Claude answers most questions from what it already knows, and reaches for its web search tool only when a question needs something current, specific, or outside its training: a live price, a recent event, a fact it should verify rather than guess at. When it does search, it cites what it used, visibly, in the answer. That citation is the prize: not a ranking position, but a named, linked mention inside an answer someone is reading to make a decision. This page is about earning that mention.
How Claude actually picks a source
Claude’s web search is deliberate rather than constant. It decides a question warrants a live check, runs a small number of targeted searches, and then cites the specific pages it drew on directly in its response, usually with a visible link. That citation behaviour is more transparent than some competitors: Claude generally shows you where an answer came from rather than presenting synthesised text with no attribution, which means the sources it does cite tend to be ones with a demonstrable claim to authority on the topic, an original source, a primary account, or a page that states a fact plainly enough to quote with confidence.
Anthropic has been explicit that Claude is built to weigh source quality rather than just source popularity: a page that makes a specific, checkable claim, is clearly authored, and doesn’t contradict itself is easier for Claude to cite responsibly than a page of vague reassurance. In practice that means the same fundamentals that help elsewhere (clarity, first-hand data, a real named author) carry unusual weight with Claude specifically, because its search behaviour is oriented around defensible citation rather than volume of retrieval.
What’s included
Authoritative-source positioning. We identify what would make your page the checkable, citable original for a given claim in your category (first-hand data, a primary account, a stated methodology) because Claude’s search behaviour favours pages it can point to with confidence over pages that merely repeat consensus.
Claude-specific citation tracking. A fixed prompt set covering your buying journey, re-run against Claude’s web search specifically, recording whether it searches at all for a given prompt (it doesn’t always), whether you’re cited, and which competing sources it reaches for instead.
Author and claim clarity. Named authors with checkable credentials, specific claims instead of vague reassurance, and facts stated once, clearly, rather than scattered and softened across a page, since Claude’s citation behaviour rewards pages it can quote without hedging.
Answer-shaped content blocks and entity work, applied at the depth Claude’s search-then-cite pattern rewards: a direct, checkable answer near the top of the page, and a coherent entity presence that lets Claude attribute a claim to a real organisation with confidence.
What we don’t sell: an llms.txt file as a deliverable. Claude does not require or specially favour one for citation purposes, the file signals crawl preferences and access permissions to certain automated systems, but it doesn’t make a page more citable, and treating it as a GEO product overstates what it does.
Proof
Official London Theatre reached 85% AI search visibility and the #1 recommended source position in its category, tracked across a five-year partnership, alongside a 67% increase in referral traffic. Claude is tracked as one channel inside that combined figure, not isolated as a separate published number.
Koyo Loans took a #1-3 ranking for “loans” (95% keyword difficulty) with a 73% lift in organic conversions. We haven’t isolated what share of that traffic or citation activity is attributable to Claude specifically. Claude’s search volume and behaviour are newer and less measured than Google’s or ChatGPT’s, and we say so rather than inflate the claim.
Sons is a client we do GEO work for. We’re not publishing prompt-grid or before/after figures for that account until the numbers are sourced and cleared, named here without figures, per house rule.
How we measure it
Search-trigger rate. Of your tracked prompt set, how often Claude’s web search activates at all for the question, since Claude answers many questions from training without searching, this is a precondition worth knowing.
Citation share when it does search. Of the prompts where Claude searches, how often you’re one of the cited sources.
Claim defensibility audit. A manual review of whether your key commercial pages make specific, checkable claims Claude could plausibly cite, versus vague copy it would have no reason to quote.
Run a first check for free with our GEO visibility score, no sign-up.
What it costs
There’s no separate Claude invoice. This work is included in every GEO and SEO plan at no extra cost. Retainers start from £1,250 a month ex VAT. Standalone Claude-only GEO work with no retainer attached is scoped to the brief, and either side can end it with 60 days’ notice at any point. Tell us what you need and we’ll price it before we start.
Latest GEO Insights
Stay ahead with our expert content
AI Visibility: Does ChatGPT Recommend Your Brand?
