Parse
Work with usPricing
Sign inCheck your brand
Research/Who publishes the pages behind AI buying advice?

Who publishes the pages behind AI buying advice?

Largely the sellers. Of 3,805,095 citations backing ranked brand recommendations, 48.6% came from vendor sites — 28.2% from the recommended brand itself — while commercial media supplied 20.0%.

By Dimitry Apollonsky · August 29, 2026 · 11 min read

48.6%
of the citations behind AI brand recommendations came from vendor sites
1,848,411 of 3,805,095
▸Contents
  • Half the evidence behind AI buying advice comes from companies selling in the market
  • Commercial media supplies 1 in 5 recommendation-backing citations
  • ChatGPT Search draws half its recommendation evidence from the brand's own site
  • The two engines use different publisher mixes for their evidence
  • In finance, commercial media still controls the evidence; in software it is marginal
  • B2B evidence comes from vendors' own sites; consumer evidence from independent publishers
  • Forbes is the most-used commercial-media publisher behind AI recommendations
  • Reddit, YouTube, and google.com are the three biggest single sources of recommendation evidence
  • No short list of media publishers holds the media slice: it spreads across 73,928 domains
  • 4 in 10 media pages behind AI advice carry a roundup-style title — and so do 1 in 5 vendor pages
  • AI does not hold its #1 pick to a different evidence standard
  • What the classification can and cannot say
  • What marketers should do
  • Get the data
  • Sources
  • Related research
Contents
  • Half the evidence behind AI buying advice comes from companies selling in the market
  • Commercial media supplies 1 in 5 recommendation-backing citations
  • ChatGPT Search draws half its recommendation evidence from the brand's own site
  • The two engines use different publisher mixes for their evidence
  • In finance, commercial media still controls the evidence; in software it is marginal
  • B2B evidence comes from vendors' own sites; consumer evidence from independent publishers
  • Forbes is the most-used commercial-media publisher behind AI recommendations
  • Reddit, YouTube, and google.com are the three biggest single sources of recommendation evidence
  • No short list of media publishers holds the media slice: it spreads across 73,928 domains
  • 4 in 10 media pages behind AI advice carry a roundup-style title — and so do 1 in 5 vendor pages
  • AI does not hold its #1 pick to a different evidence standard
  • What the classification can and cannot say
  • What marketers should do
  • Get the data
  • Sources
  • Related research

We analyzed 3,805,095 recommendation-backing citations in 554,273 answers to 17,503 organic prompts on ChatGPT Search and Google AI Mode from May 24 through August 23, 2026, covering 203,536 ranked brands, 1,530,906 cited pages, and 305,060 websites.

48.6%
of recommendation-backing citations came from vendor sites
1,848,411 of 3,805,095
28.2%
came from the recommended brand's own website
1,072,309 of 3,805,095
20.0%
came from commercial media
761,536 of 3,805,095
50.4%
of ChatGPT Search's recommendation evidence is the brand's own site
vs 19.1% on Google AI Mode

Half the evidence behind AI buying advice comes from companies selling in the market

A recommendation-backing citation is a link between one cited page and one brand that the same AI answer directly ranks as a recommendation. We classified the website behind each of 3,805,095 such links by its relationship to the recommended brand. The recommended brand's own website supplied 1,072,309 links, or 28.2%. Websites of other vendors — companies selling products or services, just not the recommended brand — supplied 776,102, or 20.4%. Together that is 1,848,411 links, or 48.6%: about half.

Independent publishers — commercial media, communities, directories, and reference sites together — supplied 1,338,477 links, or 35.2%. Marketplace listings supplied 3.1%, and 13.2% could not be classified: the cited website's business model was unknown and it did not match the recommended brand's verified website. The common worry, sharpened by the HouseFresh case in classic search, is that big media publishers control buying advice. In AI answers, the larger evidence channel is the sellers themselves.

Who vouches for AI brand recommendations
  • Brand's own site28.2% (1,072,309)
  • Other vendor site20.4% (776,102)
  • Independent publisher35.2% (1,338,477)
  • Marketplace listing3.1% (117,329)
  • Unclassified13.2% (500,878)
Share of 3,805,095 recommendation-backing citations, by the cited website's relationship to the recommended brand.

Takeaway

The single biggest evidence channel behind AI recommendations is the recommended brand's own website.

Commercial media supplies 1 in 5 recommendation-backing citations

We grouped cited websites into business-model buckets. Commercial media — professional publishers monetized by ads, affiliate fees, or subscriptions — supplied 761,536 links, or 20.0%. Vendor sites supplied 1,447,750, or 38.0%. Community and social platforms supplied 11.6%, reference and institutional sites 6.2%, search and app marketplaces 3.1%, and directories and review platforms 2.9%. The remaining 18.1% stayed unclassified.

