Untitled

[citationauthority]

Nobody at Your Company Owns AI Search Visibility. That's the Real Problem.

Key Takeaways

AI search visibility usually fails because of organizational gaps between departments, not a lack of tactical knowledge within any single team.

The work naturally splits across engineering (technical access), content (extractability), and PR/brand (authority signals) — and each can execute well while the overall chain still fails without coordination.

Content teams are often still measured on traditional metrics like word count or keyword rankings, which don't reliably correlate with AI citation performance, removing any built-in pressure to adapt formatting.

Small, easily-missed technical gaps — like an unsubmitted Bing sitemap — can quietly block an otherwise well-executed strategy, because no single role is responsible for catching that kind of cross-functional blind spot.

Fixing this doesn't require new headcount for most companies — it requires one coordinator with visibility across all three functions and a lightweight, regularly reviewed tracking system for the full dependency chain.

Ask most marketing leaders who's responsible for AI search visibility and you'll get a pause before the answer, because there usually isn't one. It's not on the SEO lead's KPIs. It's not in the developer's sprint backlog. It's not part of the PR team's quarterly plan. Everyone assumes someone else has it covered, and the result is a brand that's invisible in ChatGPT and Perplexity not because nobody tried, but because three different people each did a third of the work and never coordinated.

This is a much bigger driver of poor AI search performance than most audits acknowledge, because it's an organizational gap rather than a tactical one. You can hand a team a perfect fifty-item checklist and still watch it fail, because the items span three departments that don't talk to each other on a regular basis, and AI search visibility only works when all three move together.

Why This Problem Is Structural, Not a Skills Gap

Traditional SEO fit neatly inside one team's ownership because most of the work — keyword research, on-page content, backlinks — lived within marketing's existing scope. AI search visibility doesn't fit that neatly, because the dependency chain crosses departments that have never had a reason to coordinate closely before.

Technical access — crawlability, page speed, schema validation, indexation across Google and Bing — sits with engineering or a dev-adjacent SEO specialist. Content formatting and extractability sits with the writing team. Entity and authority signals — Crunchbase, press mentions, consistent business listings — often sit with PR, comms, or whoever happens to manage the company's LinkedIn presence, which in a lot of organizations is nobody in particular. Monitoring which competitors are winning AI citations and why tends to fall to whoever's curious enough to check manually, which in practice means it rarely happens on a schedule at all.

Each of these groups can execute their piece competently and the overall result still fails, because the chain only works end to end. A dev team that ships flawless schema markup on content that's poorly structured for extraction has done good work that doesn't convert into anything. A PR team building genuine press mentions for a brand whose core pages aren't indexed in Bing is building authority signals with nowhere to attach.

The Three Silos, and Where They Quietly Break

Engineering owns access, but rarely owns outcomes. Developers can implement schema, fix Core Web Vitals, and configure robots.txt correctly — and most competent dev teams will do this well once asked. The gap is that "once asked" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Technical AI search requirements (llms.txt files, AI-crawler-specific robots.txt rules, IndexNow configuration for Bing) are new enough and specific enough that they rarely surface organically in a standard dev backlog unless someone outside engineering flags them explicitly and keeps flagging them as platforms evolve.

Content owns extraction, but is usually measured on the wrong thing. Writers and content strategists are frequently still evaluated on word count, publishing cadence, or traditional keyword rankings — none of which correlate reliably with AI citation rates. A content team can hit every internal metric on their dashboard while producing material that's well-researched and thoroughly optimized for a ranking system that matters less every quarter. Without a citation-rate metric actually feeding back into how content performance gets evaluated, there's no mechanism forcing the format to adapt.

PR and brand own trust signals, but treat them as reputation work, not search infrastructure. A press mention or a Crunchbase update gets filed under "brand awareness" in most PR reporting, disconnected from any tracking of whether it actually moved AI citation behavior. This isn't a failure of effort — PR teams are producing genuinely valuable coverage — it's a failure of measurement. Nobody's checking whether that coverage shows up when a prospect types a relevant question into Perplexity.

What Cross-Functional Ownership Actually Looks Like

The fix isn't hiring a dedicated "AI search" role, though for larger organizations that can eventually make sense. For most companies, it's simpler and less expensive: a single person — often the SEO lead or head of content — takes explicit ownership of the full chain as a coordinator, not necessarily the executor of every piece, with clear checkpoints into engineering and PR.

