Be worth citing. How? What’s the benchmark?

By Lou O’Reilly
Founder, O’Reilly & Co

Everyone is trying to work out how to show up in the right places.
In search. In media. In the answers people are getting from their AI pals.

Lately, mostly in the answers people are getting from their AI pals actually, because that’s the shiny new thing. Also because you have to earn it, no amount of flashing cash directly at the AI overlords will get you showing up on people’s ChatGPT. So when we do achieve that rare spotlight, it gives us a wee validation cuddle that we’re doing something right.

Like lots of other tactics under the comms umbrella, getting cited on AI platforms is not a walk in the park. But it can be when you ask yourself:

Why would anyone want to reference you in the first place?

The golden road to success with AI citation is about being worth citing.

So what does that actually mean?

Not in theory - we can talk all day about that. I mean, in practice.

You’re worth citing if someone can take what you’ve said and use it somewhere else.

In an article.
In a report.
In an answer.
In a conversation.

And most content we’re all guilty of publishing just doesn’t hold up to that standard.

Here’s a simple way to test it

Have you said something specific?

If your content is full of general waffly statements, no one cares.

If someone can’t lift a line from it and use it somewhere else, it’s pretty forgettable.

Have you added anything new?

Rewriting what already exists isn’t a contribution. Your take on a take written already by a cast of thousands, isn’t new.

Original data, lived experience, or a clear explanation of something messy will always contribute better than a slightly nicer version of what’s already out there.

Is there a real person behind it?

“We believe” probs won’t cut it. But an actual named person, with a role and a reason to be speaking, does.

Has anyone else backed you?

This isn’t just for AI, but credibility builds when it’s not just you saying it.

Being quoted, referenced, or linked to matters. Even just the once.

It’s how authority starts to build and compound. And authority is one of those missing pieces.

Is there depth behind it?

We can’t be the one and done crowd. One good piece isn’t enough. There’s gotta be a bit more, otherwise it’s a bit of a let-down, eh.

If someone finds you and marvels at your stuff, they are going to look for a bit more. Same with AI, friends.

It’s not that the content is inherently bad; it just isn’t saying anything new, no one backs it, and so there’s no reason to come back to it.

And so it doesn’t get referenced or used - not by journalists, not by search, and certainly not by AI.

This world is competitive. It always has been, but the benchmark is even higher now.

There’s more content being produced and shared than ever, and most of it sounds the same.

So the bar isn’t “is this good enough to publish” anymore, it should be “is this useful enough to be used”

So let’s chill a little on the content sausage factory approach, don’t worry about better formatting or chasing algorithms.

Just be worth citing.