For every commercial-media link there are 1.9 vendor-site links. The 2.9% directory share independently repeats what the directory-tax study found at the category grain: listing platforms are a small part of the evidence behind AI recommendations.

Publisher-economy mix of recommendation-backing citations
  • Vendor sites38.0% (1,447,750)
  • Commercial media20.0% (761,536)
  • Unclassified18.1% (689,010)
  • Community and social11.6% (442,443)
  • Reference and institutional6.2% (235,392)
  • Search and app marketplaces3.1% (117,957)
  • Directories and review platforms2.9% (111,007)
Share of 3,805,095 recommendation-backing citations, by the cited website's business-model bucket.

Takeaway

Journalists and affiliate publishers are a real channel, but they are one fifth of the evidence, not the gatekeepers.

ChatGPT Search draws half its recommendation evidence from the brand's own site

On ChatGPT Search, the recommended brand's own website supplied 557,496 of its recommendation-backing citations, or 50.4%. On Google AI Mode the own-site share was 19.1%. Independent publishers moved the other way: 29.4% on ChatGPT Search and 37.6% on Google AI Mode.

The two engines answer the same buying questions with different kinds of proof. A brand with a weak website is exposed on ChatGPT Search; a brand with no independent coverage is exposed on Google AI Mode.

50.4%
own-site share on ChatGPT Search
557,496 of 1,107,101 links
19.1%
own-site share on Google AI Mode
514,813 of 2,697,994 links

Takeaway

Split the audit by engine: your own pages carry ChatGPT Search; independent coverage carries Google AI Mode.

The two engines use different publisher mixes for their evidence

The bucket mix by engine shows the same divergence. Community and social platforms supplied 14.3% of Google AI Mode's recommendation-backing citations and 5.2% of ChatGPT Search's. Search and app marketplaces — google.com, Google Play, and the App Store — supplied 4.3% on Google AI Mode and 0.26% on ChatGPT Search. Directories ran the other way: 4.0% on ChatGPT Search versus 2.5% on Google AI Mode.

Commercial media is the steadiest slice: 22.7% on ChatGPT Search and 18.9% on Google AI Mode.

Bucket mix by engine
Share of each engine's recommendation-backing citations: 1,107,101 on ChatGPT Search, 2,697,994 on Google AI Mode.
Vendor sites44.135.57
Commercial media22.7418.89
Unclassified16.318.85
Community and social5.2414.25
Reference and institutional7.355.71
Search and app marketplaces0.264.26
Directories and review platforms4.012.47

In finance, commercial media still controls the evidence; in software it is marginal

Commercial media supplied 51.1% of the recommendation-backing citations in Financial Services prompts — 106,494 of 208,429. Gaming (39.1%), Health Care (36.9%), Sports (36.8%), and Food and Beverage (36.6%) followed. At the other end sit the B2B categories: Sales and Marketing 12.7%, Information Technology 12.5%, Software 11.0%, Artificial Intelligence 9.8%, and Data and Analytics 8.3%.

The affiliate-review economy that Google's site-reputation-abuse policy targets — card pickers, insurance comparisons, product roundups — is exactly where AI answers still lean on commercial media. In software categories the same engines mostly read vendors' own pages.

Commercial-media share of recommendation-backing citations
  • Financial Services51.1% (106,494 of 208,429)
  • Gaming39.1% (11,428 of 29,237)
  • Health Care36.9% (33,418 of 90,666)
  • Sports36.8% (17,995 of 48,848)
  • Food and Beverage36.6% (24,349 of 66,442)
  • Sales and Marketing12.7% (7,216 of 57,003)
  • Information Technology12.5% (19,837 of 159,263)
  • Software11.0% (19,191 of 173,890)
  • Artificial Intelligence9.8% (11,162 of 113,829)
  • Data and Analytics8.3% (5,970 of 71,687)
The five highest-share industries and five low-share B2B categories, among industries with at least 20,000 recommendation-backing citations.

Takeaway

Media outreach is a finance, health, and consumer play. In B2B software it moves a much smaller share of the evidence.

B2B evidence comes from vendors' own sites; consumer evidence from independent publishers

The ownership split by industry makes the same point from the brand's side. In Professional Services, 40.2% of recommendation-backing citations came from the recommended brand's own website. Data and Analytics reached 37.1% and Artificial Intelligence 31.7%. In Consumer Electronics the own-site share was 10.3%, in Clothing and Apparel 12.5%, and in Sports 13.9%, where independent publishers supplied about half the evidence.

