When business buyers increasingly turn to AI for early research, the first mistake many companies make is to assume the fix lies in copywriting. They refresh their homepage, tighten their value proposition and polish their positioning, but that only solves part of the problem. The deeper issue is that the buying process itself has changed: the audience is no longer just a person skimming a website, but a machine synthesising evidence on that person’s behalf.
Recent research s...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
uggests just how far this shift has gone. A 2026 survey of 770 buyers found that 91% use AI during the purchasing process, 97% trust the information it provides, and 85% say AI has altered a buying decision. Most strikingly, 94% said they would stop considering a company if AI surfaced negative information about it. In other words, brands are now being judged, and in some cases removed, before a salesperson is ever in the conversation.
That matters because AI is not functioning like a passive search engine. It is acting more like a private research analyst, drawing together reviews, case studies, ratings, analyst mentions and other signals to produce a shortlist. Another industry report found that 51% of software research now begins with an AI chatbot rather than a conventional search engine, while 69% of respondents said AI guidance led them towards a different vendor than the one they had first expected to choose. The buyer journey is becoming more self-directed, and increasingly invisible to the companies being evaluated.
This helps explain why so many businesses respond by trying to “optimise” their website. That instinct is not wrong, but it is incomplete. In generative search and AI-assisted evaluation, evidence is the entry ticket. Buyers and machines alike want proof: independent reviews, customer stories, recognised third-party validation and credible expert references. Claims that cannot be supported tend to fall away. A company may never be told explicitly that it was discounted, which makes the problem harder to spot and easier to misdiagnose.
Yet getting into the consideration set is only the first hurdle. Once several competitors have all furnished similar evidence, proof stops being a differentiator and becomes the minimum requirement. At that point, every serious contender has a stack of testimonials and a neat set of credentials. What decides the outcome is something less cosmetic and much harder to copy: the genuinely distinct reason a buyer should choose one provider over another.
This is where many brands run into trouble. Their public messaging sounds safe, polished and broadly acceptable, but also interchangeable. Certain phrases have become so common that they no longer carry meaning. “Trusted adviser” is a good example: reassuring, perhaps, but so widely used that it rarely helps a buyer distinguish one firm from the next. When AI is comparing options, sameness does not read as credibility; it reads as noise.
The brands that fare better are the ones with something defensible to say about how they work, what they know, or the outcomes they consistently deliver. That sort of difference cannot simply be invented in a branding workshop and pasted onto a homepage. It has to be rooted in reality, and it has to survive scrutiny from outside the business. A rival can copy a slogan by the end of the week. It is far harder to imitate a capability, a methodology, a specialist reputation or a pattern of outcomes that customers actually recognise.
Finding that distinction is not always straightforward. Many businesses believe they already know what sets them apart, only to discover that the story they tell internally no longer matches what the market thinks. The clearest answers usually come not from a whiteboard session, but from the language customers use when the company is not in the room to guide them.
That is why a single annual survey is no longer enough. The most useful evidence often already exists in scattered form: sales calls, win-loss notes, customer interviews, support interactions and old survey results that were filed away and forgotten. Put together, those materials reveal what buyers actually notice, what they value and which claims they believe. More importantly, they show where a business’s self-image has drifted away from its reputation.
Some of the newer data on AI-assisted buying reinforces the importance of this exercise. One analysis of Google AI Overviews, based on 139 brands after the feature’s rollout in September 2025, found that median incremental revenue and orders rose while spend stayed flat, suggesting that companies which adapted to AI-shaped search behaviour gained an advantage. The lesson is not simply that AI changes traffic patterns. It is that businesses which understand how these systems filter and frame information are better placed to win attention and, ultimately, demand.
The wider point is that brand strategy can no longer stop at the website. AI has exposed how much of B2B marketing relied on assumptions about how people researched suppliers. Those assumptions are now being tested in real time by systems that summarise, compare and exclude long before a sales team has a chance to intervene.
Companies that want to remain visible in that environment need more than sharper wording. They need evidence that can be trusted, a difference that can be defended and a clear understanding of how the market describes them when they are not present. In an AI-mediated buying journey, that is what breaks the tie.
Source: Noah Wire Services