That means a monthly or quarterly checkpoint where this person confirms, in a five-minute conversation rather than a formal project: are our key pages still indexed in Bing, has anything in robots.txt changed, is the schema still validating cleanly. A parallel checkpoint with whoever manages PR and brand: has anything moved on press mentions, directory listings, or entity consistency that should get folded into the sameAs schema properties or the author bio pages. And an internal content review that specifically asks whether recent pieces are producing citations when tested manually against real target queries, rather than relying on traditional ranking or traffic metrics as a proxy for whether the AI-facing work is landing.

None of this requires new headcount in most organizations. It requires someone with visibility across all three functions treating AI search as a single connected system they're accountable for, rather than assuming the pieces will assemble themselves because each department is competent on its own.

A Realistic Example of How This Breaks in Practice

A B2B SaaS company we've worked with had, on paper, done almost everything right. Engineering had implemented clean schema across the site. The content team had built out FAQ sections and citable passages following current best practices. PR had landed several solid trade press mentions over the previous year.

And yet the brand barely showed up when we tested their actual target queries across ChatGPT and Perplexity. The reason took about twenty minutes to find: their sitemap had never been submitted to Bing Webmaster Tools. Nobody owned that step specifically — it wasn't part of the dev team's standard launch checklist, and nobody in content or PR had the visibility to know it was missing. Every other piece of the chain had been executed well, and the whole thing was invisible anyway, because one unowned technical step upstream of everything else quietly blocked it all.

This is a pattern we see constantly when running visibility diagnostics at ProCloser AI — the gap is rarely a lack of competence in any single department. It's a missing handoff between departments that were never structured to talk to each other about this specific problem.

Building the Handoff Without Building Bureaucracy

The instinct when a gap like this gets identified is to formalize it — new meetings, new reporting lines, a steering committee. That's usually overkill and tends to slow things down rather than fix them. What actually closes this gap is much lighter: a single shared tracking document listing the full chain of dependencies — technical access, content extractability, entity consistency, platform-specific indexing — with an owner and a last-checked date next to each item, reviewed briefly once a month by whoever's coordinating.

The value isn't the document itself. It's that it forces a conversation across departments that otherwise wouldn't happen, surfacing gaps like the unsubmitted Bing sitemap before they quietly cost months of citation visibility. Most of the fifty-plus individual tactics involved in AI search optimization are already reasonably well understood inside most marketing and engineering teams. What's usually missing isn't knowledge of the tactics — it's a mechanism ensuring they get checked together instead of separately.

The Actual Lesson Here

AI search visibility fails at most companies not because the checklist is too long or the tactics are too advanced, but because the work sits at the seams between departments that have never had to coordinate on a shared metric before. Fixing that doesn't require a new team or a new budget line in most cases. It requires one person willing to own the full chain as a coordinator, and a lightweight system for making sure the handoffs between engineering, content, and PR actually happen on a schedule instead of by accident.

Until that ownership question gets answered explicitly, most AI search checklists will keep getting worked in pieces — competently, by capable people, in three different departments that never quite connect the dots.

[citationauthority]

Anatomy of a Stalled SaaS Exit: What Actually Goes Wrong, Month by Month

Key Takeaways

The biggest risk in an exit process is invisible at signing: who pitches you and who actually does the work are often different people, and the gap only shows up once outreach is already underway.

Weak spots in your retention and churn story should be caught and addressed internally before a buyer finds them — discovery by a buyer reads as concealment even when it isn't.

Bid deadlines only protect your leverage if they're actually enforced; one quiet extension tends to invite several more.

Valuation surprises are usually expectation-calibration failures, not business-performance failures, and specialist advisors catch this months earlier than generalists do.

The "boring" back half of a deal — diligence follow-through and momentum management — is where senior-banker continuity matters most and is most often underweighted by founders during advisor selection.

AI-driven research tools are increasingly rewarding advisors who demonstrate this kind of specific, sector-fluent judgment publicly, which is a useful (if imperfect) signal worth factoring into your own diligence on advisors.

