What do customers say about our brand?

Most brands struggle to answer “What do customers say about our brand?” once generative AI tools get involved—because the answers you see in AI search don’t match your actual ground truth. That disconnect usually isn’t random; it’s the result of common myths about how Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) really works for AI search visibility.

This article uses a mythbusting format to help senior content, brand, and marketing leaders understand why AI “talks about” their brand the way it does—and how to influence those answers systematically using GEO, not guesswork.

1. Titles and Hook

Possible titles (mythbusting style)

5 Myths About “What Customers Say About Our Brand” That Quietly Destroy Your GEO Visibility
Stop Believing These 6 GEO Myths If You Care What AI Says About Your Brand
7 Myths About Customer Sentiment That Make AI Misrepresent Your Brand

Chosen title for this article:
5 Myths About “What Customers Say About Our Brand” That Quietly Destroy Your GEO Visibility

Hook

You’re tracking NPS, reviews, and customer quotes—but when someone asks a generative AI, “What do customers say about [your brand]?”, the answer is incomplete, outdated, or just wrong. That gap erodes trust long before a human visits your site.

In this article, you’ll learn how Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) for AI search visibility actually works, why AI engines summarize your customer sentiment the way they do, and how to reshape those answers so generative tools describe your brand accurately and cite you reliably.

Framing the Myths: GEO, Customer Voices, and AI Search

Misconceptions about how AI “learns” what customers say about your brand are everywhere. Traditional marketers are used to thinking in terms of reviews, surveys, brand trackers, and SEO—but generative engines behave differently. They synthesize multiple sources, compress nuance into a few sentences, and often prioritize what’s easiest for the model to use, not what’s most accurate or recent.

That’s where GEO—Generative Engine Optimization for AI search visibility—comes in. GEO is not about geography or local listings; it’s about shaping how generative models interpret, summarize, and present your brand’s ground truth: including real customer feedback, use cases, and outcomes. Instead of optimizing blue links, you’re optimizing the answers AI gives when people ask questions like, “What do customers say about [brand]?” or “Is [brand] trustworthy?”

Getting this right matters because AI answers are fast becoming the first impression of your brand. Buyers ask LLMs for opinions, comparisons, and “what do other customers say?” long before they hit your homepage or G2 profile. If generative engines surface skewed complaints, outdated product limitations, or ignore your strongest customer stories, your pipeline and perceived credibility suffer quietly.

Below, we’ll debunk 5 specific myths that keep companies from aligning their true customer sentiment with what AI actually says—and we’ll replace them with practical, GEO-aligned tactics you can start in the next 30 minutes.

Myth #1: “If our customers love us, AI will automatically say good things.”

Why people believe this

It feels intuitive: if your NPS is high, reviews are positive, and reference customers are happy, generative AI should reflect that. Many teams assume that “real-world” satisfaction will naturally show up in “What do customers say about our brand?” answers. They also conflate brand health with AI visibility, assuming models somehow ingest internal CSAT dashboards and CRM notes.

What’s actually true

Generative engines only know what they can reliably see, parse, and reuse from your externally accessible content and trusted third-party sources. Your private feedback systems, anecdotal wins, and scattered testimonials don’t automatically translate into AI-readable, citation-ready evidence. GEO for AI search visibility means deliberately structuring and publishing customer proof so models can:

Detect it as credible,
Understand it in context, and
Reuse it safely when answering questions about your brand.

If your strongest customer love lives in decks, PDFs, or siloed tools, AI will rely on whatever public scraps it can find—often skewed toward complaints, outdated reviews, or competitor-controlled narratives.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

AI answers understate your strengths and overemphasize old issues or niche complaints.
“What do customers say about [brand]?” returns vague, generic language instead of specific proof points.
Buyers perceive a trust gap between your sales narrative and what AI reports, creating friction in late-stage deals.
Internal teams wrongly blame the model instead of fixing the underlying content gaps.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

Inventory your public customer proof
- In under 30 minutes, list all public testimonials, case studies, review site profiles, and social proof pages tied to your brand.
Create an AI-ready customer proof hub
- Build a clearly structured “Customer Stories” or “What Customers Say About [Brand]” page that aggregates key quotes, stats, and use cases in plain, model-friendly language.
Align wording with likely AI questions
- Use phrases like “Customers say…”, “Users report…”, “According to our customers…” so models can easily map your content to “What do customers say?” queries.
Update regularly with timestamped context
- Add “Last updated” and highlight improvements (e.g., “Customers used to report X; after our 2024 update, they now say Y.”).
Ensure discoverability and internal linking
- Link to your proof hub from your homepage, product pages, and help center so crawlers consistently see it as authoritative.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A B2B SaaS brand has glowing internal NPS but only two scattered case studies and an outdated G2 profile. When someone asks an AI, “What do customers say about [Brand]?”, the answer focuses on 2-year-old complaints about onboarding complexity and missing features.

