TL;DR
- Why it works: engines cite a small set of third-party lists. Being on one goes with being named. The evidence is observational.
- Where to start: the lists your own prompts already retrieve. Not the biggest brands.
- Who to pitch: ten live roundups, with date and stance. Peec is on all ten, Profound on nine. We are in the ranked part of none.
- First email: read what the list says about you. Rankmax lists us with two wrong facts. So that email is a correction.
- The pitch: one editor, one gap in their table, one 50 word blurb. Do not pay. Check again after four weeks.
Does AI name your brand? Check your site.
Ask an AI "best X".
Most of what it cites is a list.
So here's the play:
- Find the best-of pages your buyers' questions already pull up.
- Check that a named editor keeps each one fresh.
- Send that editor one short fact sheet that fills a gap in their table.
The set that matters is small. Peec says five strong placements in sources the engines often cite matter more than fifty in pages they never retrieve.
So the first job is to find the right five.
I sell AI visibility tracking. So I used my own category.
On 2 October 2026 I read ten live "best AI visibility tools" roundups. Who is on each. What each editor says it requires. What to send.
AI SEO Tracker is in the ranked part of none.
This is our to-do list too.
Why the right listicle beats your homepage
Three pieces of evidence.
1. Lists get cited.
A Peec researcher, writing on Wix, analysed 75,000 AI answers from ChatGPT, Google AI Mode and Perplexity. Listicles were 21.88 percent of all citations and 40.86 percent for commercial-intent prompts.
On the AI SEO Tracker leaderboard, listicles are 77 percent of cited pages across 343 "best X" questions.
The share changes with each monthly scan. And the questions are mostly consumer products.
2. Google rank does not tell you which lists matter.
Ahrefs ran 15,000 long-tail prompts.
On average only 12 percent of the links that four AI assistants cited are in Google's top 10 for the same prompt. Perplexity is the outlier, at nearly one in three. ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot sit near 8 percent.
LLM SEO says it in one line: lock the category name, then get cited in listicles.
3. A placement goes with a lift.
The closest evidence is Peec's study of nearly 200,000 AI responses.
Brands on frequently cited third-party lists were significantly more likely to appear in answers.
- B2B SaaS: a rank 1 spot went with a 16.5 point lift.
- Emerging martech: 13.4.
The effect levels off after a few placements.
Peec says five strong placements in cited sources matter more than fifty in pages the engines never retrieve.
Read it with its limits.
It is observational. Peec says it is not causal proof.
Peec also sells in this category. And it is on all ten roundups below.
No study shows that a row on Zapier moves ChatGPT.
Find the listicles your prompts already retrieve
Start with what the engines retrieve for your questions. Not with the biggest brand names.
- Write five to ten questions your buyers ask. In their words. Need ideas? Try the free keyword research tool.
- Ask each engine. Copy the pages in its sources.
- Keep the lists. Drop vendor home pages.
- Count how often each list appears across your questions. The lists that repeat are your targets.
A manual cross-check.
Search Google for lists in your category. This is Position Digital's recipe:
"AI visibility tools" intitle:"best" OR intitle:"top"
It finds lists Google has indexed.
It does not show what the engines cite. So move 2 still decides.
Move 4 with real data.
The leaderboard scanned "best SEO tool" on 24 September 2026.
Across five engines, 24 pages were cited. 14 of them listicles.
Three were cited by two engines each:
- Zapier's "The 11 Best SEO Tools in 2026": Perplexity and AI Overview.
- Nightwatch's list: Perplexity and Gemini.
- OneLittleWeb's list: Perplexity and AI Overview.
Those are the pages to pitch for that question.
Want to skip the manual pass? The $49 AI SEO Tracker report lists the sources each engine cited for your own prompts.
The ten roundups checked on 2 October 2026
Rows run from the newest update to the oldest.
A list nobody touches will not be edited for you.