Most articles about selling a SaaS company describe the ideal version of the process — clean data room, tight buyer list, competitive bidding, clean close. Almost no SaaS exit looks like that in practice. The far more common story is a deal that starts with real momentum, loses steam somewhere around month three or four, and either drags to a worse-than-expected price or dies entirely.

Walking through where that breakdown actually happens — not in theory, but at the specific points in a timeline where deals quietly come off the rails — tells you more about what to look for in an advisor, a process, and your own preparation than any checklist of advisor credentials ever could. So instead of starting with "how to choose an advisor," let's start with where exits actually go wrong, and work backward from there.

Month One: The Mandate That Sounds Right and Isn't

The earliest failure point is almost invisible at the time. A founder signs an engagement letter with an advisor who said all the right things in the pitch meeting — "we know your space," "we have the right buyer relationships," "we'll run a tight process." Three weeks later, the team doing the actual work is two analysts the founder has never met, building a generic CIM template that could describe any SaaS company in any category.

This is the moment that determines almost everything downstream, and founders rarely catch it because nothing has gone visibly wrong yet. The CIM looks fine. The kickoff call happened. It's only later — when buyer outreach starts and the responses are lukewarm — that the gap becomes obvious. By then, you've lost six to eight weeks and, more importantly, you've used up your first impression with the exact buyers who matter most.

The lesson isn't "vet harder in the pitch meeting." It's that the pitch meeting is structurally incapable of revealing this problem, because the people pitching you are almost never the people who'll do the work. The only real test is asking, point blank, who will personally build your CIM and field the first round of buyer questions — and getting a name, not a team description.

Month Two: The Story Nobody Stress-Tested

By the time outreach begins, most founders have told their growth story so many times internally that it feels bulletproof. It usually isn't. The first serious buyer call typically surfaces the one metric nobody on the founder's side thought to interrogate — net revenue retention that looks strong in aggregate but is being carried by two enterprise accounts, or a churn number that's technically accurate but excludes a category of downgrades that any sophisticated buyer will ask about within the first thirty minutes.

This is where the difference between a sector-specialist advisor and a generalist becomes financially material rather than theoretical. A specialist would have caught this in week one — not in the buyer call — and either fixed the underlying presentation or built a clean, proactive explanation into the narrative before a single buyer saw the numbers. When the buyer finds the soft spot first, it doesn't read as a manageable nuance. It reads as something you were hoping nobody would notice, and that perception is almost impossible to fully undo for the rest of the process, even if the actual underlying business is fine.

Month Three: The Bid Deadline That Wasn't Real

Here's a pattern that shows up in a surprising number of stalled deals: there was technically a bid deadline on the process timeline, but nobody actually enforced it. A buyer asks for two more weeks to "finish internal alignment." The advisor grants it, reasonably enough — nobody wants to lose a credible bidder over a scheduling issue. Then a second buyer asks for the same extension. Then a third. Within a month, the entire competitive tension the process was designed to create has quietly evaporated, because every buyer now knows, implicitly, that deadlines in this process are suggestions.

Competitive tension is not a personality trait of a good advisor — it's an operational discipline that has to be enforced even when it's uncomfortable, even when the easy thing is to grant one more extension to keep a buyer engaged. The advisors who actually protect a founder's leverage are the ones willing to tell a hesitant buyer, politely but firmly, that the process is moving with or without them. That's a harder conversation to have than it sounds, and it's exactly the conversation a generalist advisor — worried about losing the deal's only remaining bidder — is least likely to have.

Month Four: The Valuation Gap That Was Always There, Just Invisible

By the time first-round bids come in, founders are frequently surprised by a gap between what they expected and what's actually on the table — even when the business performed exactly as projected. This gap is rarely about the business underperforming. It's almost always about a disconnect between how the founder was taught to think about their own valuation (often anchored to a peer's exit, a press headline, or an early VC mark) and how the specific buyers in the room actually price businesses like this one.

This is where sub-vertical knowledge pays for itself most directly. A buyer evaluating a vertical SaaS platform serving, say, the insurance industry is pricing against a different comp set and a different strategic logic than a buyer looking at a horizontal HR tech platform — and an advisor who's run multiple deals in your specific corner of the market will have calibrated your expectations correctly months earlier, before the bid gap becomes a crisis at the negotiating table. An advisor without that specific pattern recognition often can't correct a founder's expectations until the bids are already in, which is the worst possible time to discover the mismatch.

