Brand Protection in the Digital Era: Interview with David Barnett

by Smart Protection

Digital threats are evolving faster than ever. With AI-driven phishing and fraudulent marketplaces, traditional brand protection strategies are no longer enough.

To understand how to shift from reactive protection to true digital resilience, we spoke with David Barnett, one of the most recognized voices in online brand protection.

With over 20 years of experience, David is the author of Brand Protection in the Online World and Patterns in Brand Monitoring. He is currently a Brand Protection Strategist at Stobbs, having previously led the Brand Monitoring consultancy function at CSC.

His work focuses on domain monitoring, threat analysis, and the impact of emerging technologies like AI on the digital risk landscape.

In this interview, we explore how brand protection is evolving, why reactive approaches are no longer sufficient, and what companies should prioritize to stay ahead of emerging threats.

David, it’s a pleasure to have you with us. Welcome.

Smart Protection: In a digital world full of risks, do you think most companies are focusing on the right priorities to protect their brand, or are there critical areas being overlooked?

David Barnett: Part of the issue to be addressed by brand owners when considering a protection programme is determining what the critical areas to be monitored actually are. The threat landscape is constantly changing and evolving, and so it is crucial to employ a proactive programme of comprehensive brand monitoring, in addition to maintaining an awareness of the topics being discussed by industry experts, to identify new and emerging trends. Areas to be addressed may include wholly new technologies or online ecosystems, but brand owners should also consider new tactics (which may be as simple as changes to keywords and product descriptors) being used by infringers to generate relevant content and evade detection.

Overall, however, brand owners are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of holistic programmes of monitoring and enforcement, and the implications of not taking action against infringements. The requirements for making these programmes as effective as possible - including the maintenance of a comprehensive portfolio of IP protection, such as registered trademarks in relevant product classes and geographical regions - are also now widely appreciated.

One issue which remains problematic is that legislation and IP protection programmes generally may struggle to keep pace with emerging developments, making it more difficult for brand owners to take action against the infringement activity which is taking place, highlighting the importance of brand owners, service providers and policy-makers taking a collaborative approach to address the issues.

Smart Protection: How can organisations move from a reactive approach to a truly proactive strategy in the face of growing digital threats such as deepfakes, advanced phishing, and illegal marketplaces - especially when internal coordination between legal, marketing, and cybersecurity teams often remains one of the biggest barriers to effective protection?

David Barnett: Historically, many of the actions carried out as part of brand protection programmes have tended to be reactive in nature, resulting in a 'whackamole' approach and a tendency to address issues as they arise. This scenario can creating a negative situation which may be compounded by the fact that many online issues can simply be difficult to solve, due to ineffective legislation and IP protection programmes, poorly-defined enforcement techniques, or a combination of these and other factors. However, the importance of taking a 'big picture' view, and adopting the most significant and impactful strategies, is increasingly being appreciated by brands. Part of this process involves the provision of improved education, both for customers (such as information on the dangers of non-legitimate goods), and within companies (on the inherent importance of brand protection).

For brand protection initiatives to work well, they need to take a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach, typically involving marketing, legal, technical and other functions within an organisation. Coordinating between these disparate areas, and providing the necessary leadership and accountability, can be problematic - but can be facilitated if appropriate understanding, and the appreciation of the importance of the programme, is in place.

It is also crucial for a brand protection programme to cover all relevant areas (across channels, platforms, geographical regions, and product types), typically also extending beyond just the online world, to include consideration of possible issues in the physical product supply chain, and potentially also collaboration with entities such as customs and law enforcement bodies.

Another part of the problem for brands is in securing the necessary funding from within the organisation to allow the brand protection initiative to function appropriately. The solution involves application of a range of tactics, including the use of initial 'landscaping' phases of broad monitoring, to build awareness of the problems that exist, and effective demonstration of return on investment (ROI), to demonstrate the scale of the issues and the value of tackling them effectively. Clarity on ROI can be particularly important in cases of proactive spend (i.e. that used for preventative measures) - such as the implementation of domain security features, which will involve an appreciation of the importance of core corporate domains as key business assets.

Smart Protection: What are the most common mistakes brands make when facing digital attacks that impact their reputation, and what lessons can companies learn from cases where delayed action resulted in financial loss, reputational damage or loss of customer trust?

David Barnett: One key point in determining an appropriate response is gaining an appreciation of the scale of the damage which can result from digital attacks and infringements. Many attacks can result in direct financial losses for an organisation, whether these arise from social engineering or impersonation attacks in which employees are duped into transferring funds, or from phishing attacks which result in the theft of customer funds which may need to be reimbursed. Beyond this, other types of security incident or technical attack can result in issues such as website downtime, which can create huge losses in business revenue, and can even affect company share price. However, even these areas are only part of the picture - attacks against companies can generally have highly detrimental effects on reputation and customer trust (with numerous studies suggesting that, for example, customers will avoid a brand after inadvertently purchasing a counterfeit), which can have knock-on effects on factors such as brand value.

Many case studies have previously been observed in which organisations taking an insufficiently robust approach to brand protection can be so badly affected by counterfeiting and infringements that it ultimately totally transforms (in a negative way) consumer impressions of the brand. This type of issue can require a total 'reset' of perception - in which the solution to this type of issue can involve initiatives such as customer education programmes, and the introduction of product validation technologies. Some brands are taking this approach one stage further, running programmes where customers are given the opportunity to 'compare and contrast' counterfeit products against the real versions, and swap one for the other, allowing the quality of the legitimate goods to speak for itself.

Smart Protection: It’s often said that large brands have unlimited resources for protection. Do you think this is a real advantage, or could smaller companies implement more agile and effective strategies?

David Barnett: Realistically, it is rarely the case that even larger brands have unlimited internal funding for their brand protection initiatives, but it is true to say that infringement issues can affect brands of any size, particularly if they have any sort of consumer base of spending customers. The history of brand protection stories in the news repeatedly shows that, for any organisation subject to an issue resulting in greater levels of public attention and interest, infringers will often respond by taking advantage of the higher volumes of search traffic by creating, and driving customers to, their own related (but unofficial) content. For this reason, high-profile news stories often trigger subsequent 'spikes' in infringements.

These observations highlight the importance of proactive brand monitoring, which should be comprehensive and holistic in nature, to identify the areas in which infringements are taking place. However, broad monitoring of this type need not be a high-cost expense, providing the service is configured in a 'smart' way - typically making use of effective prioritisation and clustering functionality (which may incorporate AI capabilities in modern technologies), such that the highest-impact findings can efficiently be identified and addressed, rather than just focusing on the most obvious results (the 'low-hanging fruit').

Another consideration to bear in mind is for brand owners to 'pick their battles' appropriately - repeatedly targeting small infringers or competitors, or being overly aggressive in response to reputational issues (such as negative reviews), can result in an organisation gaining a reputation as a 'brand bully'.

Smart Protection: Platforms like Amazon and TikTok are increasingly responsible for brand protection. Should companies trust them, or does this create more risk than solutions?

David Barnett:  It is true that many platforms are beginning to build more comprehensive and effective intellectual property protection programmes - many of which include elements of self-monitoring and proactive enforcement, in addition to efficient workflows for reactively reporting infringements - and which can be utilised by brand owners and service providers as key parts of their brand protection initiatives.