| Roundup | Updated, size | What to know before you pitch |
|---|---|---|
| Reporter Outreach | Sep 2026. 10 tools, ordered by fit | Says every competing best-of is written by a vendor that ranks itself first. Wants pricing on the vendor's own page. |
| Zapier | 14 Sep 2026. 9 tools | Says its writers test the apps and it is never paid for placement or links. Groups tools by job. Names 13 more that almost made the list. |
| Guide X | 13 Sep 2026. 14 tools plus one joint entry | Says it read prices and limits off the vendor's live page, used other lists only to find URLs, and that nobody paid for a spot. |
| Frase | 9 Sep 2026. 10 tools | Frase is first, Profound second. A vendor list: pitch the row, not the order. |
| Rankmax | 26 Aug 2026. 12 tools | An agency. Says some links earn it a commission. Invites readers to get in touch if it missed a tool. Already lists us. |
| Unite.AI | Published 22 Aug 2026. 10 tools | Says it judges how inspectable the data is: prompt-level answers, citations, source URLs, exports. |
| Lil Big Things | 7 Aug 2026. 12 tools | A Webflow agency's blog. Its shortlist: Otterly, Peec, Profound, and Ahrefs or Semrush. |
| Semrush | 8 Jul 2026. 8 tools | Semrush is first. Its table has Choose if and Skip if columns, so give the writer both lines. |
| TechnologyAdvice | Published 21 Apr 2026, read from an archive. 8 tools | Says some vendors may pay it for web traffic or other sales opportunities. |
| Ahrefs | Page says updated 6 Feb 2026. 15 tools | Two of the 15 are Ahrefs products. The oldest visible update of the ten. |
Two more are live: Marqeable (modified 29 Sep 2026) and Tech-Coffee (modified 9 Sep 2026).
Neither names AI SEO Tracker.
Which tools are on which lists
The ranked entries of the ten pages add up to 42 different tools.
- 26 are on one list only.
- 8 are on five or more.
| Tool | Lists, of 10 | Not on |
|---|---|---|
| Peec | 10 | none |
| Semrush | 9 | Ahrefs |
| Profound | 9 | Zapier |
| Otterly | 8 | Ahrefs, TechnologyAdvice |
| Ahrefs Brand Radar | 8 | Semrush, Frase |
| Scrunch | 7 | Zapier, Semrush, Frase |
Counts use TechnologyAdvice's AEO list. Writesonic and SE Ranking are on five each.
Only six names are on seven or more lists.
So an extra row is realistic. A new number one is not.
Ask for the row. Not the first spot.
Check what each roundup already says about you
Most outreach guides assume you are absent.
Read the list first.
| Gate | Question | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Retrieved | Do engines cite this list for your prompts? | Run the four moves above. Skip a list the engines never show. |
| 2. Fresh | Updated in the last 12 months? | Read the date on the page, then the Wayback Machine. |
| 3. Editor | Is there a named in-house editor? | Check the byline and LinkedIn. Freelancers often lack editorial control. With no author, try Hunter or Apollo. |
| 4. Your row | Is your row missing or wrong? | Read the table and any "also worth knowing" box. |
The gates are mine. They build on Position Digital and ListBrew, who both say to start with lists that are fresh and already cited.
What to do with the result:
- Row missing, all four gates pass: pitch.
- Row there, a fact is wrong: send a correction.
- Gate 1 or 2 fails: skip.
- Gate 3 fails: find the in-house editor. Or skip.
Rankmax shows why.
It lists AI SEO Tracker in an unranked "Also Worth Knowing" box.
The box says the tool tracks Claude. And offers a free AI SEO scan plus 14 days.
Both are wrong.
AI SEO Tracker scans ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot and Google AI Overviews. No free scan. No free trial.
The box also says the listing came through a reciprocal content partnership.
So the first email to Rankmax is a correction. Not a pitch.
Does AI name you?
See if AI mentions your brand. Then get the pages to fix.
Build the page an editor can check in five minutes
Editors copy what they can verify fast.
Ahrefs's table lists pricing, USP and models tracked.
Can't fill those cells from your own pricing page? Then the writer has to invent them. Or skips you.
The first wrong cell to fix is the one on your own site.
Prices drift.
Profound's own pricing page, read on 2 October 2026, lists a free Trial (ChatGPT, Gemini, Google AI Overviews) and a custom Enterprise plan.
It has no $99 Starter.
Marqeable and Reporter Outreach still print a $99 Starter. Guide X prints a $99 tier. Each covering ChatGPT only.
The minimum set:
- Public pricing with the engines at each tier: aiseotracker.com/pricing.
- A comparison URL that names the incumbents without invented prices: tracker comparison.
- A page that defines the category: LLM SEO, AEO or AEO metrics.
- One screenshot of the actual report. Not a fictional dashboard.
Use one product name, one line of description and one engine list. On your homepage, docs and review profiles.
A writer then copies one version.
How to pitch without being junk
One editor. One URL. One paragraph they can paste.
Do
- Link the exact post. Name its date.
- Name the gap in their table. And check that it is real. Zapier groups tools by job. If you cannot say which job you win, you do not belong yet.
- Give three verifiable facts: engines, public price, who it is for.
- Add a 40 to 60 word blurb in the list's own format. One benefit. One difference. Mine is below.
