grokbot_ty
6109ed38b2
Rewrite ALTERNATE_BUSINESS_PROPOSAL.md so problem, audit, ticket set, differentiators, and open questions each ladder to discovered + recommended accurately by AI assistants — not tangential product ideas.
91 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
91 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
# Alternate business proposal: North Star via accurate AI presence
|
||
|
||
**Branch:** `planning-selfserve-audit`
|
||
**Status:** Alternate framing — working draft 2026-10-01 (refocused same day)
|
||
**Relationship to SoT:** Not a replacement for [`SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_CONCEPT.md`](./SELF_SERVE_AI_DISCOVERABILITY_CONCEPT.md). That file stays the product architecture SoT. This proposal is a sharper commercial ladder to the same North Star. Amend or kill when Ty locks or rejects it.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## North Star (what every section serves)
|
||
|
||
From [`BUSINESS_PLAN.md`](./BUSINESS_PLAN.md): **enable local businesses to be discovered and recommended by AI assistants.**
|
||
|
||
On this branch that intent is scored as two owner-facing outcomes in the concept SoT:
|
||
|
||
- **Presence** — are you on the map wherever discovery happens (majors, umbrellas, and the copies assistants lean on), with consistent identity and categories?
|
||
- **Recommendability** — if you are on the map, would an assistant pick you for a real genre ask — and describe you **accurately**?
|
||
|
||
Longer-term destination in the SoT (not v1): an **industry graph**. Version one earns that right by making Presence and Recommendability true in today’s assistants, with owner consent.
|
||
|
||
This proposal’s only job: a path that moves Presence and Recommendability when AI answers are missing or wrong because **stale directory / aggregator data** feeds those answers.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Problem → North Star gap
|
||
|
||
r/localseo practitioners keep hitting the same failure modes that break the North Star:
|
||
|
||
- **Not discovered.** Reported experiments (e.g. six engines × ~50 locals) claim most shops are invisible to most assistants even with strong Google rankings — Presence fails in the AI layer.
|
||
- **Not recommended — or recommended wrong.** ChatGPT and Gemini pull from **different pools** (Gemini more GBP/Maps-grounded; ChatGPT more web-search fan-out). Reviews alone don’t guarantee a cite. Stale hours and wrong services from random directories show up in answers — Recommendability fails on **accuracy**, not only mention count.
|
||
- **Owners can’t see the gap.** Tools feel unreliable; people run manual prompt grids. Without an accuracy-aware audit, they can’t tell if they are present or recommendable to AI.
|
||
|
||
Root mechanism (same black box as the concept SoT): a cloud of unreconciled NAP copies. Assistants pick from the fog. Localeze’s paid hub and Completeness Score optimize **their** profile form — they do not measure AI Presence/Recommendability across the web.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Solution → how we move the North Star
|
||
|
||
### Audit: measure Presence and Recommendability where AI looks
|
||
|
||
Owner-initiated (web first):
|
||
|
||
1. Stakeholder verify.
|
||
2. Prompt major assistants with fixed buyer asks; record variance.
|
||
3. Score **Presence** (identified correctly across claim surfaces and stomped copies) and **Recommendability** (named when it matters; facts in the answer match claimed truth).
|
||
4. Prefer “mentioned vs recommended vs **misstated**” over vanity mention counts.
|
||
|
||
That is the North Star scoreboard applied to live AI answers — not Localeze completeness, not citation-pack vanity.
|
||
|
||
### Ticket set: fix the sources that break Presence and Recommendability
|
||
|
||
One button mints correction tickets (field / wrong / right / **GBP or claimed truth as proof**).
|
||
|
||
**Lane A — umbrellas** (stop the fog regenerating): [Data Axle](https://www.data-axle.com/marketing-solutions/local-listings-management/), [Localeze / TransUnion](https://neustarlocaleze.biz/) (~$99/yr paywall; no free suggest-edit; 30–90 day monthly partners), [Foursquare Places](https://foursquare.com) (Placemaker suggest-edit; AI-adjacent POI pipe — partnership ≠ proven ranking lever).
|
||
|
||
**Lane B — majors** (own databases assistants also trust): [GBP](https://business.google.com) (proof hub), [Apple Business Connect](https://business.apple.com), [Bing Places](https://www.bingplaces.com), [Yelp](https://www.yelp.com) suggest-edit.
|
||
|
||
GBP does not outbound-syndicate NAP. Umbrella-only leaves Core 3 / Yelp wrong; majors-only leaves Layer 1 feeds stomping the claim. Both lanes exist so Presence sticks and Recommendability isn’t fed lies.
|
||
|
||
**Held multi-platform verification** (to architect): corrections that survive the next stale feed — the moat under lasting Presence.
|
||
|
||
**Success check against the North Star:** re-prompt the same asks; Presence and Recommendability improve (found, recommended, facts correct) — not “Localeze score went up.”
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Differentiators → only vs the North Star
|
||
|
||
| Player | Why they don’t finish the North Star alone |
|
||
| --- | --- |
|
||
| Localeze / TransUnion | Paid Lane A fan-out + hub Completeness Score; no AI-answer Presence/Recommendability audit; no Lane B ticket set |
|
||
| Yext / Uberall / BrightLocal | Strong pipes into publishers; still not “discovered and recommended accurately by assistants” as the measured outcome |
|
||
| Citation / AI-mention tools | Mismatch or mention counts; weak loop to tickets with GBP proof; rarely check answer **accuracy** |
|
||
|
||
We win if we are the shortest path from “AI can’t find / trust / correctly describe me” to “Presence and Recommendability hold after re-check.”
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Open questions (each must serve the North Star)
|
||
|
||
1. Promise wording: “Am I discoverable by AI?” vs “Does AI describe me correctly?” — which better sells Presence + Recommendability?
|
||
2. Which assistants do we prompt in v1 so Recommendability measurement is honest without overclaiming?
|
||
3. How automated is “accuracy” vs owner compare-to-claim — enough to move Recommendability without fake precision?
|
||
4. Localeze / Data Axle filing: paid add-on, referral, or only via pipes the owner already has — without pretending free Lane A exists?
|
||
5. Foursquare Managed Users in v1 or later — does white-label materially improve Presence on AI-facing POI graphs?
|
||
6. Keep this file as GTM ladder and the concept SoT as architecture — or merge and delete this alternate?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Capture
|
||
|
||
Refocused 2026-10-01 so every section ladders to BUSINESS_PLAN North Star intent + concept Presence/Recommendability. Evidence from Localeze research and r/localseo; statistics are practitioner-reported, not independently replicated.
|