However, it is also fair to say that some platforms and online service providers are less inclined to be quite so proactive, since ultimately the delisting of products and the removal of infringing content can result in financial losses to the platform itself (essentially, they are 'taking down their own customers'). This scenario is still relatively more common for certain domain registrars, some of which are notoriously non-compliant to takedown requests. Part of the solution in this case may be improved policy-building by governing bodies (such as ICANN, in the case of domains), potentially resulting from collaborative lobbying by brand owners, service providers and industry bodies.

Having said this, many platforms are increasingly appreciating the dangers associated with infringing activity, and the reputational benefits of being seen to be cooperative with brand owners. However, as discussed previously, the infringement landscape is constantly evolving, so all IP protection programmes need to be accompanied by proactive monitoring in a broad sense, to make it possible to identify and address emerging threats as they arise. Overall, it is also always advisable for brand owners to conduct their own monitoring, to ensure that any proactive programmes which have been in place by the platforms themselves are truly effective.

Smart Protection: Many claim AI will revolutionise brand protection. To what extent do you think reliance on automation can replace human strategy, and when does it become a risk itself?

David Barnett: A key point to make in addressing this point is that AI and automation can never replace human strategy. AI applications (in the most usual currently accepted sense of the term) do not think or understand, or create new content from scratch, and are purely predictive systems basing their responses on the pre-existing material on which they have been trained. Without pre-existing human creative input, the data-sources 'feeding' the LLMs on which these systems are based simply would not exist, and it is already well-established that instead training new AI systems on the outputs from earlier AI systems results in a very rapid degradation in the quality of the information generated. Where AI applications are beneficial is in cases where there are far higher volumes of data to be analysed than could be achievable in a manual or deterministic fashion in a scalable way, and where the outputs from the AI systems can easily be verified for truth and accuracy. Having gained outputs from AI systems, it inevitably still requires human insight to determine the implications of these outputs and make strategic assessments regarding next steps.

That said, it clearly is the case that AI is already a key area to be addressed in brand protection considerations. AI is already extensively being used by infringers, both to lower the technical entry barrier to, and increase the speed of, the creation of familiar classic infringement types, but also to facilitate the creation of wholly new types of content, such as deepfakes. Usage of AI also raises fundamental new questions in the IP world, such as considerations around how to monitor the outputs from AI-powered tools (which may be of particular concern if these are inaccurate or infringing), and issues on the ownership of IP generated by such systems.

However, the other point to bear in mind is that AI does offer powerful and compelling options for brand owners and service providers aiming to tackle online infringements with much greater efficiency and effectiveness. Areas being explored by many providers include the use of AI in automated prioritisation and clustering capabilities for brand monitoring findings (such as the ability to assess levels of threat based on the similarity to previous findings determined to be infringing), image and text recognition, and technologies to be able to interrogate tools and databases using natural language.

Smart Protection: Dark web monitoring sounds sophisticated, but does it truly make a difference in preventing brand damage, or is it more of a 'prestige' security measure than a practical tool?

David Barnett: The relevance of dark web monitoring will vary depending on the type of organisation in question, but it certainly can be significant for businesses such as (for example) financial service providers and manufacturers of physical goods which can be subject to counterfeiting. However it is still something of a 'niche' area, and is unlikely to be relevant for all brands. Part of the issue is that it is inherently difficult to monitor (with a relative lack of effective search sources, and system of dynamic addressing for websites, in which URLs tend to change over time) and can be an environment in which effective enforcement can be difficult, if not impossible. However, obtaining an overview of issues on the dark web can be a key element of gaining 'big-picture awareness', and can provide an early warning of high-risk issues requiring rapid response (such as proactively blocking credit cards or payment credentials found to have been compromised).

Smart Protection: Looking ahead 3 - 5 years, which technological innovations or regulatory changes could challenge current brand protection strategies, and how should companies prepare?

David Barnett: It is almost impossible to determine which areas are likely to be of greatest significance over the next few years from a brand protection point of view, not least because the landscape is so rapidly evolving, and the greatest concerns may arise from an emerging technology which is not yet in existence. At any given time, there tend to be one or more new areas requiring attention and the development of capabilities to address the related issues; examples from the last few years include Web3, NFTs and the metaverse, blockchain technologies and cryptocurrency, and (most recently) AI. It is likely that these will remain relevant areas for consideration (to a lesser or greater extent) going forward, but that new areas of concern will also continue to evolve. It is for this reason that broad proactive monitoring and close attention to industry discussion, to identify emerging areas of interest, are such key components of a general brand protection strategy.

Smart Protection: If a company chooses not to invest in digital brand protection today, what financial and strategic risks do they face in the short and long term? How can the cost of inaction be realistically measured?

David Barnett: Many of the central issues relating to this point have been discussed previously, and relate to the direct financial losses and reputational issues arising from an infringement landscape which is not properly addressed. A failure to effectively monitor the landscape can also prevent a brand's ability to be able to identify and address emerging areas of concern as they arise. Furthermore, effective brand protection can also be a prerequisite for maintaining robust IP protection, can be a regulatory industry requirement, and can help make a brand a less attractive target for infringers, perhaps encouraging them to turn their attention to competitors who take a less comprehensive approach.

Part of the answer to the problem of measuring the cost of inaction relates to the range of ways in which return on investment (ROI) of brand protection initiatives can be demonstrated, which can have a knock-on effect on the levels of internal company funding for the programmes going forward. ROI calculation is a very broad topic in its own right; calculation frameworks can be based either on previous ('retrospective') or future ('a priori') actions, and are typically highly tailored to the specific requirements of the individual company, with no such thing as a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Overall, there are a number of key elements which are typically incorporated into ROI calculations. The most common ('classic') approaches tend to take account of factors such as the 'value' of removed infringements, and assumptions regarding the proportion of this revenue which is reclaimable by the brand owner, but there are also a number of other considerations which can be built into into a robust calculation framework. More sophisticated approaches might consider factors such as the scale of long-term changes to the infringement landscape arising from the impact of a mature brand protection programme, benchmarking against peer companies, the 'cleanliness' of search results (i.e. assessment of the volume of non-legitimate links returned in response to brand-specific keywords), the 'ownership of the buy button' on e-commerce marketplaces, and levels of traffic to official online and physical outlets.

This article was first published on 28 May 2026 at:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brand-protection-digital-era-interview-david-fpdoe/

Experimenting with a new domain data source to identify hard-to-find web content

Introduction

The monitoring component of brand protection services aims to identify infringing web content relating to a particular brand, which can then be considered for subsequent analysis, reporting, and potential enforcement.

Monitoring generally makes use of a number of data-collection techniques, including the analysis of domain-name data files (typically the 'zone files' published by domain registry organisations) and the use of search-engine queries (to identify those webpages returned in response to relevant searches). However, even when these approaches are combined, gaps can be left in detection capability, meaning that significant findings can remain undetected. 

One category of findings which may be missed by 'classic' monitoring approaches includes material hosted on websites which: (a) are hosted on a domain excluding the name of the brand being infringed; and (b) are not indexed by search engines (perhaps unless highly specific search-terms are used). This difficulty in detection can be a significant issue if the content poses a high degree of risk, such as phishing sites which impersonate a trusted brand. In such cases, the nature of the website configuration (e.g. the use of a non-branded domain, or other initiatives to avoid the site being linked-to from other sources) may be a deliberate choice by the infringer to avoid detection. The intention may be that the infringers rely on methods other than the use of search engines, such as the inclusion of links to the site in scam e-mails, to drive potential victims to the content.

