Get seen in the answers AI is writing about your category.

AI Assistant Acquisition for B2B SaaS. Three layers: understood, recommended, chosen. We measure where you appear across ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity, translate the measurement into a fix list, and run the paid pilot when it earns its way in.

Not a monitoring dashboard. A written diagnosis with a fix list. If you already have Profound or Peec AI running, we sit next to them, not in place of them.

Corpus scale. 14 audits published. 3,780+ responses classified. 200+ brands measured. Two-stage matcher plus six-code recommendation classifier.

AI Assistant Acquisition is three layers.

Be understood. Entity clarity, technical access, factual accuracy. The engines have to know who you are before they can recommend you. Most of the fixes here are boring and mechanical: schema, canonical pages, crawler eligibility, entity consistency across the web.

Be recommended. Evidence, content, corroboration, citation visibility. Being named is not the same as being the pick. In the audits we publish, the appearance leader and the recommendation leader are usually different companies. That gap is the work.

Be chosen. Paid distribution, landing pages, conversion systems. Earned visibility is a floor. When the fix list says the organic build takes 6 to 12 months, paid ChatGPT Ads become the bridge to the buyer already having the conversation.

The audit measures all three. The read fixes the first two. The pilot delivers the third.

Three products. One operator. Buy what fits.

The audit is the diagnosis. The read is the prescription. The pilot is the treatment. Enter at any step. Stop at any step.

01

The audit

Free public

A full AI visibility audit for your category, published as a case file in the research library.

  • 270 responses across three answer engines
  • Eight buyer-intent buckets scored
  • Right of reply for any named brand
See the research
03

The pilot

$4,500 30 days

A 30-day paid ChatGPT Ads test. Ad spend billed directly to your account. Written verdict on day 30.

  • Full context-hint campaign build
  • Conversions API and attribution wired
  • Daily monitoring and hint refinement
  • Verdict: SCALE, PAUSE, or EXIT
How the pilot works

Run this on category keywords and you will conclude the channel doesn’t work.

And you will be wrong.

Most agencies port keyword thinking into a semantic system. They bid category terms like “best crm,” “hubspot alternative,” “product analytics.” And they lose to the incumbents who already own that ground.

The audits measure where the AI answers have holes. Symptoms buyers describe when they don’t yet know what to buy. Those responses either name no vendor at all, or name an adjacent category. That’s empty inventory. Semantic, not lexical. That’s what we bid.

The research is not credibility decoration. It is the diagnosis. The read is where we turn it into a fix list. The pilot is where paid becomes the bridge.

The audits are the moat.

Same protocol every time: 30 buyer questions × 3 samples × 3 engines = 270 responses. New case files publish as categories are covered.

EX-01
HubSpot, in B2B SaaS growth tools

HubSpot’s pick share is 5x the nearest competitor. Salesforce is cited, not chosen.

HubSpot at 50.7% appearance and 19.3% pick share of total responses. Salesforce appears in 28.5% but is the pick in only 0.4% — 9 of 77 appearances are UNFAVORABLE. Marketo has 15 UNFAVORABLE. Clay is the outlier: 21 appearances, 90.5% recommendation-when-mentioned.

EX-02
Amplitude, PostHog, Mixpanel, in product analytics

The most-cited vendor isn’t the recommended pick.

Amplitude leads appearance (71.0%). PostHog leads pick share (28.6% vs 16.7%). Recommendation classification separates mentioned from chosen; the category story flips. PostHog’s recommendation-when-mentioned is 93.9%. Mixpanel is 60% ALTERNATIVE, third by pick share at 6.7%.

EX-03
HubSpot, in CRM

HubSpot dominates category-named queries. Salesforce takes the problem-first lane.

HubSpot appears in 78.1% of category-named responses. In problem-first, it drops to 52.4% and Salesforce becomes the top-mentioned vendor.

EX-04
HubSpot, in marketing automation

HubSpot leads both lanes, but the gap collapses in problem-first.

