How to Improve AI Visibility & Track Brand Mentions & Citations with Frase
Summary
Frase published a walkthrough video and matching documentation page for its AI Visibility feature, which tracks how often a brand appears in answers from ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini. The demonstration starts on an Overview screen showing four measures: Visibility, Share of voice, Avg. position, and Sentiment. It then shows a user adding a prompt to track.
The workflow assigns each tracked prompt a buying stage and labels new prompts "Not measured yet" until data arrives. A Recommendations view turns findings into tasks. Each task names the problem and the evidence and offers steps with buttons that start the work. Filters by date, platform, and buying stage are available, and Alerts fire when a prompt gains or loses a mention. Frase advises starting with 10 to 20 prompts across all 3 buying stages, and it ties this tracking to its site audits, SEO data, and content optimization tools.
Demonstration by Frase, embedded from YouTube. AIOTruth did not reproduce the test.
Why it matters
Brand presence in AI answers is moving from a vague concern to a tracked set of measures, and the prompt is becoming the unit being measured. For a brand trying to get cited or recommended, this approach means writing down the exact questions buyers ask at each buying stage and watching whether the brand appears, where it ranks, and how it is described. Connecting those results to content and site work shows how AI visibility data can feed directly into what a team publishes next.
Source
- docs.frase.io/core-workflows/ai-visibility-and-geo the item itself, published by Frase, created by Frase
- docs.frase.io/~gitbook/site-index Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself, first party
- docs.frase.io/core-workflows/ai-visibility-and-geo.md Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself, first party
- youtube.com/watch?v=b5bqwIChM-Mwhere AIOTruth found it
What was checked
- canonical URL taken from the page itself
- read the item page (200)
- https://docs.frase.io/core-workflows/ai-visibility-and-geo: supports the item, tier 8 (Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself)
- https://docs.frase.io/~gitbook/site-index: supports the item, tier 8 (Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself)
- https://docs.frase.io/core-workflows/ai-visibility-and-geo.md: supports the item, tier 8 (Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself)
- https://docs.frase.io/~gitbook/icon?amp%3Btheme=light: does not mention the item, tier 8 (Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself)
- https://signin-next.frase.io/sign-up?client_id=client_01KD1PEA2PFC0VNVB9CFV8NG62&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fnext.frase.io%2Fapi%2Fauth%2Fcallback&authorization_session_id=01M65M3BBTSSWBWFR9EPTJDZ9K: does not mention the item, tier 8 (Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself)
Limitations
- Everything checked traces back to a single domain, so this is one party's account.
- The demonstration was not independently reproduced by AIOTruth.
AIOTruth judgment
The item rates as Emerging with a Value Score of 7.7. Relevance scores 10 because the feature measures brand mentions and citations in AI answers, which is the center of this site's coverage. Usefulness scores 8 because the walkthrough lays out a concrete, repeatable workflow from tracking a prompt to acting on a recommendation. Evidence scores 6 because every source traces back to Frase's own domain and video, so this is one party's account of its product, and AIOTruth did not reproduce the demonstration. Originality scores 5 because prompt tracking, share of voice, and sentiment are measures that several tools in this category already offer.
How this score was calculated
| Dimension | Weight | Score | What produced it |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIO relevance | 30% | 10 | ai visibility, brand mention, ai search, geo, share of voice; 5 scope question(s) matched |
| Usefulness | 30% | 8 | 2 artifact(s), 3 actionable marker(s), 1 measured figure(s) |
| Evidence | 25% | 6 | Named expert analysis, or a first-party claim about itself; 3 verified source(s) across 1 domain(s) |
| Originality | 15% | 5 | no original testing found; closest archive match 0.3 |
aioRelevance x 0.30 + usefulness x 0.30 + evidence x 0.25 + originality x 0.15. The rubric is published in full on the Editorial Method page. Scoring is deterministic: the same item scores the same on every run.
Watch the demonstration Open the source
Found something wrong here? AIOTruth corrects material errors openly. Have something we should review? Submit a find.