In this article, we explore the use of a new comprehensive domain data-source to identify this otherwise hard-to-find web content.

Background and analysis

The database utilised in this study contains information relating to every single registered domain across the Internet, including technical and configuration information related to each domain name (e.g. ownership and hosting details), and crucially (from a brand monitoring point of view) also the webpage title and full HTML (i.e. webpage text) content of the homepage of each associated website. This rich dataset means that the information can be used for a range of purposes (including - for example - 'clustering' analyses to group the domains together based on their shared characteristics), but also (in this study) the identification of content which may otherwise remain undetected by other monitoring methods. 

As an illustration of the monitoring capabilities offered by this dataset, we present our findings from a case study carried out relating to an international banking brand. A simple query of the database reveals around 84k domains for which the brand name is mentioned somewhere in the content of the homepage of the associated website. In order to identify the most significant infringements, it is necessary to filter down this set to a much smaller 'shortlist' of findings of potential interest. In this study, the following filtering approach was used:

• A secondary stage of filtering was carried out to retain only those examples on which a high-relevance keyword also appears in the HTML content (e.g. 'bank', 'login', 'invest', etc.). The use of this type of step is particularly important in cases where the brand name in question is a common or generic term in its own right and therefore may appear across a high volume of results in unrelated contexts.

• The remaining results were then filtered again, to retain only those examples where the following conditions were met: (i) the domain name begins with an abbreviated form of the brand name in question (as is a common tactic used by fraudsters to create an appearance of authenticity without using the brand name explicitly); and/or (ii) an exact match to the brand name in question appears within the first 100 characters of the webpage content (i.e. near the start of the page), as might be expected if the website is impersonating the brand.

Additionally, the analysis excluded examples where an exact match to the full brand name appears in the domain name, since these types of examples are more easily detectable through a classic domain-monitoring approach, and this study is focused explicitly on 'hard-to-find' content.

The above simple filtering approach yielded a 'shortlist' of only 123 sites, from the initial set of around 84k 'candidate' results. Manual analysis of this shortlist revealed that 58 of them (i.e. almost half) comprised potential infringements of sufficient severity to warrant flagging and reporting from a brand protection perspective. Amongst these, seven were found to resolve to active impersonation and/or phishing websites (Figure 1), and at least approximately 18 more were inactive sites which appear (on the basis of the content of the page text) formerly also to have resolved to similar high-threat content. 

Figure 1: Anonymised screenshots of examples of active impersonation and/or phishing websites identified from the dataset

As such, the methodology seems to be highly effective at identifying significant infringements which would not necessarily be detectable through 'classic' monitoring techniques, and is thereby a valuable augmentation to such methods.

Take-aways and further work

The inclusion in the dataset of the full HTML content of the homepage of each registered domain name makes it a highly compelling data source for use in brand monitoring, offering the potential to identify infringing content which is not easily detectable by other means. 

Part of the key to identifying relevant results from within large sets of 'candidate' pages of potential interest is the application of suitable filtering techniques. The analysis presented in this article has shown that a simple, keyword-based approach can be highly effective. However, additional work is also underway to identify other techniques which may be even more efficient at pinpointing the highest-priority content. These approaches may involve searches within specific fields of the domain data (such as the page title or the second-level domain name, i.e. the part of the domain name to the left of the dot), and it may also be appropriate to use 'fuzzy' matching to explicitly identify the use of brand variants or abbreviations. 

In addition, these types of approach may also benefit from the incorporation of AI-based methods. In our current research work, such tools are being applied in a range of ways. These include the automatic generation of search configurations (to be used when configuring brand monitoring tools) specifically intended to identify infringement types matching known patterns, the production of written summaries of webpage content to aid with the identification of particular website characteristics, and the automatic tagging and prioritisation of results based on their similarity to previously enforced infringements. 

This article was first published on 8 April 2026 at:

https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/experimenting-with-a-new-domain-data-source-to-identify-hard-to-find-web-content

Trends in domain enforcement over the 2025 holiday shopping season

The final quarter of each year is a key period in the brand protection world, covering the holiday shopping season generally, in addition to the specific events of Singles' Day (11/11), Black Friday and Cyber Monday (around the Thanksgiving weekend). Over such busy periods, infringers typically take advantage of elevated levels of online activity and spending, as an opportunity to create fake websites and generate revenue through activities such as the sale of counterfeit items^[1].

In this article, we consider the landscape of infringing websites over the period from October to December 2025, using a set of domain data obtained through takedown actions as a proxy for overall levels of infringements. Particular focus is given to the top-level domain names (TLDs, or domain extensions) of the websites in question, to determine whether certain extensions are generally more popular with infringers and could thereby be deemed higher risk.

In total, 29 distinct TLDs were represented in the dataset of enforced domains from Q4 2025, with the top ten as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Top ten TLDs represented in the dataset of enforced domains from Q4 2025

Overview of the infringement landscape: The Usual Suspects

The landscape is dominated by .com infringements, which is unsurprising given the overall popularity (i.e. total number of registered domains) of .com generally. However, analysing whether certain TLDs show disproportionately greater use by infringers can provide additional insights. Accordingly, Table 1 compares the proportion of infringing sites with each TLD in the dataset with the total number of registered domains across the same TLD. These statistics also allow us to calculate a normalised 'rate' of infringement (i.e. a rudimentary 'threat score'), with a higher rate denoting a TLD which is disproportionately more popular with infringers.

Table 1: Comparison of the total numbers of enforced infringements for each of the top ten TLDs with the total number of registered domains across each TLD in question, plus the normalised 'rate' of infringement in each case

This analysis shows that certain TLDs do indeed show disproportionate levels of infringement, and might therefore be deemed higher risk (i.e. worthy of greater focus when reviewing results from domain monitoring services). High-risk examples in the top ten include the new-gTLD (generic) extensions .store, .shop and .space, and the country-specific extension (ccTLD) .in (for India). Some of the ccTLDs in the dataset are examples of extensions which have, to some degree, been 're-requisitioned' for more generic use^[4,5,6] (e.g. .co - actually the code for Colombia - but which is frequently just utilised as an abbreviation for the term 'company'). 

The same information (i.e. a visualisation of the relationship between the numbers of enforced infringements and the total numbers of registered domains, for each of the top ten TLDs in the dataset) is represented in Figure 2. Broadly, those TLDs appearing above the dotted trendline exhibit disproportionately large numbers of infringements and thereby pose greater risk.

Figure 2: Comparison of the total numbers of enforced infringements for each of the top ten TLDs with the total number of registered domains across each TLD in question (logarithmic plot on both axes)

Key take-away points

These trends echo many of those identified in previous analyses, particularly the fact that new-gTLD extensions tend to be more commonly associated with infringements^[7,8,9]. In general, TLDs can differ in their level of attractiveness to infringers for a number of reasons, including the cost and ease of registration, the presence and nature of any IP protection programmes, and ease of enforcement. Within the set of new-gTLDs, .store and .shop particularly are familiar as targets in brand protection programmes, due to their obvious applicability to content related to e-commerce, which is especially relevant across the holiday shopping season.