HubSpot at 57.8% category, 22.2% problem-first. ActiveCampaign and Customer.io close most of the distance when buyers describe symptoms instead of naming the category.

EX-05
Apollo, in sales engagement

Apollo and Outreach own the category. Loom takes problem-first.

Apollo leads category at 52.2%. In problem-first, video tools like Loom and Vidyard surface more than dedicated sales-engagement vendors when buyers describe outreach quality problems.

EX-06
Cursor, in AI coding assistants

Cursor at 30.7% pick share. Highest for any leader in the corpus.

71.5% appearance, 30.7% pick share. 41-point gap, the smallest among leaders we’ve measured. AI coding assistants is the most-consolidated category on the recommendation axis. Copilot leads problem-first at 28.6%. Two different buyers, two different winners.

EX-07
Zendesk, in customer support software

Zendesk at 64.3% appearance and 8.2% pick share. 56-point gap.

Zendesk is the reference brand for the category. The recommendation is going elsewhere. Intercom and Help Scout are named as alternatives but nobody has broken away as the pick.

EX-08
Mailchimp, in email marketing platforms

Mailchimp is the reference brand. Almost never the recommendation.

Mailchimp appears in 44.4% of AI answers. It is the pick in 1.1%. 43-point gap. Nearly every mention is an example, a comparison, or a historical footnote. The category is wide open for whoever gets picked instead.

EX-09
Snowflake, in data warehousing

Snowflake at 71.7% appearance and 3.7% pick share. Cited constantly, chosen rarely.

68-point gap between appearance and pick share. The biggest in the audited corpus. Snowflake is the incumbent citation, not the recommended answer. BigQuery and Databricks are not filling the gap either. The category recommendation is going nowhere consistent.

EX-10
Pinecone, in vector databases

Pinecone leads category. Milvus and Weaviate take problem-first.

Pinecone at 75.2% category-named, drops to 15.9% problem-first. Open-source alternatives Milvus, Weaviate, and Chroma surface more often when buyers describe RAG or embedding-storage symptoms.

EX-11
Linear, in product management tools

Linear leads category. Jira wins problem-first.

Linear at 58.1% category-named. In problem-first, incumbents Jira and ClickUp reclaim the lane. The trendy tool wins the category question and loses the pain question.

EX-14
The Hint Co., in the AEO agency category (self-audit)

The Hint Co. audits its own category. Appears in zero of ninety Claude responses.

Profound leads Anthropic Claude’s AEO-agency mindshare at 50.0% appearance. Otterly.AI at 40.0%. Peec AI at 35.6%. The Hint Co. appears zero times. Day 0 baseline. Right of reply extended to every named vendor. Re-audit in 30 days.

EX-12
Fidelity, in beginner investing education apps

Incumbents own category. Problem-first is a small, thin lane.

Fidelity leads at 48.4% category, followed by Schwab, Robinhood, and Investopedia. In problem-first, Fidelity takes 36.4% of a 22-response bucket. Small sample, partial three-engine coverage on this run.

Thirty days from tracking install to written verdict.

One operator, four phases, ad spend billed directly to your account. No retainer, no follow-on lock-in.

01

Readiness and measurement

Account setup, policy review, crawler eligibility, tracking install (pixel and Conversions API), baselines from your existing channels.

02

Strategy and creative

Context-hint research and intent mapping, campaign architecture, creative variants, landing-page recommendations.

03

Live and optimize

Campaign goes live. Daily monitoring, bid adjustments, creative rotation, hint refinement based on early signal.

04

Findings and verdict

Cut losing hints, scale winners, final creative pass, performance report, and a written recommendation.

Every pilot ends with one of three answers.

SCALE.

Evidence supports a permanent seat. Cost-per-qualified-conversion is competitive with your other channels, trending flat or improving.

PAUSE.

Signal is inconclusive. Delivery, category fit, or a single execution variable clouded the read. One adjustment, one more window.

EXIT.

The channel isn’t for you yet. We say so on the last day. No retainer pitch. Capital returned to your other channels.

