AI Visibility Study

Wikimotive Research • 2026

AI Visibility Study 2026

WHAT WE TESTED

Metro × Rural

Market context comparison • ChatGPT results • March–September 2026

1,574
total recorded observations
65
prompt / market sets
7
Chevrolet models
11
coded attributes
3
query intents

1,431 source citations + 143 dealer recommendations • Cumulative totals across all recorded sampling rounds

01

THE QUESTION CHANGES THE SOURCE

Owned-site share of citations, by prompt

● Metro

● Rural

“Tell me about…”

75%
Metro
100%
Rural

“Are they good?”

31%
Metro
25%
Rural

“Reviews”

31%
Metro
0%
Rural

Evaluative wording shifts attention to third-party voices.

Rural complaint prompts: 24/24 citations were review pages.

Metro group-brand query: 75% owned citations.

02

REPUTATION IS A COMMON THREAD

4.2+ ★
140 / 140

recorded Google ratings met 4.2+ among recommended dealers

Google ranges: Metro 4.2–4.7 • Rural 4.2–4.8

Ratings available for 140 of 143 recommendations. No minimum threshold was established.

03

CONTENT & INVENTORY DO DIFFERENT JOBS

86%

had written content

157 of 182 Metro dealer-page citations

69%

had on-page inventory

126 of 182 Metro dealer-page citations

ACROSS 185 ASSESSABLE DEALER-PAGE CITATIONS

57
101
27
■ Content Only: 57
■ Both: 101
■ Inventory Only: 27

Content-only pages surfaced, too.

57 had text without stock; none had neither.

Pooled sample: 182 Metro + 3 Rural observations; these are associations, not isolated effects.

04

SHOPPING LISTS DOMINATE INVENTORY SOURCES

Share of inventory citations going to search-results pages

Metro — 79% · 769/970

Rural — 98% · 253/257

AUTOTRADER + CARS.COM: SHARE OF INVENTORY CITATIONS

55%

Metro

76%

Rural

Matched comparison: same 22 prompts, July 22 + August 12. Citation bases: 126 M / 130 R.

23% → 55%

Metro marketplace share grew over time

March–May → July–August • same 28 inventory prompts

Same prompt set, different market. Same market, different date.

A one-time snapshot does not describe a stable AI leaderboard.

05

WHERE THE ANSWER BREAKS

Wrong intent. Wrong business. More friction.

“Colorado” → real estate

9 irrelevant citations

“Equinox” → a gym

3 irrelevant citations

Rural → another dealer

3 complaint-source citations

Possible implication: shopping frustration → a return to traditional search.

Interpretation, not measured consumer behavior. These studies did not measure switching or conversion.

THE DEBUNK BRANCH

NO UNIVERSAL SHORTCUT

Requirements & advantages that did not hold

LLMS.txt

No observed benefit.

Google Confirmed May 20262

Special schema

No observed ranking advantage.

No consistently winning schema type.1

Site platform

No consistent winner.

Provider did not explain a stable order.1

FAQS / MAPS REQUIRED?

97%

had no FAQs

180 / 185

87%

had no map / directions

161 / 185

Cited dealer pages; absence did not prevent citation.

BIGGEST STOCK WINS?

35%

First had the most inventory.

15 of 43 complete three-dealer result sets.

GREAT YELP REQUIRED?

2.0–3.3

Yelp range for Metro recommendations

with ratings recorded (n=113).

TWO SITES, DIVIDED ATTENTION

OEM-approved
⇄
Second site

An OEM-approved site competes with a non-compliant second site, dividing visibility and maintenance attention.

LOCAL WINNERS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY

8

different first-place dealers

across 13 Metro rounds

12/12

Rural tests: same dealer first

One recurring competitor led every Rural test.

A DEALER NAMED ≠ A DEALER SITE LINKED

The answer can name dealers while citing marketplaces.