For brand owners, there are a few clear take-aways from the data:

1. Prioritise monitoring of high-risk TLDs and 're-purposed' ccTLDs such as .co.
2. Consider defensive registrations for extensions with an e-commerce focus.
3. Increase enforcement readiness ahead of the holiday shopping season, when numbers of domain registrations (and fake websites) generally show a surge.

By planning early and targeting the riskiest areas, brands can reduce exposure during peak shopping periods.

References

[1] https://www.iamstobbs.com/opinion/its-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-domain-patterns-in-the-approach-to-the-holiday-shopping-season-2024

[2] According to data from https://research.domaintools.com/statistics/tld-counts/, as of 06-Jan-2026

[3] Figures reflect the .au zone as a whole (i.e. not just .com.au)

[4] https://circleid.com/posts/a-review-of-the-2024-threat-landscape-and-implications-for-domain-security

[5] https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/a-new-tld-to-.ad-to-the-collection

[6] 'Patterns in Brand Monitoring' (D.N. Barnett, Business Expert Press, 2025), Chapter 9: 'Domain landscape analysis'

[7] https://circleid.com/posts/towards-a-generalised-threat-scoring-framework-for-prioritising-results-from-brand-monitoring-programmes

[8] https://circleid.com/posts/20230117-the-highest-threat-tlds-part-2

[9] https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/an-updated-view-of-bad-tlds

This article was first published on 15 January 2026 at:

https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/trends-in-domain-enforcement-over-the-2025-holiday-shopping-season

AI's potential impact on web search, traffic and trademarks

Functionality powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now a fully integrated component of a wide range of Internet and information technology systems, and the world of online search is no exception. In addition to the availability of a range of standalone generative AI ('gen-AI') tools and applications (such as ChatGPT), many major search engines now also provide an 'AI overview' response produced by gen-AI (displayed above the main ('organic') search results, in the case of Google). This evolution is having major impacts on consumers' search and browsing behaviours, and consequently the patterns and volumes of traffic being driven to brand-owner or other trusted websites are changing.

The potential implications of the increasing degree of adoption of AI in online search technologies are, in some cases, relatively predictable. The most likely scenario is that users will increasingly obtain the information they need from the AI overviews alone, without clicking through to the sites from which the information is sourced, and thereby leading to a decrease in volumes of traffic to these sites. However, these patterns may vary depending on the nature of the searches being carried out. For example, general questions may be more likely to generate satisfactory AI responses, whereas explicit searches for content on specific trusted sites are likely to continue to generate a higher click-through rate to these sites, regardless of whether or not the response links are served up by gen-AI. Overall, the evolving trends are likely to drive a desire by brand owners to maximise their chances of being referenced or promoted in AI overviews (Figure 1). This has led to the new concept of 'Generative Engine Optimization' ('GEO'), analogous to the older concept of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) (referring to the process of ensuring, through suitable website configuration and/or the inclusion of appropriate content, that a website is findable, and highly ranked, by search engines).

Figure 1: Example of a search-engine response produced by generative AI (in this case, Google's 'AI Mode'), which references a number of specific brands

The consequences of many of these trends are already being observed; several studies^[1,2,3,4] from early 2025 report huge decreases in 'classic'-search-generated click-through rates to websites, in response to the appearance of AI overviews which generally occupy the most prominent areas of the search engine results pages (SERPs). In one such study, the CEO of Expedia is quoted as stating that the company is "partnering with AI search companies to ensure our brands show up well across customer queries". This type of approach can be advantageous whether or not users click through to the promoted sites from the AI summaries, given the potential for a 'long-form' overview to provide a more detailed synopsis of a brand's 'value proposition' than a simple search abstract, and thereby result in a customer conversion rate which is likely to be higher^[5].

In some respects, we might expect GEO - which, at a fundamental level, must involve brand owners actively ensuring that the underlying LLMs are trained on brand-favourable material - to work in similar ways to SEO. Indeed, one key element of successful GEO is a requirement for organisations to ensure that the brand is widely and favourably cited on the Internet, in locations which are popular and highly linked from other popular sites^[6]. However, another part of this picture involves an understanding of the mix of sources from which AI tools primarily draw their data; a number of recent analyses^[7,8] suggest that platforms heavily featuring user-generated content (such as Reddit, Wikipedia and YouTube) are highly favoured. Overall, an effective holistic programme of GEO can be a complex proposition - involving efforts to ensure that the right types of content are presented in the most appropriate formats, and in the right locations^[9] - resulting in the emergence of a number of providers explicitly offering services to assist with the process (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Example of a website of a GEO service provider

The nature of GEO techniques also means there is potential for the system to be manipulated - as is also possible with SEO - such as via the practice of artificially 'seeding' the Internet with positive brand content. There are also suggestions that the current generations of AI tools have a low effectiveness for excluding low-quality sources, potentially making them more open to exploitation. One approach which could therefore correspondingly be employed by fraudsters might involve the creation of a network of false, but professional-looking sites, promoting an infringing brand. These types of attack have already been observed, having been employed for cryptocurrency, banking, and travel scams^[10].

The trends described above are likely to necessitate a push towards brand-protection programmes being required to include a wider suite of mediating components, such as functionality to monitor LLMs explicitly. Growth in the extent of adoption of AI search may also drive a boost in the importance of other 'classic' brand-protection initiatives; one example might include a greater requirement to ensure that legacy official domains (which may still be cited by AI tools) are kept in brand owners' official portfolios, and there may also be stronger requirements to build a robust defensive domain portfolio and implement comprehensive proactive monitoring and enforcement measures^[11].

The developing world of GEO - particularly when considered alongside the emergence of commercial advertisement placement offerings by AI search providers - might also result in a fundamental shift in the nature of search-related LLMs, towards a scenario where they are generating what are essentially 'paid results', rather than 'organic results'. Any evolution of trends along these lines may necessitate a push towards the implementation of new trade regulations, by which search tools may be required to explicitly distinguish between the different types of results, similar to the legislation which took place for 'classic' search results in the 1990s and 2000s. There is also a possibility that the commercialisation of AI search outputs might ultimately drive a general loss of trust by Internet users in these types of service.

As a final point, it is significant to note that industry commentators are also starting to suggest other possible implications of the growth of AI. For example, one recent study notes that product selection by consumers is increasingly being made on the basis of AI-generated personal recommendation, rather than being driven by brand recognition or specific brand searches. This trend is beginning to result in the emergence on marketplaces of products with unintelligible, nonsense brand names, which are purely optimised for algorithmic popularity based on user insights. The emergence of such 'brands' can fundamentally undermine the function of a trademark as a (memorable) indicator of origin, and may also require a restatement of concepts such as the roles of conceptual, phonetic and visual similarity. The study therefore concludes that AI assistants and algorithm-driven e-commerce marketplaces may lead to a fundamental change to the nature of brand recognition, and could have the potential to reshape trademark law as we know it^[12,13].