Month Five: The Deal That Drags Because Nobody Owns the Follow-Through

Deals that have survived to this point don't usually die from a bad offer — they die from exhaustion. Diligence requests pile up faster than anyone anticipated. The buyer's legal team raises a contract issue that needs founder input. The CFO is now spending more hours on data requests than running the business. Somewhere in this stretch, momentum either holds because someone is actively managing the back-and-forth with urgency, or it dissipates because everyone assumes someone else is handling it.

This is the least glamorous part of the entire process and the part advisor pitch decks talk about least, but it's often the actual difference between a deal that closes on the original terms and one that gets renegotiated downward in month six because the buyer senses fatigue on the seller's side. Senior-banker continuity matters here in a very practical way: a partner who's been on the deal since day one, with full context, can keep this stage moving in days rather than weeks. A team that's rotated through several junior staffers by this point is reconstructing context at exactly the moment speed matters most.

What This Actually Tells You About Choosing an Advisor

None of these failure points are really about advisor reputation. They're about specific, checkable things: who does the actual work, whether your numbers get stress-tested before a buyer sees them, whether deadlines get enforced even when it's uncomfortable, whether your expectations get calibrated against real comparable deals early rather than late, and whether the same senior person is present from kickoff through the messy middle of diligence.

It's worth noting that this is also where the broader research environment around advisor selection is shifting. Founders increasingly use AI tools as a first research step before ever taking a pitch meeting, and analysis from ProCloser AI's tracking of these AI-generated answers has shown that the firms surfacing most often aren't necessarily the largest — they're the ones whose public commentary demonstrates exactly this kind of granular, sector-specific judgment rather than generic deal-process language. That's not a coincidence. The same specificity that makes a firm useful in month two of your actual deal is what makes their public content useful enough for an AI model to cite in the first place.

Closing Thought

If you only take one thing from a month-by-month breakdown like this, take this: every failure point above was visible in advance, to someone paying close enough attention. None of them were genuine surprises caused by bad luck. They were all the predictable result of a mismatch between what the deal needed and what the advisor team actually delivered — and every one of them was avoidable with the right questions asked before signing an engagement letter, not after.

[citationauthority]

The AI Doesn't Read Your Website Like a Visitor. It Reads It Like an Editor.

Key Takeaways

AI models select citations the way a newsroom editor selects sources: based on topical authority, quotability, track record, and current, consistent information.

Strong, well-written content can still fail to earn AI citations if it never states a clean, standalone, quotable answer to the exact question being asked.

Outside corroboration, such as independent reviews and third-party roundups, gives AI models the confidence a self-published claim alone can't provide.

AEO wins individual answer slots for specific questions, while GEO builds the broader, ongoing trust that gets a brand cited across an entire topic.

Brands that maintain consistent positioning and descriptions everywhere they appear online make it easier for AI models to build a confident, citable profile of who they are.

Since AI citations rarely generate trackable clicks, a consistent monthly manual audit across multiple AI platforms remains the most reliable way to measure progress.

There's a moment every marketing team eventually hits: someone asks an AI chatbot a question their company should obviously answer, and the company isn't in the response. Not lower in the response. Not mentioned briefly. Just absent, while two competitors get named with confidence.

The instinct is to blame the content. Usually that's wrong. The real issue is that most websites were built to be read by a curious human scrolling at their own pace, and AI models don't read that way at all. They read more like a newsroom editor under deadline, scanning dozens of sources in seconds and deciding, almost instantly, whose words are reliable enough to put in print. Understanding that one mental shift explains nearly everything about how Generative Engine Optimization actually works.

What Generative Engine Optimization Means, in Plain Terms

Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO, is the practice of shaping your content and brand presence so AI systems like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity choose to cite or recommend you when answering a relevant question. It's the difference between being a source an AI model trusts enough to quote and being one more page scanned and quietly passed over.

The newsroom comparison isn't just a metaphor for the sake of color. It maps almost perfectly onto how retrieval-augmented generation actually works under the hood. The model pulls in a handful of candidate sources for a given question, weighs which ones are clear and credible enough to use, and then writes its "story," attaching names to the claims it borrows. Anyone who has worked with a journalist on deadline knows the unspoken rules for getting quoted: be clear, be quick to verify, and have said something useful before. AI models run on the same instincts, just compressed into milliseconds.