Questions buyers ask first.

What is The Hint Co.?
The Hint Co. is a productized service that runs 30-day paid ChatGPT Ads pilots for B2B SaaS companies. The fee is fixed at $4,500, ad spend is billed directly to the client’s account, and the day-30 deliverable is a written verdict that resolves to one of three outcomes: SCALE, PAUSE, or EXIT.
How much does a ChatGPT Ads pilot cost?
The pilot fee is $4,500 (founding rate for the first three seats, then $7,500 standard). Ad spend runs on top of that and is billed directly to the client’s ad account with no markups and no minimums. Recommended media budget for the 30 days is $3,000 to $10,000 depending on category.
How long is the pilot?
Thirty days from tracking-install verification. Phase 1 (readiness and measurement) takes about a week, then the campaign goes live for the remaining three weeks. The written verdict lands on day 30.
What are the three verdicts?
SCALE means the evidence supports keeping ChatGPT Ads in the paid mix, with cost-per-qualified-conversion competitive with the client’s other channels. PAUSE means the signal is inconclusive and one adjustment plus one more window is warranted. EXIT means the channel isn’t for this client yet and capital returns to other channels. No retainer pitch.
What is a context hint?
Context hints are the novel targeting primitive in ChatGPT Ads. Unlike keyword targeting, hints are semantic. They let advertisers appear against symptom descriptions rather than category terms. A buyer typing “my users aren’t sticking around” can see an ad from a product analytics vendor without ever naming the category.
How is ChatGPT Ads different from Google Ads?
Google Ads matches on keywords and delivers into a search results page. ChatGPT Ads matches on the meaning of a buyer’s question and delivers into an assistant’s answer. Buyer intent tends to be higher because ChatGPT queries usually come from users already deep in a task, but category-keyword thinking often fails on ChatGPT Ads because incumbents already dominate the answers for named categories.
What kinds of businesses fit a Hint Co pilot?
SaaS, apps, and software companies with an existing paid-media spend, a clear conversion event, and willingness to fund a real test. The pilot does not fit guaranteed-ROAS seekers, restricted categories (gambling, adult, crypto, political), or businesses with no conversion tracking.
Do I keep the ad account after the pilot?
Yes. The ad account, tracking infrastructure, creative assets, and first-party data all stay with the client from day one. The Hint Co. works inside the client’s account under invited access, not around it. If the engagement ends, the client keeps everything.
Is there a retainer after the pilot?
No. The pilot is a fixed 30-day engagement with a one-time fee. Ongoing management is available only if the client elects it after the day-30 verdict. Never automatic, never opt-out.
What is the difference between the read and the pilot?
The read is diagnosis and prescription: a written document that says where you’re invisible in AI answers, which vendors are getting named instead, and what to do about it in what order. The pilot is one specific treatment. A 30-day paid ChatGPT Ads test that produces a written verdict on day 30. Roughly half of reads don’t need a pilot after them. When the fix list says closing the gap organically takes 6 to 12 months, that’s when the pilot becomes the obvious bridge.
How does the read work if you haven’t audited my category yet?
The audit runs as part of the engagement using the same protocol (30 buyer questions × 3 samples × 3 engines = 270 responses). The read then extends by one week to two weeks total, and the audit publishes as the next Hint Co. case file. The client gets first look 48 hours before the audit goes public. Same fee. No price differential for the fresh-audit path.
How much does the read cost?
The read is $1,500 for the first two founding clients, in exchange for a testimonial and permission to publish an anonymized case study. Standard rate is $3,000 after the first two. The founding rate is buying proof, not discounting: The Hint Co. needs public case studies before it can charge full rate, and the exchange is honest about what it’s for. If you can’t be one of the first two, you pay the standard rate.

A short intake. Then a call, if it fits.

Twenty minutes. If your category, budget, or timing doesn’t fit, we’ll say so on the call. No follow-up sequence.

Apply
Or email apply@itshintco.com.