References

[1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/ai-google-search-internet-economy-932092ef

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/torconstantino/2025/04/14/the-60-problem---how-ai-search-is-draining-your-traffic/

[3] https://startups.co.uk/news/ai-search-hospitality/

[4] https://technologymagazine.com/articles/how-googles-new-ai-mode-could-devastate-web-traffic-seo

[5] https://www.semrush.com/blog/ai-search-seo-traffic-study/

[6] https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overview-brand-correlation/

[7] https://www.semrush.com/blog/ai-mode-comparison-study/

[8] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-most-cited-websites-by-ai-models/

[9] Additional detail on GEO techniques used in practice can be found in a set of notes published as a follow-up to this article, at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-web-search-part-2-optimising-world-david-barnett-g7eme/

[10] https://secureblitz.com/dark-side-of-llms/

[11] https://iptwins.com/2025/10/02/combatting-fake-information-in-ai-search-results-how-new-search-technologies-are-exploited/

[12] E. Bonadio and A. Rohatgi (2025). 'Trademarks and Artificial Intelligence: Some Preliminary Considerations', SSRN, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5364772. (Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5364772)

[13] https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/ai-could-make-traditional-brand-signifiers-obsolete-new-study-warns

This article was first published on 18 December 2025 at:

https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/ais-potential-impact-on-web-search-traffic-and-trademarks

Br'AI've New World: Experimenting with the use of generative AI for brand protection analysis tasks

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Generative artificial intelligence ('gen-AI') tools offer the potential to assist with, and add efficiencies to, a number of analysis tasks, especially where these tasks meet certain criteria. These criteria typically include: (i) being computationally or analytically intensive (i.e. where there are large amounts of data to consider) and/or highly repeatable; (ii) of a type such that there may be subjective elements to the analysis (e.g. where the data to be analysed can be presented in a variety of different ways); and (iii) of a type where the analysis would be hard to achieve manually, but the output is easy to verify for accuracy.

Our latest study explores the application of gen-AI in a range of general areas related to the analysis of data pertaining to brand monitoring services. The experiments make use of a proprietary business workflow automation system (the AI 'tool'), incorporating AI and natural language capabilities to generate agentic functionality, with which interaction is possible in a 'chatbot' style.

The analysis considers two broad areas of analysis. The first area is related to sets of tasks required to carry out 'clustering' analysis (i.e. the establishment of links between related findings, on the basis of shared associated characteristics, which is advantageous for identifying priority targets associated with high-volume or serial infringers, demonstrating bad-faith activity by bad actors, allowing efficient bulk takedowns, and providing data for entity investigations). The specific tasks considered in this area fall into the categories of generalised 'scraping' functionality (i.e. the extraction of data points from arbitrary webpages) and the parsing (i.e. interpretation) of free-form data, such as that provided in domain name whois records. The second area of analysis relates to the high-level categorisation of results (i.e. potentially infringing webpages or other content) identified through brand monitoring services. 

The analysis shows that gen-AI does have significant potential in assisting with these broad task areas, although the specific use-cases must be carefully selected to ensure that the tools in question are a good fit to the tasks and the potential for undesirable outputs such as 'hallucinations' can be minimised. The specific AI tool used in the analysis is particularly applicable, as it incorporates functionality to save the necessary prompts as pre-defined 'tasks' (i.e. the creation of agentic systems), which should provide a basis for greater repeatability and efficiency going forward.

This article was first published on 27 November 2025 at:

https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/braive-new-world-experimenting-with-the-use-of-generative-ai-for-brand-protection-analysis-tasks

* * * * *

WHITE PAPER

Introduction

Generative artificial intelligence ('gen-AI') technology is undoubtedly one of the hot topics over the last couple of years, and the Internet is awash with discussions regarding potential use-cases for gen-AI, concerns over its ubiquity and the risks this presents. Whilst many of the cited uses for generative AI are (arguably) questionable at best, there is certainly potential for thoughtful and measured application of AI capabilities to make possible - and build efficiencies into - critical tasks which may not be easily achievable using 'classic' or manual approaches. 

In considering appropriate use-cases, it is crucial to have a good understanding of what gen-AI is, and what it fundamentally can and cannot do. Firstly, gen-AI systems do not (and cannot) think or understand (at least, not in any useful conventional senses of the words), but merely take a probabilistic approach to generating a response to a prompt they have been given, based on the set of content (the large-language model, or LLM) on which they have been trained. As such, they are engineered to have (only) the appearance of an entity which is (truly) intelligent and, by extension (at least for tools built in the way which is currently most common), do not have any real scope for creativity (in the sense of generating responses which are wholly distinct from their training material). Furthermore, many such tools are (unless explicitly instructed otherwise) usually poor at giving an honest response when requested to perform a task which is beyond their capabilities, instead (by design) generally just giving a response which is plausible, even if a correct response is not available or possible - essentially, the concept of 'hallucinations'. That said, there are a number of areas where gen-AI applications are valuable, specifically where the task is (some or all of): (i) computationally or analytically intensive (i.e. where there are large amounts of data to consider) and/or highly repeatable; (ii) of a type such that there may be subjective elements to the analysis (as opposed to objective or deterministic tasks, where arguably a classic analytical approach (i.e. algorithmic, script- or code-based) is more appropriate; and (iii) of a type such that the output would be hard to achieve manually, but (perhaps most crucially) is easy to verify for accuracy. This type of appreciation is key to making a successful judgment of the types of task for which an application of gen-AI systems will be appropriate - typically, these are repeatable tasks in areas such as data analysis, pattern analysis, and extrapolation.

In this paper, I consider a number of such tasks which are applicable to the general area of analysis in brand monitoring programmes. As a general point, it is worth noting that many brand protection service providers have been citing the use of AI technologies for a number of years. In many cases, the associated functionality may be little more than deterministic (i.e. script- or algorithm-based) analysis or categorisation processes which, whilst technically applications of artificial intelligence (in that they involve systems making automated 'decisions'), would not be classed as AI according to the most common current interpretations of the term^[1]. However, many providers are beginning to implement 'true' AI capabilities into their technologies. Examples across the set of product offerings from the Stobbs group of companies include computer vision capabilities (for logo and image analysis, and optical character recognition (OCR)), the ability to interrogate portals and databases using natural language, and predictive threat categorisation of potential infringements based on enforcement history. 

Conversely, however, this paper focuses specifically on some other distinct general brand protection analysis task areas, and comprises an exploration of the extent to which elements of these tasks might be automatable through a gen-AI approach, using simple sets of prompts. The experiments utilise a proprietary business workflow automation system (the AI 'tool'), incorporating AI and natural language capabilities to generate agentic functionality, with which interaction is possible in a 'chatbot' style. The tool makes use of API connections from multiple LLM providers, configured in such a way that no data from prompts or other inputs can be used for model training, so that data can be submitted and analysed on a secure and confidential basis, and the tool can also be utilised with local LLMs.

From this series of tests, the capabilities of gen-AI tools of this nature can be explored by considering the nature and accuracy of the responses.

Task types to be tested

'Clustering' of linked results from a large database of findings

This general problem, involving the establishment of links between related findings on the basis of shared associated characteristics, has a range of benefits (and is also the subject of a previous article^[2] suggesting it as a candidate for AI applications). The benefits of clustering include the identification of priority targets associated with high-volume or serial infringers, and demonstration of bad-faith activity, the potential for allowing efficient bulk takedowns, and the provision of data for building a fuller picture of an underlying entity (i.e. investigations). The ability to cluster is itself dependent on a number of 'sub-tasks', such as the ability to extract and analyse the relevant pieces of information and characteristics from potentially rich datasets of a range of types. Some examples of such tasks are discussed below.