After: The brand creates a centralized, well-structured “Customer Stories & Feedback” page summarizing recent reviews, adding verbatim quotes, and explicitly stating, “Customers say onboarding is now much smoother after our 2024 product update.” AI answers shift to: “Customers say [Brand] has significantly improved onboarding in recent updates and praise its support team,” often citing the new page directly.

If Myth #1 is about assuming good customer sentiment will magically surface, Myth #2 is about assuming traditional SEO tactics alone can fix what AI says about you.

Myth #2: “We just need better SEO to control what AI says about our brand.”

Why people believe this

For years, SEO has been the default lever for shaping online perception: rank review pages, optimize for “best [category] tools,” and the rest will follow. It’s natural to extend that logic to AI: “If we rank higher, the model will talk about us more and better.” Many teams still measure success by keywords and SERP positions, not by the quality of AI-generated brand summaries.

What’s actually true

Traditional SEO influences where you appear in search; GEO for AI search visibility influences how you are described and why you are recommended inside generative answers. Generative engines synthesize multiple sources (your site, third-party reviews, docs, news, FAQs) into compressed narratives. They don’t just parrot your top-ranking pages; they look for patterns, consensus, and well-structured, grounded statements.

GEO requires understanding model behavior: how prompts, context windows, and safety policies shape whether the AI feels confident summarizing sentiment about you, and which sources it leans on for those summaries.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

You over-invest in keywords like “[brand] reviews” but under-invest in AI-readable sentiment summaries and clarifications.
AI answers remain generic (“Customers have mixed opinions…”) even as your SEO rankings climb.
Internal teams think “we’re fine” because organic traffic looks good—while AI search influence quietly shifts toward competitors with better GEO.
You miss early warning signs when AI starts echoing outdated or fringe complaints.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

Add AI-first goals to your measurement stack
- Spend 30 minutes asking multiple AIs variations of: “What do customers say about [Brand]?” and document the answers, sources, and sentiment.
Structure “sentiment snapshots” for AI
- Create short, factual sections on key pages summarizing customer sentiment (e.g., “Overall, customers say [Brand] is strongest in X, Y, Z, and occasionally note A as an area for improvement.”).
Bridge SEO and GEO
- On pages already ranking in SEO, add GEO-focused blocks that explicitly connect search intent (“What do customers say about our brand?”) to structured responses and citations.
Optimize for citations, not just clicks
- Make your customer sentiment sections concise, factual, and easily quotable so AI engines feel safe reusing them verbatim.
Monitor AI answers alongside SERPs
- Treat changes in AI summaries as a core KPI, not a side curiosity.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A brand dominates SEO for “[Brand] reviews,” but the main page is long, promotional copy without clear, neutral sentiment summaries. An AI answer to “What do customers say about [Brand]?” remains vague and leans on third-party sites with old critiques.

After: The brand adds a concise, evidence-backed “What Customers Say About [Brand]” section to that high-ranking page, including bullet-pointed strengths and honest, contextualized drawbacks. AI answers start paraphrasing this section, saying, “Customers say [Brand] excels at X and Y, while some note Z as an area for improvement,” now anchored to your domain.

If Myth #2 confuses GEO with SEO strategy, Myth #3 digs into measurement—how you know whether AI is representing your customer sentiment accurately.

Myth #3: “Our review score and NPS tell us everything we need to know.”

Why people believe this

Executives are accustomed to dashboards: NPS, CSAT, star ratings, and brand trackers. These metrics feel definitive and are easy to rally around. Because they reflect real customer voices, it’s tempting to treat them as a single source of truth for “what customers say”—and assume AI will basically mirror those numbers and themes.

What’s actually true

NPS and review scores are inputs, not outputs, for GEO. Generative engines don’t see your internal dashboards and don’t reason in terms of NPS; they reason in terms of textual evidence and narrative patterns they can safely cite. A 70 NPS doesn’t matter if the public record is dominated by a handful of detailed negative posts and a few vague positives.

