How CultureMonkey went from 1 in 4 AI answers to more than 1 in 3, with Zadoosh's omnichannel AEO approach

Closing the gap on an entrenched leader

This is the visibility trend straight from CultureMonkey's workspace, one point per week since tracking began. The shape is the story: flat through early summer, a dip in July, then a step up through August and September. The panel beside it ranks CultureMonkey against the other brands it tracks.

Month by month, against the category leader:

CultureMonkey also overtook Leapsome, which led it by 19% in May and now trails by 10%, and has narrowed to within 11% of Lattice and 9% of 15Five. Culture Amp and Qualtrics did not decline over the period. The gap closed because CultureMonkey climbed.

Already number one on citations

Mentions are the lagging indicator. Citations are the leading one, because a challenger gets named when an engine has a source to name it from. On that measure CultureMonkey already leads the category it is still climbing:

Across 1,175 domains and 77,234 tracked citation appearances, culturemonkey.io is cited more often than any other vendor in the category. That is the asset the mention rate is being built on.

Appearances counts every time a domain's page was cited in a tracked AI answer, across all engines, all-time. Subdomains are rolled into their parent domain, so each company is counted once. The ranking covers vendor domains; community and review platforms are tracked separately and shown in Exhibit D.

Visibility depends on which engine, and which buyer

A single blended score would have hidden this. The same brand over the same 90 days is mentioned nearly four times as often on Copilot as on Google AI Overviews:

Where CultureMonkey wins is not random

Of the ten detailed buyer-scenario prompts tracked, the two describing a frontline, deskless or multilingual workforce are the two CultureMonkey dominates: 82.1% and 25.9% mention rate. No other scenario clears 13%.

That pattern is consistent with CultureMonkey's product differentiation around frontline, deskless and multilingual workforces, and it tells CultureMonkey precisely which buyer it already owns and which it still has to earn.

Why citations are the lever

Most visibility tools stop at whether you were mentioned. Splitting each answer by whether it cited a CultureMonkey-connected source shows why mentions happen at all:

Presence is the lever, and the surface barely matters.

Every channel clears the bar by a wide margin. This is why the work runs across all three at once, and it is the whole argument for closing the gap by building citable sources.

By raw volume the three channels look very different:

All-time figures. Owned out-cites the off-page programme roughly six to one, which is the point: the placements are not there to outgun the brand's own site, they are there to reach answers the site does not reach.

What was built, and what moved

Alongside the measurement, 57 assets were placed across the three channels: 46 earned authority pieces, 2 listicle insertions, 6 community threads and 3 video assets, spanning three content themes.

The lag is visible in the data. Publishing surged in July, and visibility fell that month. August and September are when it landed. Placements take weeks to be picked up, so the step-up follows the push by roughly a month:

Of every AI answer that names CultureMonkey, roughly one in four (22.9%) also cites an asset placed through this programme. Comparing like with like inside a single prompt, answers that cite a placed asset name CultureMonkey far more often than answers that do not. On the survey-vendors prompt it is 64% against 48%. On survey-companies, 69% against 46%. On Culture Amp alternatives, 47% against 27%.

The headroom is equally clear. Only 46.6% of tracked answers cite any CultureMonkey-connected source at all.

The other half of the category conversation is still open field, which is where the remaining 34% of the gap sits.

All figures are pulled from the Zadoosh AEO platform.