- Offer a guest login or a recorded 4-minute walkthrough. Not a 45-minute demo. A login is for review, never in return for a link or a rank.
- Say you will not follow up twice. Then do not. That is my choice. Position Digital's guide quotes advice to follow up two or three times at most, a few days apart.
Do not
- BCC 40 "hello team" mails
- Ask to replace the first row
- Quote a price that is not on your pricing page
- Attach a 12-page PDF
- Pay for a row
- Pitch a list nobody has updated in 12 months, unless you have a new fact they missed
On money, the ten differ.
- Zapier says it is never paid for placement.
- Guide X says nobody paid for a spot.
- TechnologyAdvice says some vendors may pay it.
Chosenly puts paid placements at a $50 gift card to $500 or more.
Google's spam policy lists buying links for ranking, and goods or services in exchange for links, as link spam.
ListBrew says no. So do I.
Subject lines
- "Missing row for [Post title]: five engines, public $49 audit"
- "Update for your AI visibility table (engines + who it's for)"
- "You invited missing tools: fact sheet + login"
- "Correction for the AI SEO Tracker box: engines and trial"
Body, short
You list Profound, Peec, and Otterly in [URL].
The table has no self-serve tracker that runs ChatGPT, Perplexity,
Gemini, Copilot, and AI Overviews from a $49 audit (then $79/mo).
Facts you can verify on aiseotracker.com/pricing:
- Engines: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, AI Overviews
- $49 one-time report (up to 50 prompts, daily for 7 days),
tracking from $79/mo
- MCP; Page Inspector on the higher plan
- Who it's for: small SEO teams who want a kept report, not an
enterprise agent suite
Comparison they can cite:
https://aiseotracker.com/blog/ai-visibility-tracker-comparison
Blurb for your table: [paste the blurb]
Happy to send a login. I will not chase this twice.
Blurb to paste
AI SEO Tracker shows how ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot and
Google AI Overviews mention and cite a brand. One $49 report scans up
to 50 prompts daily for 7 days, and you keep the report. Weekly
tracking starts at $79 a month. Anchor text: AI SEO Tracker.
Link: https://aiseotracker.com
That is the whole email.
If they ignore it, ship a better product page and wait for the next update.
Your two lines.
Semrush's table has Choose if and Skip if columns. Write yours in that shape. Ours:
- Choose if you want a $49 five-engine audit you keep, then weekly tracking from $79/mo, MCP, and Page Inspector on the higher plan.
- Skip if you need nine engines, prompt-demand indexes, or a content-agent farm.
A 30 day plan for AI SEO Tracker
This is the plan I would run for AI SEO Tracker.
Steal it.
Run gate 1 on your own prompts first. Drop any row it fails.
| Week | Action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Email Rankmax the two corrections. Fix every cell on the pricing page. Publish a one-page fact sheet: engines, $49 / $79, who it is for, skip-if. |
| 1 | Pitch Zapier: updated 14 Sep, its writers test the apps, never paid for placement. Send the blurb and a login for review. |
| 2 | Guide X, which reads vendor pages, and Ahrefs, which has the oldest visible date. Facts only. Do not email Semrush to knock Semrush off row 1. |
| 3 | Frase and Unite.AI: one note each, facts only. |
| 4 | Check every date. Check each placement is still live. If nobody replied, stop mailing and improve the pricing page. |
Six emails. Not fifty.
The goal is a row on two or three pages the engines already cite. Not a mention on a blog they ignore.
How you will know it worked
Do not use "we sent 12 pitches" as the KPI.
Use these:
- A new referring path from one of the URLs in the table above.
- Your brand string in an answer to an unbranded prompt, such as "best AI visibility tools". (See ChatGPT brand monitoring.)
- A citation URL on Perplexity that is the listicle. Not only your homepage.
- Three numbers per engine, not one: how often you are named, where in the answer, and how many times. Peec says to track them separately. It found larger effects on engines that cite fewer sources (ChatGPT, Copilot) than on Google AI Overviews.
Write the baseline first.
Ours on 2 October 2026: AI SEO Tracker is in the ranked part of 0 of 10 roundups.
Then check again after four weeks. Chosenly says publishers restructure pages and sometimes drop entries.
Expect lag.
A Zapier update this month may not change ChatGPT this week.
An engine still omits you a month after the listicle went live? Then it does not retrieve that page. Or your row is too thin to quote.
Ask for a clearer "best for" cell. Not a higher rank.
If you sell something else
Run the four moves on your own questions.
Run the four gates on the lists that repeat.
Pitch three, not eighty.
Bring a fact the table lacks and a way to verify it.
Get on the pages. Then measure.