Generalised 'scraping' functionality

'Scraping' refers to the process of extracting key pieces of information from a webpage, and is most usually applied to features such as seller names, prices, quantities, etc. (typically used for the prioritisation of results, and for carrying out return-on-investment ('ROI')-style analyses) from e-commerce marketplace listing pages. In the traditional approach, this process requires the building of site-specific scraper scripts, which are reliant on the format of the pages (and thus the locations on the page of the relevant pieces of information) being known in advance and fixed. Gen-AI offers the potential both to extract information from arbitrary webpages, and to extract it from rich data types (such as where a piece of contact information may appear as a watermark in a product image). 

Tests: scraping of key features from e-commerce listings

(i) In an initial test relating to a potentially infringing product listing on Alibaba, the tool was able to correctly extract certain features (such as seller name and location of product origin), and also provide a high-level description of the product, together with an assessment of the potential for infringement (Figure 1), an area which is also relevant to the issue of categorisation of brand monitoring findings (see section below). 

Figure 1: Gen-AI assessment of a potentially infringing product on Alibaba

(ii) In a second test, the tool was provided with screenshots of two pages from e-commerce marketplaces (product listings / seller profiles), each of which shared a brand name (displayed within an image) in common (Figure 2), and the tool was able to correctly extract the name and establish its presence in both images (Figure 3), a key prerequisite for the ability to cluster. Note that the provision of the content as a screenshot may be necessary in cases where the tool is unable to access the material live via the provision of a URL (due, for example, to a requirement to be logged into the platform in question in order for the content to be visible), but does also guarantee that the tool is truly extracting the information from within the image itself, rather than relying on textual meta-data which may also be present on the page.

Figure 2: Examples of marketplace pages featuring content sharing a brand name in common

Figure 3: Gen-AI analysis of the content shown in Figure 2

(iii) In a third test, the tool was also able to provide a product description from just a screenshot of a product image from an e-commerce listing on social media, and also correctly extract the code from the image watermark (Figures 4 and 5). In another similar test, a product price was also successfully extracted from a product image watermark.

Figure 4: Image of a product listed for sale on social media

Figure 5: Gen-AI analysis of the content shown in Figure 4

Parsing of rich datasets featuring information in a range of different formats

Tests: analysis of domain name whois information

For this set of tests, the tool was provided with a spreadsheet containing just a list of domain names (pertaining to a fashion brand) and the series of raw whois records (comprising free-form data, providing ownership and other registration and configuration information) pertaining to these domains.

(i) The tool was able to successfully parse this raw dataset and extract key pieces of information for each domain (Figure 6), which can serve as the basis for further clustering, and (through the extraction of contact details pertaining to the relevant registrars) can assist with the analysis required for the subsequent sending of enforcement (takedown) notices, if appropriate. 

Figure 6: (Anonymised) output from the gen-AI analysis of a series of raw domain whois records

(ii) As a follow-up task, the tool was also able to cross-reference the identified registrar contact e-mail addresses across the (external) official websites of the registrars in question, and extract additional / alternative contact addresses where present, in addition to providing a list of links from which the information was sourced (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Gen-AI summary of analysis of additional registrar contact e-mail addresses

(iii) Based on the dataset produced in part (i), the tool was also able to establish the existence of clusters of linked domains, based on the presence of details in common between the results, and automatically visualise this information in a range of different ways (Figures 8 and 9). In some cases, (e.g. the use simply of the same privacy protection service provider) the characteristics used are likely not to be distinctive enough to assert the presence of a meaningful link between the results, but there was also some success in prompting the tool to make a distinction between genuine 'real-world' details and less diagnostic pieces of information such as the names of privacy services or other fields indicating that the record had been redacted.

Figure 8: Gen-AI overview of the registration timeline for the domains

Figure 9: (Anonymised) gen-AI summary of the presence of domain 'clusters' within the dataset

Categorisation of brand monitoring results

The categorisation (into high level content- or potential infringement types) of brand-related webpages - as identified through a programme of monitoring - is a key component of many brand protection technologies (with the aim of aiding with review and prioritisation). In many cases, this categorisation is achieved through a 'hard-coded' rules-based analysis using pre-defined keywords, but there is clear potential for the application of an AI- or machine-learning-style approach to provide greater flexibility and efficiency. 

Based on a simple initial prompt, the tool is able to offer a suitable framework and methodology for this type of categorisation process (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Gen-AI proposal for the categorisation process for brand monitoring results

Following a request for a more focused set of categories based on 'general Internet content' specifically (including a range of arbitrary types of brand references, which may or may not be 'correct' / 'legitimate', and where the nature and context of the way in which the brand is referenced is likely to be the factor of greater interest), the tool is again able to provide meaningful suggestions (Figure 11).

Figure 11: (Anonymised) gen-AI proposal for categories for 'general Internet content' results (for a specified financial services brand)

Based on a less granular suggested framework, the tool was successfully able to review a provided list of brand-related URLs and provide a categorisation summary in a tabular form, including a high-level content description and any other relevant notes (such as comments on assessed legitimacy or threat-level) in each case (Figure 12).

Figure 12: (Anonymised) gen-AI-based categorisation and description of a set of brand-related webpages pertaining to a financial services brand

In a similar vein, some success was also noted in suggestions for categorisations based just on features of a set of brand-related domain names (and with no account taken of the content of any associated websites) (Figure 13). 

Figure 13: Gen-AI proposal for the categorisation process (by potential threat level) for domain names

Application of a gen-AI approach for this sort of task might be most appropriate in cases where (say) the domain monitoring has been configured to search for brand variants (such as typos), rather than just domains containing the exact spelling of the brand. In such cases, it may otherwise be more complex to configure a deterministic, script-based (i.e. 'classic') basis for analysing and ranking the domains^[3], due to the potentially wide range of different ways in which the brand name (or the approximations to it) can be presented.

Conclusions

Overall, the results from these initial tests are encouraging, in terms of the potential for gen-AI to provide meaningful assistance with certain standard brand protection analysis tasks (particularly for the specific examples presented in this paper), to augment existing capabilities. Other tests have, however, shown varying degrees of success, in terms of the accuracy and/or completeness of results (and the potential for 'hallucinatory' results). In some cases, these issues may be due to inaccessibility to the tool of the required information, but in other cases it may be possible to make significant improvements through continued refinement of the prompts used. As optimal prompts are identified, the functionality of the tool utilised in this study allows for the instructions for any given analysis type to be saved as pre-defined 'tasks' (i.e. agentic systems), which should provide a basis for greater repeatability and efficiency going forward.

References

[1] 'Patterns in Brand Monitoring' (D.N. Barnett, Business Expert Press, 2025), Chapter 14: 'New developments'

[2] https://circleid.com/posts/braive-new-world-part-1-brand-protection-clustering-as-a-candidate-task-for-the-application-of-ai-capabilities

[3] https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/exploring-a-domain-scoring-system-with-tricky-brands

This article was first published as a white paper on 27 November 2025 at:

https://www.iamstobbs.com/uploads/general/BrAIve-New-World-Gen-AI-in-BP-analysis-e-book.pdf

AI and web search (Part 2) - Optimising for web search in a world of AI

Notes from the B2B Marketing Live UK event, 19 - 20-Nov-2025, ExCel, London

(original version 21-Nov-2025; updated 27-Nov-2025)

Following on from our recent work^[1] considering the general subject of the potential impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on web search, web traffic and trademarks, these notes from the recent B2B Marketing Live event present additional detail on current opinions relating to Generative Engine Optimisation ('GEO'); that is, the general suite of techniques which can be employed by brand owners with the aim of trying to ensure that their brand and website content are referenced as strongly as possible in results from AI-powered search.

