Visibility monitoring
Hero
A study tells you where you stand. Monitoring tells you whether what you did worked.
Kept in Spanish for the final site: “Un estudio te dice dónde estás; el monitoreo te dice si lo que haces funciona.”
Sub-line: Same frozen bank, same models, comparable numbers over time.
One instrument, run again
The study ends with a frozen prompt bank. Monitoring re-runs that same bank: same questions, same models, same codebook, read the same way. That is what makes two runs comparable. Without the frozen bank, a second measurement is a new anecdote, not a trend.
From the invented sample: Recommended 11%, 44 of 396 responses in the first run. Recommended 26%, 103 of 396 in the second, after the work. The same 396 responses stand behind both numbers, so the difference is readable. Change the bank and the two numbers stop meaning anything together.
What breaks comparability:
- Editing questions after the baseline. New questions start their own baseline, with their own first run. They never join the existing line.
- Changing models or repetitions mid-trend. The instrument changed, so the numbers changed for reasons that are not yours.
- Splicing banks into a trend. Never. We document the bank so any later edit is deliberate, not accidental.
Marca inventada, competidores inventados, cifras inventadas. La estructura es real; los números no son de nadie.
Cadence, agreed per client
No fixed package. The cadence depends on how fast your category moves and when your decisions happen: budget cycles, campaign windows, retailer negotiations.
Two rhythms combine:
- Periodic runs with the frozen bank, to keep the line moving between decisions.
- Deeper re-runs at longer intervals, more models or more repetitions, for the numbers that support bigger decisions.
Alerts run between and across runs:
- Your visibility drops against the previous comparable run.
- A specific critique repeats across assistants. One negative answer is noise; the same critique in several answers is a pattern with a source attached.
- A competitor enters or leaves the answer set for questions that used to be stable.
Every alert names the question, the model and the responses behind it. Alerts are measurement with a citation, not a newsfeed.
Pricing follows the same scope logic as the study: the three knobs decide the cost, agreed before the first run. Published numbers: [PRECIO POR DEFINIR]. Structure: /precios/.
What monitoring does not tell you
Kept visible on purpose:
- It does not prove causation. A model update or new third-party content can move the same number. The comparison tells you what changed. It does not prove you caused it.
- If nothing moved, the report says nothing moved. No chart gets stretched to show progress.
- Third parties still write most of what gets cited. Part of the movement, up and down, sits outside anyone’s control.
The trend visual, for the designer
One panel per outcome rate (Mentioned, Recommended, Named as the best, With a purchase path). In each panel:
- Two points, one per run, connected by a straight line. Labels “corrida 1” and “corrida 2” with the run date.
- The rate above each point, the denominator printed under each point (“n = 396 respuestas”). Denominators are part of the visual, not footnotes.
- The delta labeled between the two points, in percentage points, with a plus or minus sign. Zero movement is drawn as zero.
- A fixed scale per panel, so panel heights are not stretched to exaggerate change.
- A fixed caption under every panel: “Mismo banco congelado, mismos modelos. La diferencia no prueba causalidad.”
The honest annotation is the caption. It ships with every panel, including the ones where nothing moved.
Start with the baseline, or continue it
If you have no baseline yet, the study comes first: monitoring without a frozen bank has nothing to compare.
If you already have one, ours or from another provider, monitoring starts with a conversation about the decision the numbers need to inform: is what we are doing working, and how do we know?