the top 3 (positions 1-3).

Current performance: Generating minimal clicks despite high rankings.

Required action: CTR optimization (title tags, meta descriptions, schema markup).

Traffic impact if optimized: 3-5x click increase on existing rankings.

Traffic impact if not optimized: High rankings with low traffic capture.

Category 1: +18.84 average position improvement (highest performing).

Current trajectory: Strongest momentum across all categories.

Required action: Scale content, build category authority while trajectory positive.

Impact if optimized: Category leadership in the emerging market.

Impact if not optimized: Momentum plateaus, competitors scale faster.

 

The 12-18 Month Window Question

Every B2B company faces this question in 2026:

Are competitors citing in AI search for your industry’s buyer-intent queries?

If no: First-mover window still open. Timeline to act: Months, not years.

If yes: Already behind. Requirement: Overcome established leaders while they continue optimizing.

Client in this case study: Acted when the answer was “no.” Achieved #1 before competitors recognized the channel.

Most B2B companies: Will act when the answer becomes “yes.” Will spend 2027-2028 fighting uphill.

 

The Choice Point

This client reached a decision point: Continue optimization or stop after achieving #1 position.

Standard business logic: “We achieved #1. Mission accomplished. Reduce investment.”

Competitive reality: #1 position achieved in an uncontested space. Competition begins in 2026. Maintaining #1 during competition requires continued optimization.

Similar to: Achieving #1 ranking in Google when only 3 companies optimize for the keyword. Then, 20 companies begin optimization. Maintaining #1 requires active defense.

Client’s position now: Defending established #1 (easier) vs. competitors building from zero (harder).

Client’s position if stopped: Watching competitors overtake while 79 page-2 keywords remain unoptimized and cannabis momentum plateaus.

 

Beyond 2026

AI platforms testing transactional features:

• Google “AI Mode Shopping” (pilot program)
• ChatGPT commerce integration (announced)
• Claude business tools integration (development)

Projected timeline: Late 2026/Early 2027 for mainstream rollout.

Functionality: Users can contact suppliers, request quotes, and initiate transactions directly from AI search results.

Implication: AI search evolves from awareness/research channel → transaction channel.

Companies with established AI visibility: First to access transactional features.

Companies without AI visibility: Excluded from transactional AI commerce.

Current client position: #1 visibility established. Positioned for early access to transactional features when available.

 

In closing, the real story

What This Case Study Actually Demonstrates

Not that small companies can magically beat enterprise competitors.

That timing creates windows. First-movers in emerging channels capture positions before competition recognizes the channel exists.

This client didn’t outspend Cardinal Health or McKesson. Impossible with a boutique agency budget.

This client acted when competitors weren’t looking. AI search in 2025 = uncontested space. AI search in 2027 = contested space.

 

The Pattern

Every search evolution creates the same window:

1990s: Early websites ranked easily. Few competitors online. 2000s: Google SEO became competitive. Early movers established authority. 2010s: Mobile optimization created new window. Early adopters dominated mobile search. 2015-2020: Voice search window opened. Some companies optimized, most didn’t. 2024-2026: AI search window. Currently open. Compressing fast.

First-movers capture position. Late-movers fight uphill.

 

The Actual Competitive Advantage

Not the tactics. Tactics will be copied.

The timing. Timing can’t be replicated.

Client achieved #1 position in Q4 2025. Competitors begin optimization Q2 2026. 6-month head start.

In 2027, every B2B supplier inthis msrket will optimize for AI search. The tactics in this case study will be standard practice.

But the #1 position will already be occupied.

 

What This Means for Your Business

If your competitors aren’t cited in ChatGPT, Claude, or Google AI Overview when buyers research your industry, the window exists.

If they are: You’re building from behind.

The companies that answer this question in Q1 2026 have a different trajectory than companies that answer it in Q4 2026.

This client answered early. Achieved #1 position in an uncontested space. Now defending #1 while competitors build from zero.

The question for your business: Are you defending position or chasing position in 2027?

That question gets answered by what you do in 2026.

 

Final Note

This case study shows results from 12 months. Domain Rating 21 → 35. Zero AI visibility → #1 position. 72 branded searches → 495. During a site redesign and a Google Core Update.

These results exist because the work happened before competitors recognized the channel.

The same work in 2027 will produce different results. Not because the tactics change. Because the competitive landscape changes.

Windows don’t stay open.

To learn the basic is what Generative Engine Optimization is, read our article: What is Generative Engine Optimization?

For a deep dive into Generative Engine Optimization, read our free AI search white paper: A Technical Guide to AI Search Visibility

 

This Client Started at DR 21, Competing Against DR 60-80 Enterprise Companies

12 months later:

• Domain Rating: 35 (+67%)
• #1 in AI search ahead of government agencies and Fortune 500 competitors
• 587% branded search growth
• 345 keywords improved positions during a complete site redesign

 

The Honest Assessment

If you’re a B2B company competing against larger, established players in your industry and you’re wondering whether you can close the gap without enterprise budgets, the answer depends on timing.

This client achieved #1 AI position because competitors weren’t optimizing yet. That window closes in 2026.

We’ll review your competitive landscape and tell you honestly:

• Whether the first-mover window still exists in your industry
• Your current domain authority vs. competitors
• Your AI search visibility (if any)
• Whether you’re defending a position or building from zero

20-minute call. No sales pitch. Just data and an honest assessment of whether the opportunity this client captured still exists in your vertical. Book your GEO Discovery Call here.

Gabriel Bertolo is a 3rd generation entrepreneur who founded Radiant Elephant over 13 years ago after working for various advertising and marketing agencies. 

He is also an award-winning Jazz/Funk drummer and composer, as well as a visual artist.

His Web Design, SEO, and Marketing insights have been quoted in Forbes, Business Insider, Hubspot, Entrepreneur, Shopify, MECLABS, and more.

Check out some publications he's been quoted in:

Quoted in HubSpot's AI Search Visibility Article

Quoted in DesignRush Dental Marketing Guide 

Quoted in MECLABS 

Quoted in DataBox Website Optimization Article and DataBox Best SEO Blogs

Quoted in Seoptimer

Quoted in Shopify Blog