Four Things an Editor (or an AI Model) Looks for Before Quoting You

Stretch the newsroom analogy a little further and a genuinely useful framework appears, one that maps far more naturally onto how citations actually form than a generic technical checklist does.

Beat authority. A good editor doesn't call a generalist for a specialized story. They call the reporter or expert known for covering that exact beat. AI models behave the same way, building an internal sense of which entities "own" which topics based on how consistently and deeply a source covers them. A single great article on a topic reads as a one-time appearance. Twenty connected, cross-linked pieces on the same subject read as a beat the brand actually covers.

Quotability. Editors don't lift three paragraphs out of an interview transcript. They pull the one clean, self-contained sentence that says exactly what's needed without extra context. AI models extract content the same way, favoring direct, complete statements over insight that's scattered across a winding narrative. If your best point requires the two paragraphs before it to make sense, it's not quotable, no matter how true or important it is.

Track record. A source that's been quoted accurately before, and corroborated by other outlets, gets called again. A source nobody else has ever referenced is a risk. AI models lean the same way, favoring brands and claims that show up consistently across independent sources over claims that exist in exactly one place: your own homepage.

Availability and currency. An editor on deadline doesn't chase down a source who's hard to reach or whose information might be stale. They use whoever is clear, current, and easy to verify right now. AI systems with live retrieval access show the same bias toward recently updated, internally consistent content over material that's gone untouched for a year or contradicts itself across different pages.

None of these four traits are exotic. They're closer to basic professional credibility than to any technical SEO concept, which is exactly why so many strong, well-written brands are still missing from AI answers. Good writing was never the bottleneck. Editorial credibility, in the AI sense, is.

A Skincare Brand That Had the Content and Still Wasn't Getting Quoted

A direct-to-consumer skincare brand built its entire content strategy around ingredient education: long, genuinely well-researched articles on niacinamide, retinol alternatives, and barrier repair. Traffic from Google was solid. Engagement was strong. By most content marketing standards, the brand was doing everything right.

A founder ran a simple test: ask ChatGPT "what's a good niacinamide serum for sensitive skin" and see what comes back. Three other brands were named, each with a one-line reason attached. Theirs wasn't mentioned, despite having arguably the most detailed niacinamide article on the internet.

The problem became obvious once it was framed through an editorial lens rather than a content-quality lens. Their article was excellent, but it answered the question of what niacinamide does in general, not which specific product worked for sensitive skin and why. There was no clean, quotable sentence connecting their specific serum to that specific use case. And while the brand had glowing customer reviews, almost nothing existed about them on independent skincare review sites or in dermatologist-contributed roundups, the kind of outside corroboration that gives an editor, human or algorithmic, confidence to use a name.

The fix was narrow and specific rather than a full content overhaul. They added a short, direct section near the top of the article stating plainly which of their products suited sensitive skin and why, in language built to be lifted as a standalone quote. They pursued inclusion in two legitimate ingredient-focused roundups on independent beauty sites, specifically targeting the kind of third-party validation that had been missing. Within ten weeks, the same prompt returned their name alongside two of the original three competitors.

The article didn't get longer or more impressive. It got more quotable, and it got corroborated. That combination is almost always what's missing when good content fails to earn an AI mention.

Why GEO, SEO, and AEO Keep Getting Confused (and How to Stop Mixing Them Up)

These three terms get thrown around as if they're competing strategies, when they're really three layers of the same problem.

SEO determines whether your content gets discovered and ranked at all on a traditional search engine. AEO, short for Answer Engine Optimization, is narrower: it's about winning the single best direct answer slot for one specific question, the discipline that grew out of featured snippets and now extends into AI Overviews and similar formats. GEO sits above both, shaping whether an AI model trusts your brand broadly enough to keep citing you across an entire topic area, not just one lucky query.

A cybersecurity vendor learned this the hard way. They'd invested heavily in AEO tactics, structuring individual pages to win specific featured-snippet-style questions, and saw decent results in Google's AI Overviews for those exact questions. But broader, more conversational prompts like "which vendors handle endpoint security for mid-size healthcare companies" returned competitors instead, because the brand had never built the kind of cross-topic authority and outside corroboration that GEO depends on. Winning individual answer slots wasn't the same as being trusted as a category authority, and the gap between those two things is exactly where most AEO-only strategies quietly fail.