To find out whether ChatGPT recommends your brand, ask it the questions your buyers ask, run each one several times in a fresh session,…
GEO Audit Guide: How to Check Your Brand’s AI Visibility
What Is a GEO Audit and Why Does Your Brand Need One? A GEO audit is a structured process for measuring and improving how…
Schema Markup and AI Search: Why Structured Data Matters More Than Ever
What Is Schema Markup and Why Does It Matter for AI Search? Schema markup is a standardised vocabulary of structured data that tells AI…
ChatGPT vs Google: What It Means for Your Brand’s Visibility
What Is the Difference Between ChatGPT and Google for Brand Visibility? ChatGPT and Google represent two distinct search ecosystems, each requiring a different strategy…
Frequently asked questions
That may well be true today, and it is a reasonable thing to weigh. The argument for doing it now is that the work is not Claude specific. Clear entity data, self contained answers and third party corroboration are the same things that help you in every other assistant and in Search. So the marginal cost of including Claude is small. If your buyers genuinely are not using assistants at all, put the budget into the surfaces they do use and revisit this later. We would rather say that than sell you a workstream you do not need.
No, and you should treat anyone who does with suspicion. These systems are non deterministic, they change without notice, and no agency controls what they return. What we control is whether your content is findable, readable, accurate and corroborated well enough to be worth quoting. We commit to doing that work and to reporting honestly on whether citations increased. We do not commit to an outcome that sits inside someone else’s model.
With the raw material attached. Each month you get the prompt set, the answers returned, the dates and whether you were named or linked. Anyone can re-run a prompt and check the claim. We report Claude separately from the other engines rather than folding everything into a single visibility score, because averages hide the cases that matter. Where a change cannot be attributed to our work we say so in the report rather than leave the inference sitting there.
It can, and it commonly does. Structured data, canonical tags and rendering behaviour are the three things most often lost in a release. We hand changes over as template level tickets rather than page level requests, so they live in the codebase. We then re-check the affected templates after each deploy and flag anything that has reverted in the monthly report. If regressions are frequent we set up an automated check so we hear about it within a day rather than at the next crawl.
It runs on our standard retainer, from £1,250 a month. There is no minimum term and either side can give 60 days notice at any point. That applies from the first month, not after an initial commitment period. You keep every change we have made to your site and every document we have produced. The GEO pricing page sets out what each tier includes.
No. Claude decides on a case-by-case basis whether a question needs current or specific information it doesn’t already have confidently, then runs a small number of targeted searches. Many commercial questions won’t trigger a search at all if Claude judges its existing knowledge sufficient, which is one more reason entity clarity and consistent public information matter, independent of citation work.
The mechanics of getting found are similar: clarity, crawlability, a real entity behind the page. What differs is Claude’s visible, deliberate citation behaviour: when it does search, it shows what it used, and it appears to weigh whether a source can defensibly back a specific claim rather than just whether it’s popular or highly ranked.
No. There’s no paid placement in a Claude answer and no submission process. Anyone offering guaranteed inclusion is describing something that doesn’t exist.
No. It’s a proposed convention that signals crawl and access preferences to certain automated systems, but it isn’t a requirement or a known ranking factor for what Claude chooses to cite. If you want one for completeness across your AI-facing setup, it takes an afternoon to write honestly. We won’t sell it to you as something that improves citation, because it doesn’t.
It supports entity resolution and is cheap to get right, but it isn’t a citation lever on its own. Check what your pages currently carry with our schema report.
Usually because their page makes a more specific, checkable claim, or is more clearly attributable to a real organisation and author. Claude’s citation behaviour appears to favour defensible sources over merely popular ones, so a page that hedges or restates general consensus is easy to pass over.
By measuring the search-trigger rate as well as citation share, rather than assuming every prompt produces a comparable result. A prompt set where Claude rarely searches tells you something different from one where it searches often but doesn’t cite you. We report both.
Because Claude’s citation behaviour depends on specific, checkable claims and clear authorship, changes to existing pages can show up within weeks. Building genuine authority for a topic you don’t yet own takes longer, typically three to six months, the same range as other engines.
GET IN TOUCH
Ready to grow your brand? Get in touch with our team to discuss how we can help you achieve your goals.