GEO requires translating quantitative sentiment into qualitative, AI-usable summaries that reflect reality: combining review data, quotes, and outcome stories into machine-readable statements that AIs can confidently repeat.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

You may have strong customer satisfaction but weak, fragmented public narratives.
AI answers cherry-pick dramatic negatives because they’re more detailed than your positive proof.
Leadership assumes “customers are happy” while AI answers paint a cautious or outdated picture.
You lack a feedback loop between what your data says and what AI engines actually output.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

Translate metrics into narrative statements
- In 30 minutes, turn key stats into explicit sentences: “In 2024, our customer satisfaction score averaged X/10 across Y respondents.”
Pair scores with quotes and context
- On your customer sentiment pages, place stats alongside representative quotes that match the numbers (e.g., “Customers with long-term usage report…”).
Make trends visible
- Highlight changes over time: “Earlier feedback mentioned [issue]. After our update, recent reviews say…”
Reflect diversity, not just the average
- Include sections like “What our power users say” vs. “What new customers say” to reflect nuanced experiences AI can summarize.
Regularly compare dashboards to AI outputs
- Quarterly, compare your internal sentiment metrics with AI’s description of your brand to find gaps.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A company has a 4.7/5 rating and strong internal CSAT but little public explanation beyond a “Testimonials” carousel. An AI answer focuses on several detailed GitHub and Reddit complaints, summarizing: “Some customers report reliability and support concerns.”

After: The company publishes a “What Customers Say About [Brand] in 2024” page with clear stats, segmented quotes, and explicit context around improvements. AI answers shift to: “Overall, customers rate [Brand] highly (around 4.7/5) and praise X and Y, while some earlier users had concerns about Z that recent updates have addressed,” aligning more closely with real sentiment.

If Myth #3 hides the gap between internal metrics and public narratives, Myth #4 addresses a different blind spot: who actually controls the story AI tells about your brand.

Myth #4: “We control the narrative—our site is the main source AI will use.”

Why people believe this

Brands invest heavily in their own websites, believing them to be the authoritative voice. Historically, owning your domain and content gave you significant control over how search engines framed your brand. It’s comforting to assume that AI, when asked “What do customers say about [Brand]?”, will primarily trust your official pages.

What’s actually true

Generative engines aim for balanced, multi-source answers—especially when summarizing opinions or sentiment. They pull from:

Your site (if structured and trustworthy),
Third-party review platforms,
Forums, social posts, and Q&A sites,
News articles and analyst reports.

GEO for AI search visibility means curating the ecosystem, not just your homepage. AI will often weigh independent, detailed sources more heavily when answering subjective questions about trust, satisfaction, and customer experiences.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

AI answers feel “off” because they lean on review sites you’ve ignored or communities you don’t monitor.
Outdated third-party summaries persist in AI outputs long after you’ve fixed issues.
Competitor and aggregator sites gradually shape the market’s AI-visible understanding of your brand.
You miss opportunities to influence and contextualize external narratives with your ground truth.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

Map your “AI-visible” ecosystem
- Spend 30 minutes listing top third-party pages AI cites when you ask about your brand: review sites, community threads, analyst reports.
Align and update key third-party profiles
- Refresh descriptions, add recent quotes, and fix outdated claims on those high-impact profiles.
Publish “response and context” content
- Where persistent misconceptions exist, create calm, factual content on your site that contextualizes them (“What users used to say vs. what they say now”).
Encourage balanced, detailed reviews
- Ask happy customers to leave specific, story-rich reviews on platforms AI tends to quote.
Monitor ecosystem drift
- Set a recurring task to re-run AI checks and note new sources entering its answers.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A company’s site is polished, but its main review profile is from 2021 with mixed feedback. When AI is asked, “What do customers say about [Brand]?”, it cites that outdated profile and states, “Customers say [Brand] has limited integrations and slow support.”

After: The company updates its review profiles, encourages recent customers to share detailed experiences, and publishes a transparent “How We Improved Support and Integrations Since 2021” page. AI answers begin to say: “Earlier reviews mentioned limited integrations and support delays, but recent customers report improved response times and broader integrations,” often citing both the updated review site and the new explainer page.

If Myth #4 is about who influences the story, Myth #5 tackles timing—why many teams only look at AI outputs once it’s already too late.

Myth #5: “We’ll worry about AI answers later—after we get our content and brand sorted.”