Where buyers can read a vendor's documentation and pricing, AI engines do too. Where products are physical and tested by third parties, the engines reach for independent publishers.

Who vouches, by industry
Own-site and independent-publisher share of each industry's recommendation-backing citations (industries with at least 20,000).
Professional Services101,25240.1631.47
Data and Analytics71,68737.0622.57
Education58,36633.5338.83
Administrative Services50,03232.6931.53
Artificial Intelligence113,82931.726.58
Food and Beverage66,44216.151.69
Consumer Goods71,26615.6845.98
Sports48,84813.8951.57
Clothing and Apparel26,04712.4647.68
Consumer Electronics49,08610.3146.46

Forbes is the most-used commercial-media publisher behind AI recommendations

Forbes supplied 24,701 recommendation-backing citations from 3,902 pages across 3,526 prompts and 4,137 brands — the most of any commercial-media publisher. TechRadar followed with 23,116 links, then NerdWallet with 11,915, The New York Times with 7,165, and Business Insider with 6,301.

The list mixes general news publishers with review specialists. NerdWallet's links concentrate on 948 prompts — finance questions — while Forbes spreads across 3,526 prompts. The count identifies which publishers already back recommendations; it does not show that coverage there caused the recommendation.

Commercial-media publishers supplying the most recommendation-backing citations
Top 10 of 73,928 commercial-media domains, out of 761,536 commercial-media citations.
Forbes24,7013,9023,5264,137
TechRadar23,1161,9762,9492,012
NerdWallet logoNerdWallet11,9152,157948942
The New York Times7,1651,5511,8531,964
Business Insider6,3011,7952,1392,110
Wired5,6211,3381,4781,464
The Wall Street Journal5,3431,0171,0681,013
CNET5,0681,3961,3171,139
Healthline4,929894718888
CNBC4,891809728640

Reddit, YouTube, and google.com are the three biggest single sources of recommendation evidence

At the single-domain grain, community platforms lead: Reddit supplied 148,676 recommendation-backing citations and YouTube 143,758. google.com — search results, Maps listings, and other Google surfaces, cited almost entirely by Google AI Mode — supplied 108,299. The largest commercial-media domain, Forbes, ranks sixth with 24,701.

Domain leaderboards and business-model mixes tell different stories. Communities have the biggest single domains, but vendor sites win on volume because they are hundreds of thousands of small domains. The live version of the all-citations domain leaderboard is on the public Parse index.

Domains supplying the most recommendation-backing citations
Top 10 named domains of 305,060, out of 3,805,095 citations.
reddit.com faviconreddit.comCommunity and social148,67613,993
youtube.com faviconyoutube.comCommunity and social143,75815,172
google.com favicongoogle.comSearch and app marketplaces108,2998,671
linkedin.com faviconlinkedin.comCommunity and social30,7056,003
facebook.com faviconfacebook.comCommunity and social26,3696,801
forbes.com faviconforbes.comCommercial media24,7013,526
techradar.com favicontechradar.comCommercial media23,1162,949
medium.com faviconmedium.comCommunity and social21,4304,473
instagram.com faviconinstagram.comCommunity and social20,6265,136
nerdwallet.com faviconnerdwallet.comCommercial media11,915948

No short list of media publishers holds the media slice: it spreads across 73,928 domains

The 761,536 commercial-media citations came from 73,928 distinct media domains. The top 10 supplied 99,050 links, or 13.0% of the media slice. The top 50 supplied 26.3%.

In classic search, a handful of large publishers were accused of crowding out small sites. In the evidence behind AI recommendations, no short list of media brands holds the slice: roughly three quarters of media-backed evidence comes from outside the top 50 publishers.

73,928
commercial-media domains backed at least one recommendation
13.0%
of media citations came from the top 10 media domains
99,050 of 761,536
26.3%
came from the top 50
200,500 of 761,536

4 in 10 media pages behind AI advice carry a roundup-style title — and so do 1 in 5 vendor pages

We flagged cited pages whose titles match roundup and comparison patterns — best, top N, review, versus, comparison, deals, or discount codes. Among distinct cited pages with an observed title, 40.7% of commercial-media pages matched, against 30.6% of directory pages, 23.6% of community pages, and 21.4% of vendor pages. Overall, 26.8% of the 1,530,328 titled pages matched.

The vendor number is the notable one: one in five vendor pages backing a recommendation is itself a roundup-style page, often a vendor's own "best tools" listicle that includes the vendor. Title patterns are a monetization signal, not proof — a matching title does not confirm affiliate links on the page.

