The front page carries the most consequential findings. Category tabs above hold the full record.
Sixteen funeral homes scored 0–100 on how visible they are to ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI. Regional average: 61.4. Three-quarters present machine-readability barriers; 88% publish nothing for Hindu or Buddhist families in one of America's most diverse metros. The region's #1 position is genuinely unclaimed.
The AI-visibility market sells two products: work, and dashboards about work. An evidence-based buyer's guide — what the peer-reviewed data supports, the spending patterns that waste money, and the five questions that expose a vendor in minutes.
Neutral market survey — every price verified on the vendor's live page this month.
BriefingThe 2026 adoption evidence: 45% now ask AI for local recommendations, up from 6% in one year.
BriefingWork vs. dashboards about work; five questions that expose a vendor.
Field Guide16 funeral homes scored; average 61.4/100; the top spot unclaimed.
Metro IndexThe three levers that determine whether AI names you, with the peer-reviewed numbers behind each.
Field GuideTwo randomized experiments currently collecting data — full results and the complete measurement history publish when they conclude, hit or miss.
Live ExperimentCity-by-city, vertical-by-vertical scoring of how visible local businesses are to AI engines. Built from public sources; every business can claim and improve its listing.
16 funeral homes scored 0–100 across review signals, machine-readability, directory presence, editorial placements, and cultural-services content. Average 61.4; range 36–83.
Metro IndexFurther metros and verticals publish here as scoring completes. Businesses in a published index can claim their listing at any time.
Evidence-based guidance for business owners. Every recommendation traces to a named study or our own published measurement.
The two-products frame, the evidence, and the five vendor-exposing questions.
Field GuidePresence in cited sources · machine-readable pages · corroborated facts — with the data behind each lever.
Field GuideThe ASN Trial Registry. We do not publish claims we have not tested. Every experiment is registered here before its results exist — design frozen at registration, controls held back, results published when each trial concludes including null results. "Registered" refers to this public, timestamped registry maintained by ASN; no external body is implied.
Randomized stepped-wedge: do answer-first pages with FAQ/HowTo structure raise appearance-rate on treated queries versus held-back controls? 7–10 samples per prompt per engine, confidence intervals, query-level inference. Status: baseline complete · intervention applied Jul 23 · post-measurement window ahead. Outcome measure: appearance-rate delta (treatment vs control), reported with confidence intervals — never revenue claims.
Registered TrialDo weekly refreshes (visible update date + new sourced material) raise appearance-rate versus matched pages held static? Tests the industry's ~3× freshness correlation causally, at small honest scale. Status: baseline banking. Same outcome standard as Trial 1.
Registered TrialWe test our own methods on ourselves in registered, controlled experiments — full results, with the complete measurement history from day one, publish here when each trial concludes. In either direction.
Standing CommitmentBeyond visibility: what we're learning about AI adoption, the tools economy, and marketing science — published as it firms up. Everything ASN researches lands on this page, whatever the topic.
45% of consumers now ask AI for local recommendations, up from 6% in one year (BrightLocal 2026); ~60% of searches end without a click (Bain); AI-referred visitors convert 54% better (Adobe). Every figure sourced inline.
BriefingA neutral market survey of the trackers, auto-content tools, and agencies — every price verified on the vendor's live pricing page this month, from $29/mo trackers to $12,000/mo agency programs.
BriefingThe standards every ASN research publication follows.