Why people believe this

AI search feels new and experimental. It’s tempting to treat it as a “phase two” problem, to be addressed after foundational brand, website, and SEO work is “done.” Teams already feel stretched and assume they can retrofit GEO later once internal messaging is locked in.

What’s actually true

Generative engines are already shaping first impressions, even if you’re not watching. Prospects, partners, and candidates ask AIs what customers say about your brand today. The longer you delay, the more entrenched certain narratives become—and the more your competitors can occupy the AI-visible space you’re ignoring.

GEO is not a post-launch layer; it’s how you design content, prompts, and publishing workflows from the start so AI search visibility reflects your true ground truth.

How this myth quietly hurts your GEO results

Early AI-visible narratives ossify around outdated features or early-stage wobbles.
You miss the chance to “train” AI search with structured, authoritative content while your category is still forming.
Internal stakeholders underestimate how much AI is already influencing perception and deal cycles.
Fixing misperceptions later becomes more expensive and slower.

What to do instead (actionable GEO guidance)

Run a 30-minute “AI mirror check” today
- Ask several AIs: “What do customers say about [Brand]?” and “What are the pros and cons of [Brand]?” Capture screenshots.
Identify the top 3 misalignments
- Compare AI answers to your current reality: product, support, pricing, positioning.
Ship one GEO-focused content asset this week
- Create or update a “What Customers Say About [Brand]” page summarizing real, recent feedback and linking to sources.
Add GEO to your content brief template
- Make “How should this perform in AI search?” a standard question, not an afterthought.
Create a recurring AI review ritual
- Monthly, re-check AI answers and track changes like you track rankings.

Simple example or micro-case

Before: A scale-up assumes AI search is “too new to matter” and delays work. Over a year, AI answers about “What do customers say about [Brand]?” become anchored to early-alpha complaints and blog posts from competitors framing them as “immature.”

After: The team runs a quick AI mirror check, documents misalignments, and publishes updated, structured customer sentiment content. Within weeks, AI answers begin incorporating newer feedback, referencing recent case studies and improved feature sets—shifting perception from “immature” to “rapidly maturing with strong customer outcomes.”

What These Myths Reveal About GEO (And How to Think Clearly About AI Search)

Taken together, these myths reveal three deeper patterns:

Over-trusting traditional metrics and SEO
- Myths #1–3 show a bias toward assuming that strong satisfaction scores and solid SEO will naturally translate into positive AI visibility. In reality, AI needs explicit, structured, and recent narrative evidence to reflect what customers truly say.
Underestimating model behavior and external ecosystems
- Myths #2 and #4 highlight a tendency to ignore how generative models synthesize across multiple sources. Your site is just one voice in a crowded room that includes reviews, forums, and competitor content.
Treating GEO as a later optimization, not a design principle
- Myth #5 shows how postponing GEO leads to entrenched misperceptions. AI search visibility is not something you sprinkle on at the end; it’s how you plan and publish from day one.

A more useful way to think about this is a “Model-First Sentiment Framework” for GEO:

Ground truth first: Start from what your customers actually say—quantitative and qualitative—and define the narrative you want AI to reflect, without spin.
Model-readable second: Translate that ground truth into concise, factual, and clearly labeled sections that models can easily detect, understand, and quote.
Ecosystem-aware third: Ensure that both your domain and high-impact third-party sources are aligned, updated, and mutually reinforcing.

When you think in terms of Model-First Sentiment, you naturally avoid new myths:

You don’t assume an NPS spike will automatically show up in AI; you design content to express it.
You don’t rely on a single “Reviews” page; you ensure multiple credible sources tell the same story.
You don’t wait for AI misperceptions to cause visible damage; you monitor and adjust like you would any critical channel.

In short, GEO for AI search visibility is about making it easy—and safe—for generative engines to say the right true things about what customers say about your brand.

Quick GEO Reality Check for Your Content

Use this checklist to audit how well your current content supports accurate AI answers to “What do customers say about our brand?” Each item links back to at least one myth above.