Share of cited pages with a roundup-style title
  • Commercial media40.7% (112,510 of 276,337)
  • Unclassified35.8% (92,501 of 258,488)
  • Directories and review platforms30.6% (12,855 of 42,075)
  • Community and social23.6% (45,974 of 194,426)
  • Vendor sites21.4% (130,455 of 608,548)
  • Reference and institutional11.7% (13,286 of 113,987)
  • Search and app marketplaces7.5% (2,716 of 36,467)
Distinct cited pages with an observed title, per bucket; overall 26.8% (410,297 of 1,530,328).

AI does not hold its #1 pick to a different evidence standard

For the brand ranked first in an answer, vendor sites supplied 38.3% of the backing citations and commercial media 20.6%. For brands ranked second or lower, the shares were 38.0% and 19.8%. No bucket differed by more than 1.6 percentage points between the two groups.

The publisher mix behind the top pick is the same one behind the rest of the shortlist. What differs for the top pick is whether it gets cited at all, which a separate study measures.

38.3% vs 38.0%
vendor-site share for rank 1 vs ranks 2+
20.6% vs 19.8%
commercial-media share for rank 1 vs ranks 2+

What the classification can and cannot say

Buckets come from the index's per-website source-type label plus a manual overlay: we hand-classified the 118 highest-volume websites the index labels only as general-purpose, which covered 11.7% of all links. After the overlay, 18.1% of links stayed unclassified, down from 29.8% before it. The ownership split marks a link as the brand's own site only when the cited website matches the recommended brand's verified website; 13.2% of links stayed unclassified there because the cited website's business model was unknown and no own-site match was found. Industry cuts cover the 58.1% of links whose prompt maps to an industry.

Monetization is inferred from publisher type and title patterns; we did not verify affiliate links, ads, or paywalls on individual pages. Only ranked recommendations with at least one attached citation are measured — 42.9% of ranked brand appearances — so this study describes the evidence AI shows, not the evidence it consulted. Two self-referential domains were excluded.

118
high-volume websites manually classified
covering 11.7% of links
18.1%
of links remained unclassified
29.8% before the overlay
42.9%
of ranked recommendations carried at least one citation
1,603,617 of 3,741,806

What marketers should do

Vendor sites supplied 48.6% of the evidence behind AI recommendations, and the recommended brand's own site was the single biggest channel at 28.2%. Commercial media supplied 20.0%, concentrated in finance, health, and consumer categories. Directories supplied 2.9%.

Treat your own website as your first citation channel: it carries half of ChatGPT Search's recommendation evidence. In finance, health, and consumer categories, add commercial-media outreach — that is where publishers still control a third to a half of the evidence. Spend on directory listings last. Rerun the same study over a window of the same length next quarter to see whether the vendor share grows.

Get the data

Dataset CSVThe metrics behind every figure in this report.

Sources

  1. HouseFresh: David vs Digital Goliaths · accessed 2026-08-29
  2. Google Search Central: Updating our site reputation abuse policy · accessed 2026-08-29
  3. Profound: AI platform citation patterns · accessed 2026-08-29
  4. Semrush: The most-cited domains in AI · accessed 2026-08-29

Related research

What pages AI cites most: best-of listicles dominate
Domain studies tell you AI loves Reddit, YouTube, and Wikipedia. The page level shows what it actually pulls from them: six in ten of AI's most-cited pages are “Best X” listicles.
Which domains AI cites most in its answers
A source-domain view of AI answers: which domains supply the evidence behind AI recommendations, and why community platforms are not a side channel.
The directory tax is a myth: G2 and Capterra are #1 in 0 of 835 categories
The common generative-engine-optimization advice says one directory listing can control whether AI recommends you. In Parse's category evidence, the directory chokepoint mostly is not there.
How often does AI cite a brand's own website?
Often. Of 1,060,513 page citations tied to ranked brand recommendations, 288,629 pointed to the recommended brand's own website.
How often does AI cite a competitor's website?
About one in twenty. Of 136,478 reviewed links between cited pages and recommended brands, 6,965 came from a different brand in the same market.
Does AI cite sources for its top brand recommendation?
Only about half. Of 215,349 top-ranked brand recommendations, 113,609 had at least one citation attached to that brand in the same AI answer.

About this research

Dimitry Apollonsky

Founder, Parse

I built Parse to track where AI answers really come from: the sources they cite and the brands they name. DM me on LinkedIn to talk shop.

Track which publishers back your brand in AI answers.

Run a free check against live AI answers — no account needed.

Parse

See where your brand stands in AI recommendations.

Products

  • Brands
  • Markets
  • Integrations
  • Work with us
  • Pricing
  • MCP

Resources

  • Research
  • Methodology
  • Blog

© 2026 Parse. All rights reserved.

LegalPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service