Key points

The search landscape is fundamentally changing

The appearance of AI overviews (AIO) in search results has recently seen huge growth; AIO are now used by 1.5B users per month in over 200 countries, with anywhere between 18% and 47%^[2] (estimates vary) of searches generating AIO, and increases of around 116% in the prevalence of AIO since May 2025^[3]. Furthermore, AIO typically cover 70% of the SERP (search-engine results page) screen space. Complex, decision-related queries (such as those associated with B2B business) may also be more likely to generate AIO.

Accompanying these trends are the facts that, although website impressions (i.e. appearances in organic search results) are typically found to be up by brand owners, there have been significant decreases in click-through rates (CTR) to websites (down by between 32% and 35% for the highest-ranked results)^[4,5], with the CTR for the top-ranked (organic) search-engine result having been found to have decreased from around 28% to 20%. 

In addition, 'standalone' AI tools are also seeing large increases in usage, with many users increasingly not using 'classic' search tools at all, but instead being reliant on obtaining their answers 'in platform'. The most popular such tool, ChatGPT, now has 5.24B users per month. Furthermore, it is estimated that 58% of all consumers now rely on AI for product and service recommendations, and 89% of B2B buyers use gen-AI as part of their purchase decision-making process. Search engines are also beginning to introduce embedded functionality such as Google's 'AI Mode', analogous to a gen-AI tool (though with the Google example currently only seeing 1-2% adoption).

Marketing success can no longer be judged (just) by click-through rates (CTR)

The evolutions in the search landscape are driving an increased acceptance by brand owners of 'zero-click' and reduced website traffic. Conversely, however, the extent of citation by AI tools is becoming an ever-more important metric, and is itself associated with factors such as brand visibility, authority, customer engagement, and trust.

Also of key importance is the fact that inbound brand referrals from generative AI ('gen-AI') tools or AIO tend to be more likely to convert to successful sales than click-throughs from classic search (due to an implicit trust by users of AI sources), with brands typically seeing sales growing more quickly than their observed increases in AI-driven traffic^[6]. Overall, brands cited in AIO receive 35% more organic clicks and 91% more paid click than those not cited. Furthermore, customers searching asking complex (i.e. later decision-stage) business queries via LLMs are also likely to be associated with higher conversion rates, because of their inherent greater degree of 'pre-qualification', and overall it is noted that 61% of purchasers are influenced by AI responses. These observations are leading to the emergence of a dual objective for brands: (i) increasing AI traffic (i.e. GEO) and (ii) monetising more of this traffic (a relatively easier problem because of the greater inherent conversion rate from AI traffic).

Discoverability by humans and AI is key

It is becoming increasingly clear that brand and website content needs to be optimised for discoverability by both human searchers and AI systems (agents, LLMs, etc.). Whereas human users traditionally have preferences towards website clarity, usability and value proposition, AI systems tend to favour a different set of characteristics for those websites to be used more frequently as their trusted sources. These might typically include:

• Data being presented in a structured format - including mark-up, schemas, APIs, etc., plus an emphasis on plain-text content (and reduced usage of features such as Javascript rendering), use of semantic HTML, XML site-maps, technical signposting for crawlers (e.g. allowing access in the robots.txt file), etc.

• Indicators of trust - e.g. author mark-up, source references, authoritative in-links, etc. Trust and credibility for brands can be boosted through initiatives such as blogging, providing guest posts for external websites, and publishing content in other formats (such as on YouTube).

• Sites incorporating extensive volumes of original information - including comprehensive FAQ sections, etc. There is also some suggestions that "best" or "top" lists ('listicles') are favoured by LLMs in some cases. Brands can also increase the likelihood of being referenced in AI responses by including 'actionable IP' (brand-specific) content on their websites, particularly where this addresses key questions asked by buyers in their decision-making process and provides sales qualification information. The production of specific, textual content to address specific requirements for landing pages from pay-per-click (PPC) ads may also be beneficial.

Increasingly, brands are utilising segmented websites, incorporating both human-focused areas with extensive brand-heavy, visual and interactive ('conversion optimised') elements, and (often human-invisible) AI-favourable content, which is text-heavy and detail-, explanation- and answer-oriented. Traditional marketing techniques, such as offering downloadable information sheets (especially if 'gated' with a requirement for users to submit contact details) are becoming less popular, with users instead tending increasingly to source answers from (ungated) gen-AI tools.

Understanding how AI systems process queries is crucial - and highlights a continuing importance of classic SEO

When an AI tool is presented with a prompt or query, it typically splits these into smaller sub-queries for individual processing ('query fan-out'). Frequently, however, these tools will utilise classic search engines to source responses to these sub-queries (e.g. Gemini uses Google, ChatGPT uses Bing), although some make use of proprietary bots. It is also noteworthy that Google remains the market leader for organic search by a significant margin (with AI engines still seeing a market share of less than 1%).

As such, traditional search-engine optimisation (SEO) techniques are still of relevance, and a high volume of branded web mentions is still found to be the factor with the highest degree of correlation with the extent of AI references^[7]. Overall, "good digital marketing" - i.e. the aim of achieving an extensive online range of structured, contextual brand references which address EEAT (expertise / experience / authoritative / trustworthiness) criteria - still sits at the intersection of SEO and GEO. 

Overall, however, having a brand presence across a wide range of channels and content types is key to being cited in AI responses. Key areas appear to be 'rich content' channels such as YouTube (particularly if titles, descriptions, etc. have been optimised for LLM readability) and user-generated-content or community channels, such as review sites. These types of insights can be drawn by analysing which sites are most frequently cited in AI responses, and this analysis consistently reveals that plaforms such as Reddit are favoured by LLMs. A diversification in platform focus for branded content is also particularly important in an era where many (particularly younger) users are becoming increasingly focused on 'social search' - i.e. utilising the native search functions in platforms such as TikTok, Pinterest, Reddit and Instagram in order to source answers to queries. Around one-quarter of users discover brands for the first time on social platforms, and many users utilise search across a range of platform types before making a final purchase decision. The aim for brand owners is therefore to optimise their own content across the same set(s) of platforms as are being used by their customer base, an initiative which is doubly beneficial given the increasing frequency with which classic engines such as Google are themselves also returning results from these types of platform. A key idea is the concept of the 'Day One' list, reflecting the fact that the most effective brand awareness for users is that generated by the results from the initial sets of searches carried out by them.

A key associated measurement factor when considering the likelihood of citation in AI responses in response to queries is 'share of model'. One recent analysis^[8,9] suggests that the top 50 most highly-cited domains account for 48% of AI citations, but with the remainder of citations making reference to a large dataset of other sources. These sit within a range of website categories (including technology media, product vendor websites, educational resources, and consultancy providers), with the specific sources utilised being dependent on query type (e.g. commercial vs. informational vs. transactional intent), and highlighting the importance of niche expertise (as well as more classic indicators of 'authority') in increasing the attractiveness of web content to AI tools.

It may also be informative for brands to track their presence and sentiment in LLMs by posing direct queries to the associated tools ('AI model reporting'), which can include specific questions relating to areas known to influence customer preference such as price, customer service, product features, ease of use, etc. A useful follow-up to this type of analysis can also be for brands to post their own mediative content online, to address any issues where identified.