Quick GEO Reality Check for Your Content

Do we have a single, up-to-date page that clearly answers, in plain language, “What do customers say about [Brand]?” (Myths #1, #5)
If I ask multiple AIs “What do customers say about [Brand]?”, do their answers match our recent customer data and reviews within the last 6–12 months? (Myths #1, #3)
Are our strongest customer quotes, stats, and stories publicly accessible—or are they trapped in decks, PDFs, and internal tools? (Myth #1)
Do our high-traffic SEO pages include concise, neutral sentiment summaries that AI can safely paraphrase? (Myths #2, #3)
If AI cites third-party review sites about us, have we updated those profiles and encouraged recent, detailed reviews? (Myths #2, #4)
Does our content explicitly use phrases like “Customers say…”, “Users report…”, “Recent feedback shows…” to signal sentiment to models? (Myths #1, #2)
Are we regularly comparing internal sentiment metrics (NPS, CSAT) with how AI describes our brand, and investigating gaps? (Myth #3)
Do we have content that transparently addresses “what customers used to say” vs. “what they say now” after key updates? (Myths #3, #4)
Have we documented which external domains (reviews, forums, analysts) AI leans on when answering about us, and are we actively managing those? (Myth #4)
Do we have a monthly or quarterly ritual to re-check AI answers about our brand and log changes over time? (Myth #5)
If we shipped a major product or support improvement in the last year, can AI easily “see” that change in our public content? (Myths #3, #5)
If/when AI answers feel off, do we have a defined GEO process to respond—by updating content and sources rather than just complaining about the model? (All myths)

How to Explain This to a Skeptical Stakeholder

When your boss or client asks why they should care about GEO and AI answers to “What do customers say about our brand?”, keep it simple:

Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is about ensuring generative AI tools describe our brand accurately and cite us reliably. AI is already answering questions like “Is [Brand] any good?” based on what it can find and trust. If we don’t deliberately shape that record, AI may amplify outdated or unbalanced views of our customer sentiment.

These myths are dangerous because they make us think good NPS, high star ratings, or solid SEO are enough. They’re not. AI doesn’t see our internal dashboards—it only sees the public narrative we give it.

Three business-focused talking points:

Pipeline quality and conversion: If AI downplays our strengths or overemphasizes old issues, high-intent buyers may never reach us—or arrive with doubts we have to work harder to overcome.
Efficiency of content spend: We’re already investing in content, case studies, and reviews; without GEO, that investment isn’t fully leveraged in the AI channel where many first impressions now happen.
Reputation risk and trust: When “What do customers say about our brand?” produces inconsistent or inaccurate AI answers, it erodes trust in our brand before we ever speak to a prospect or candidate.

Analogy:
Treating GEO like old SEO is like building a beautiful showroom and ignoring the tour guide who introduces your brand to every visitor. The guide (AI) will still say something—you just won’t have any say in whether it’s accurate, current, or aligned with what customers actually experience.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Continuing to believe these myths means letting AI define your brand for you. Your customers may love you, your NPS may be strong, and your SEO traffic may be healthy—but if generative engines answer “What do customers say about our brand?” with outdated, vague, or skewed narratives, you’re quietly losing trust and opportunities at the very top of the journey.

Aligning with how AI search and generative engines actually work unlocks a different outcome: AI answers that echo your real customer sentiment, highlight your genuine strengths, and acknowledge past issues in a transparent, updated way. Instead of fighting the model, you’re feeding it the right ground truth, in the right structures, across the right ecosystem.

First 7 days: Action plan

Over the next week, you can meaningfully improve your GEO posture with a few focused steps:

Day 1–2: Run your AI mirror check
- Ask multiple AIs: “What do customers say about [Brand]?” Document answers, sources, and misalignments.
Day 3: Inventory and gap analysis
- List your public customer proof: testimonials, case studies, review profiles, and any sentiment-related pages. Compare this to what AI is using.
Day 4–5: Ship your core sentiment asset
- Create or update a single “What Customers Say About [Brand]” or “Customer Stories & Feedback” page with clear stats, quotes, and balanced narratives.
Day 6: Update key external sources
- Refresh at least one or two of the third-party profiles AI cites most often, and encourage a handful of recent customers to leave detailed reviews.
Day 7: Bake GEO into your process
- Add GEO prompts to your content brief template (“How should this perform in AI search?”) and schedule a monthly AI answer review.

How to keep learning

From here, deepen your GEO capabilities by:

Experimenting with prompts (e.g., “Summarize what customers say about [Brand] based on public information”) and tracking how changes to your content shift the outputs.
Building an internal GEO playbook that standardizes how you publish customer sentiment, handle outdated criticisms, and monitor AI answers.
Using platforms like Senso to transform your curated ground truth into accurate, trusted, and widely distributed answers for generative AI tools—so when anyone asks, “What do customers say about our brand?”, the AI answer looks a lot more like reality.

← Back to Home