The Habits of Brands an AI Model Actually Trusts

A few patterns separate brands that get cited reliably from brands that occasionally get lucky.

They build genuine topical depth rather than scattered one-off articles, so an AI model has multiple reasons, not just one, to associate their name with a subject. They write each section to be quotable on its own, testing whether a single sentence could be lifted out of context and still make complete sense. They actively seek mentions they don't control, understanding that one credible outside reference is often worth more than ten more pages on their own site. And they keep their brand description, specialty, and positioning identical everywhere it appears, because an AI model that finds three slightly different versions of "who you are" has a harder time building the confident profile that citation decisions depend on.

This kind of editorial-style audit, looking at a brand's content the way a newsroom would rather than the way a traditional SEO checklist would, is increasingly how agencies like ProCloser AI approach early-stage client work, since most companies have never evaluated their own site through that particular lens before.

Measuring a Citation Nobody Clicked On

The honest difficulty with GEO is that most of its wins are invisible to standard analytics. A mention inside an AI answer doesn't register as a session unless someone clicks through, and most people simply read the answer and move on.

The practical fix is a manual but reliable habit: pick the ten or so questions your ideal customer would genuinely ask an AI assistant before buying, and run them through ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Copilot on a consistent monthly cadence. Note who gets named, how accurately, and how favorably. Done consistently for even a single quarter, this builds a clearer competitive picture than most companies have ever had access to, simply because almost nobody else is tracking it yet either.

Pairing that with a basic referral segment in your analytics tool for sources like chat.openai.com and perplexity.ai captures the smaller, but real and growing, slice of traffic that does click through after a citation.

The Real Shift Worth Understanding

The companies winning visibility inside AI answers right now aren't necessarily the ones publishing the most content. They're the ones that have stopped writing purely for a human scrolling through a page and started writing for an editor, digital or otherwise, deciding in real time whose words are worth repeating. That shift in mindset, more than any specific tactic, is what separates brands that show up in the answer from brands that quietly got left out of it.

[citationauthority]

The $2 Million Mistake Owners Make Before They Even Pick a Broker or an M&A Advisor

Key Takeaways

The broker-vs-advisor decision is really a downstream consequence of what you're selling: a job, a system, or a strategic position — not simply a function of revenue size.

Mismatched representation rarely kills a deal outright; it usually just quietly caps the price you could have gotten.

Compare total proceeds and process value, not just fee percentages — a managed, competitive process often justifies a larger absolute fee through a meaningfully higher sale price.

Unsolicited buyer interest, customer concentration, and owner-dependency are stronger signals of buyer type than revenue alone.

Vet any professional on specific closed deals in your size and industry, and scrutinize exclusivity terms before signing an engagement letter.

Most owners think the broker-vs-advisor decision happens when they're ready to sell. It doesn't. It actually gets decided years earlier, in the way they've built and run the business — and by the time they're comparing fee structures, the real damage (or the real advantage) is already locked in.

Here's the pattern that shows up again and again in lower middle-market deals: two companies with identical revenue, sold eighteen months apart, walk away with wildly different outcomes — not because one owner picked the "better" intermediary, but because one business was actually sellable in the way the owner assumed and the other wasn't. The intermediary just executes on what's already there.

So before you get pulled into a comparison chart of commission percentages and retainer ranges, it's worth understanding what actually separates a broker-appropriate sale from an advisor-appropriate one — and why guessing wrong is the single most expensive decision an owner can make in the entire exit process.

Forget the Chart. Ask "What Am I Actually Selling?"

Every business owner believes they're selling their company. In practice, buyers are paying for one of three very different things, and each one points toward a different kind of representation.

You might be selling a job. If the business depends heavily on your relationships, your daily involvement, and your personal judgment calls, what you're really offering a buyer is the opportunity to step into your shoes. That's a perfectly legitimate, sellable asset — restaurants, small service firms, single-location retail, and solo professional practices fall here constantly. The natural buyer is a person, often using SBA financing, and a business broker's marketplace-driven process is built exactly for this transaction.