However, branded content must be authentic and non-generic in order to build credibility (both with human users and with AI crawlers). Google also increasingly rewards material with 'personal' and 'expert' content. As such, online placement by brands of authored content can be beneficial, but should ideally also be accompanied by positive references from brand advocates, influencers and employees - noting that the set of employees of a company typically together have a following around twelve times the size of the company's official profile page.

AI responses themselves are becoming increasingly commercialisable

Some AI tools (including AIO / Google AI Mode) are starting to offer the option for paid-ad placement within them - in many cases, this is currently only available in the US, but is likely to expand in scope. Initial use-cases are likely to be focused towards e-commerce, as certain categories of products and services (such as pharmaceuticals and gambling) may be considered 'restricted verticals'. Increasingly, we are also likely to see more flexibility in targeting options for these ads (such as Google's 'Broad Match', 'AI Max' and 'Performance Max'), relating to the ways in which they are to be served up in response to particular query types (rather than being keyword-based). 

Care must, however, be taken by brand owners with AI ad placement, as brand references in AI responses are less amenable to control over the context in which the brand is mentioned, which could be problematic if (for example) there are regulatory requirements regarding the way in which the brand must be promoted, or concerns about being referenced alongside competitors.

Additionally, some AI providers may be reluctant to offer paid boosting of brands, due to implications regarding trust, especially that of paying customers. OpenAI's Sam Altman recently stated that "ads on a Google search are dependent on Google doing badly; if [Google] were giving you the best answer, there'd be no reason ever to buy an ad above it"^[10].

AI can also be leveraged to itself optimise brand content

Marketing success in the world of GEO is dependent on having brand content structured and presented in appropriate ways, with one estimate claiming that 90% of branded content will be synthetic by 2026. A final point to note is that AI can itself assist with many of these areas, including:

• Segmenting content by relevance to specific audience demographics - e.g. tailoring to local language (noting that 76% of B2B buyers prefer to purchase in their native language) or adapting websites or paid-ads to local audiences - though these types of initiative invariably also require an element of human QA. Increasingly, users expect content to be highly personalised, rather than being tailored to broader market segments.

• Offering capabilities for AI agents to carry out highly personalised tasks (such as brand audits, or ROI or pricing calculators).

• Optimising paid-media (pay-per click links / sponsored ads), through prediction of queries and keywordless targeting.

References

Event presentations

• 'Five tactics for driving more leads in an AI-powered global search landscape', C. McKenna and S. Oakford, Oban International

• 'AI traffic is money traffic', J. Kelleher, SpotDev

• 'Navigating the era of AI search', B. Wood, Hallam (hallam[.]agency)

• 'The impact of AI on B2B marketing and five expectations for 2026', G. Stolton, ROAST

• 'The future of organic search and SEO', J. Powley, Blue Array SEO

• 'Decoding the future: AI and the impact on B2B marketing', A. Moon, FutureEdge Academy

Other

[1] https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/ais-potential-impact-on-web-search-traffic-and-trademarks

[2] https://www.bcg.com/x/the-multiplier/the-future-of-discoverability

[3] https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overview-growth/

[4] https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/

[5] https://ahrefs.com/blog/the-great-decoupling/

[6] N. Patel, NP Marketing (see e.g. https://www.instagram.com/p/DQz_jczEjlI/)

[7] https://www.semrush.com/blog/ai-mentions/

[8] https://wellows.com/insights/chatgpt-citations-report/

[9] N. Khan, Wellows, pers. comm. (https://www.linkedin.com/in/khan-neelam/)

[10] https://www.techinasia.com/sam-altmans-lesson-google-trust-ads

This article was first published on 21 November 2025 at:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-web-search-part-2-optimising-world-david-barnett-g7eme/

XARF-way To (Enforcement) Paradise

The process of enforcement is a key element of many brand-protection programmes. Often it involves the submission of some sort of complaint, report, or notice to a platform or service provider requesting the removal or takedown of infringing content. However, this process can be extremely time-consuming, particularly in cases where there are large numbers of enforcements to be processed, or if the specifics of each case require significant amounts of customisation of the individual notices in question. 

As part of a drive towards greater efficiency, it has often been found to be beneficial to investigate approaches such as automation or bulk actions, often in conjunction with efforts to identify top prioritised targets. For 'standard' takedowns involving the submission of a notice to a registrar or hosting provider, it is often possible to make use of a fixed type of letter template, in which only case-specific details need to be varied between each particular instance. This type of enforcement process is highly amenable to automation - using some sort of scripting approach, to action what is essentially a ‘mail-merge’ process - which can greatly aid with efficiency.

Increasingly, however, many Internet service providers (ISPs) are refusing to accept letter-based complaints and are instead directing brand owners or their representatives towards webform-based abuse-reporting systems. Whilst superficially this may appear efficient, the completion of these webforms can actually be a more time-consuming endeavour. Many such reporting systems require complaints to be submitted one by one, or include components such as a need to complete CAPTCHA codes, which can frustrate enforcement efforts.

Conversely, however, one promising development which may aid the process of complaint submissions and the protection of IP rights is an increasing level of support for 'XARF' ('eXtended Abuse Reporting Format'), an alternative abuse-reporting framework comprising a standardised format for submitting abuse reports to ISPs^[1]. It allows the relevant pieces of information to be packaged in a highly-defined document format known as JSON (JavaScript Object Notation), which can be communicated via e-mail or other communication routes (such as via an API, or Application Programming Interface). XARF documents are particularly amenable to automated production, such that this protocol also lends itself to more efficient enforcement workflows. Furthermore, certain ISPs explicitly reference XARF as a supported and/or preferred communication type (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Example of a snippet from a response to a standard takedown notice type, from an ISP referencing XARF as a supported communication type for submitting abuse reports

A number of code libraries exist for generating reports in XARF format and creating JSON documents, and these resources frequently include sample templates showing the fields required for abuse reports of a range of types (e.g. trademark infringement, copyright infringement, phishing, malware, child-abuse content, etc.)^[2,3,4], which greatly aids with the generation of the required content. 

As such, it can be a relatively simple matter to generate the required content, using a scripted automation approach which allows the reports to be generated in bulk. These can be combined with bulk-e-mailer scripts, to allow the bulk submission of XARF-format takedown notices to ISPs, utilising just an input document containing the details of the targets and the case-specific pieces of information to be varied between the individual reports (Figure 2).

Figure 2: (Redacted) example of an e-mail-based enforcement notice in XARF format, generated using an automated script

This approach is already being tested using live client services, and is generating responses from ISPs which are essentially identical to those produced by 'classic', letter-based submissions. Whilst this alternative approach is not likely to be applicable in all cases - particularly where highly-bespoke, complex notices are required - it does offer the potential for increased automation and efficiency in the brand-protection process, in cases where repeatable styles of notice for standard infringement types would normally be required.

References

[1] https://abusix.com/xarf-abuse-reporting-standard/

[2] https://github.com/abusix/xarf/blob/master/samples/positive/3/trademark_sample.json

[3] https://github.com/abusix/xarf/blob/master/schemas/3/trademark.schema.json

[4] https://www.w3schools.com/python/python_json.asp

This article was first published on 20 November 2025 at:

https://www.iamstobbs.com/insights/xarf-way-to-enforcement-paradise