Generative Engine Optimization · U.S. clients
More buyers now decide who to call by asking an assistant instead of scanning ten blue links. At 3R Core we measure that channel in our own analytics: it converts at 12.23% against 4.03% from organic search. We work so the answer names you.
Generative engine optimization is the work of preparing a website so AI assistants use it as a source and name the business in their answers. You are not competing for a slot in a list: you are competing to appear inside an answer the user reads in full and usually leaves with a decision already made.
The practical difference from classic SEO is the unit of work. In Google you rank a page; in an assistant you get a passage cited. The model clips the fragment that answers the question and attributes it. A page that takes three paragraphs to state its price loses that clip to someone else.
The second difference is verification. In SEO you can check your position. In an assistant there is no position: answers vary between users, countries and days. Anyone promising you «first place in ChatGPT» is selling something that does not exist, and it is worth knowing that before you sign.
What we run
GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot and Google-Extended have to be able to read your site. We verify it by comparing the bytes each agent receives against a browser: a 200 is not proof, because a firewall can serve a blank wall to the bot and the full page to you.
A direct answer in the first fifty words after each heading, headings written as the real question, and short sections. An eight-hundred-word block with no subheading gives a model nothing to clip.
Assistants cite verifiable facts, not adjectives. «Between $850 and $2,400 depending on scope, checked in August 2026» gets cited; «highly competitive pricing» never does.
Organization, Service, FAQPage and Breadcrumb consistent with what the text actually says. Markup does not invent authority, but it tells the model what each thing is and stops your own site from contradicting itself.
Nobody types «seo agency» at an assistant: they type «which agency should I hire and what will it cost me?». We map the real questions, which are longer and more specific than a keyword list.
In analytics we split traffic arriving from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Copilot, Gemini and Claude and compare it against organic on sessions, time on page and conversion. Without that split you cannot tell whether the work is paying.
How it starts
We check whether AI crawlers can get in, and measure how citable your pages actually are: where the answer sits, whether headings are questions, whether data carries a source.
The questions people actually ask right before hiring, taken from autocomplete, from Search Console and from what they ask you on the phone.
The ones already receiving visits come first: it costs less to make a working page citable than to build a new one.
Released in batches, not all at once. A site that publishes forty pages in a week looks like exactly what it is.
Sessions, engagement and conversion per assistant against organic, and which pages are receiving those visits.
FAQ
It is the work of preparing a website so AI assistants — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Copilot, Gemini or Claude — use it as a source and name the business in their answers. It differs from classic SEO in that you are not competing for a position in a list of results, but for a specific passage of your page to be the fragment the model clips and attributes.
It is included in the SEO service, which is $500 per month for U.S. clients. We do not bill it separately because the work overlaps: the same rewriting that makes a passage citable also improves the page in Google. Net prices, no mandatory contract.
No, and be wary of anyone who guarantees it. Assistant answers vary between users, countries and days, and there is no position you can check the way you check Google. What can be done is raise the odds in verifiable ways: let the crawlers in, structure passages so they can be extracted, and publish data with a source. And what can be measured is the traffic those assistants send, which is what we report.
Yes, and at 3R Core we measured it in our own analytics before selling it to anyone. Over a ninety-day window, traffic from ChatGPT, Perplexity and Copilot converted at 12.23%, against 4.03% from Google organic. It is less volume and far more intent: the person has already read an answer and arrives to confirm.
It is a text file at the root of the domain summarising what the company does and linking its main pages, intended to be read by a model. We implement it because it is cheap and harmless, but honestly: there is no public evidence that the major assistants use it as a signal today, unlike robots.txt or the sitemap, which are documented. We treat it as a cheap bet, not as the main lever.
It is a business decision and it depends on what you sell. If you live on being found and hired, blocking them closes a channel that currently converts better than organic. If you sell the content itself — courses, paid reports, a database — the conversation is different. We tell you what each option implies and you decide; we do not block or open it without discussing it.
We do not give a date because we do not control it. The technical part moves fast: if a crawler was blocked and gets unblocked, the effect shows within weeks. The content part moves at the pace of publication and indexing. What we do commit to is a monthly report that separates the AI channel from the rest, so you see real movement instead of a promise.
No. Assistants lean substantially on what is already indexed, so a site that appears in no search engine usually does not get cited either. Generative engine optimization is a layer on top of SEO, not a replacement: if you had to pick one, start with technical and content SEO — and we would tell you that even if it cost us the sale.
3R Core runs generative engine optimization for U.S. businesses: we prepare your site so ChatGPT, Perplexity, Copilot, Gemini and Claude use it as a source and name you when someone asks for what you sell. It is included in the SEO service at $500 per month, with no mandatory contract.
The difference from classic SEO is the unit of work: in Google you rank a page, in an assistant you get a passage cited. The model clips the fragment that answers the question and attributes it, so a page that takes three paragraphs to give the figure loses the citation even when it ranks well.
The first thing we check is access. GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot and Google-Extended have to be able to read the site, and that is verified by comparing the bytes each agent receives against a browser: a 200 status proves nothing, because a firewall can serve a blank wall to the crawler and the full page to a person.
Then comes the shape of the text: a direct answer in the first fifty words after each heading, headings written as the question people actually type, short sections, and data carrying figure, unit, date and source. Assistants cite verifiable facts, not commercial adjectives.
Why this gets its own service: in our own analytics, over a ninety-day window, traffic arriving from AI assistants converted at 12.23% against 4.03% from Google organic. Less volume, far more intent, because the person has already read an answer and arrives to confirm a decision they have mostly made.
What we do not do is promise positions. In an assistant there is no checkable position: answers vary between users, countries and days. What we deliver is a monthly report separating the AI channel from the rest of the traffic and showing which pages are receiving it.
Related services
Companies that trust our vision and results.
