Loading...
Patients and healthcare professionals now ask AI assistants about conditions and treatments. We track what those assistants say about your products, find where the answers are wrong or missing, and improve the sources they rely on.
Generative engine optimization (GEO) for pharma is the work of making sure AI assistants such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google’s AI Overviews give accurate, balanced answers about your conditions and products. It means tracking those answers, finding errors and gaps, and making your approved information easier for these systems to find and use. It builds on our GEO service and pharma SEO.
The issues that come up most often when we run a prompt set for a pharma brand, the usual cause, and what we change.
| Issue | What the assistant does | Usual cause | What we change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outdated facts | Quotes an old indication, dose or label | Old pages and third-party copies rank well | Updated, dated source pages and fixes to old URLs |
| Missing from options | Lists competitors, not your product | Little public, readable treatment content | Clear, approved treatment and mechanism pages |
| No safety balance | Benefits without key risks | Safety content hard to extract | Page structure that keeps safety content near claims |
| Wrong audience | HCP detail given to patients, or the reverse | No clear split between audiences | Separate, labeled patient and HCP pages |
| Unclear sources | Cites forums or low-quality sites | Your pages hard to crawl or behind gates | Crawlable public pages and structured data |
| Mixed-up products | Confuses your brand with similar names | Weak entity signals | Consistent naming, structured data and references |
The same product is asked about in very different ways. Each audience needs its own prompt set and its own measure of a good answer.
Four areas of work. We start with what assistants get wrong, because correcting errors matters more than being mentioned.
A fixed set of patient and HCP prompts run monthly across the main assistants, scored for presence and accuracy.
Wrong, outdated or unbalanced answers logged and shared with your medical and safety teams.
Approved pages written and structured so assistants can find and quote the right information.
Crawl access, structured data and entity signals, so your approved pages are the easiest sources to use.
Five steps. The baseline takes a month. Changes to AI answers are slower and less predictable than search rankings, and we report them as they are.
With your medical and brand teams, we agree the patient and HCP questions that matter, by condition and market.
We run the prompts across the main assistants and score each answer for presence, accuracy and balance.
For wrong or missing answers, we trace the sources assistants rely on and why your pages are not among them.
Technical fixes, updated pages and new approved content, submitted through your MLR process.
The same prompts, run again, with changes in presence and accuracy reported by audience and product.
GPC was a brand-new professional certification venture with credible educational offerings but zero digital existence—no brand identity, no website, no social presence, and no community to attract and enroll candidates.
Search shows a list of pages. An assistant writes one answer, and the reader may never see where it came from. That changes what good looks like.
In search, a patient sees your page, your safety information and your brand. In an AI answer, they see a summary written by the assistant, drawn from sources you may not control.
That is why we measure accuracy as well as presence. Being mentioned in a wrong or unbalanced answer is worse than not being mentioned. We share every problem answer with your medical team, who decide what needs a response.
No one can promise what an assistant will say. We will not sell a guarantee we cannot keep.
GEO works through the sources assistants read. If your pages cannot be updated, results will be limited.
We do not create content to push off-label uses or claims your review team has not approved.
If your site cannot be crawled or ranks poorly, SEO fixes come first. AI tools rely on the same pages.
Three stages, and you can stop after any of them. Programs are quoted from the audit, based on products, audiences and markets.
Best forYou want to know what assistants say about your products today.
Best forYou want the most serious errors traced and addressed.
Best forYou want to monitor AI answers as products and guidance change.
Tell us where to look. A senior strategist will reply within one business day to scope an audit covering:
It is the practice of tracking and improving how AI assistants, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google’s AI Overviews, describe your conditions and products. For pharma, the main goal is accurate and balanced answers, with visibility second.
Because patients and healthcare professionals increasingly ask assistants about conditions and treatments. The answer they get may shape what they ask their doctor or which options they consider, and it may not include your safety information.
Not directly. No one controls what an assistant writes. What can be improved are the sources assistants rely on: your approved pages, how easy they are to find and read, and how consistent the information is across the web.
We log it, record the prompt, the answer and the date, and share it with your medical and safety teams. They decide what action is needed under your own procedures. We then work on the sources behind the answer.
SEO improves how your pages rank in search results. GEO looks at the answers AI assistants write and whether they are accurate. The two overlap, since assistants rely on many of the same pages, but GEO needs its own tracking and its own measure of success.
With a fixed set of prompts, agreed with your teams and run monthly across the main assistants. Each answer is scored for whether your product appears, whether the facts are right and whether risks are included.
It depends on the number of products, audiences, markets and languages, and how much content needs review. We start with a fixed-scope AI visibility audit and quote the program from it.
5.0
4.8
5.0