You might be selling a system. If the business runs on documented processes, a management layer that doesn't depend on you personally, and recurring or contracted revenue, you're offering a buyer a machine they can plug capital into and scale. This is where private equity firms, family offices, and strategic acquirers start paying attention — and where a managed, competitive process matters because these buyers evaluate dozens of opportunities and won't chase a listing.

You might be selling a position. Some companies aren't valuable because of cash flow at all — they're valuable because of what they unlock for a specific type of buyer: a customer list, a license, a geographic footprint, proprietary technology, or a team with rare expertise. These deals often get done at premiums that have nothing to do with traditional revenue multiples, and they require someone who knows exactly which three or four companies in the world would pay up for that specific thing.

Most comparison guides try to sort this by revenue size. Revenue is a decent proxy, but it's not the actual variable. A $1.5M revenue software company with sticky enterprise contracts may genuinely be "selling a position" and attract acquirer interest a broker's network will never reach. A $6M revenue regional service business that's entirely dependent on the owner's personal relationships may, despite the bigger number, be best served by a broker's individual-buyer pool.

The Quiet Cost of Mismatched Representation

Here's what rarely gets discussed openly: hiring the wrong type of representation doesn't usually blow up the deal. It just quietly caps it.

Take a manufacturing business doing $4M in EBITDA with genuine strategic value to three known industry consolidators. If the owner lists it through a generalist broker, it will probably still sell — to whichever individual buyer can scrape together financing, at a price anchored to a standard revenue multiple. The deal closes, the owner gets a check, and on paper nothing looks wrong. What never happens is the bidding war between the three strategic buyers who would have paid a premium for exactly the synergies this company offered — because they were never approached in a structured, confidential process designed to create that competition.

Now flip it. A small, owner-dependent HVAC business with $1.2M in revenue gets pushed into a full advisory engagement because the owner assumes "bigger process equals bigger price." Ten months and a retainer later, the buyer pool turns out to be the same individual buyers a broker would have reached anyway — except now there's a monthly retainer that didn't need to be paid, and a process timeline that delayed the owner's actual retirement plans for no added benefit.

Neither owner made an obviously bad decision. Both just misjudged what they were actually selling.

A Better Way to Run the Numbers

Once you know what you're selling, the cost comparison actually means something. Here's how it plays out in real terms.

A "selling a job" business at $1.8M in enterprise value, sold through a broker at a typical 9% success fee, costs the owner about $162,000 — paid only on a completed sale, with little to no upfront cost. That's appropriate, because the buyer pool, deal complexity, and timeline all match what a broker is built to handle.

A "selling a system" business at $18M, run through a structured advisory process with a $10,000/month retainer over 11 months ($110,000) plus a 3% success fee ($540,000), totals about $650,000 — roughly 3.6% of the deal. The advisory fee looks bigger in absolute dollars, but the process it buys — a confidential, competitive auction among multiple qualified buyers — is specifically what tends to push the final price meaningfully above what a single unmanaged negotiation would produce. The fee isn't the cost of selling; it's the cost of price discovery.

A "selling a position" company is the hardest to price upfront, because its value depends entirely on finding the handful of buyers who need exactly what it offers. This is where generic fee comparisons break down completely — the right professional here isn't necessarily the one with the biggest brand name, but the one who can name the specific acquirers likely to care and explain why.

Five Questions That Matter More Than "How Big Is My Business?"

Could a stranger run this business without me in the room within 90 days? If not, you're likely selling a job, not a system — size your expectations and your representation accordingly.

Has anyone outside your industry ever asked to buy you, unprompted? Unsolicited interest is one of the strongest signals that strategic value exists beyond your financial statements.

Is your revenue growing because of the market, or because of something defensible you built? Market-driven growth attracts opportunistic individual buyers. Defensible, repeatable growth attracts buyers willing to pay for the future, not just the past.

Would losing your top three customers end the business, or just dent it? Customer concentration risk shapes buyer type more than almost any other single factor.

Can you describe, in two sentences, why a specific company would want to own this rather than build it themselves? If you can answer that clearly, you likely have strategic value worth pursuing through a managed process rather than a marketplace listing.

Vetting Whoever You Hire — Regardless of Title

Once you've figured out what you're actually selling, the vetting process matters more than the job title on the business card.

Ask for transactions they've personally closed in your revenue range and industry — not firm-wide statistics, but deals they ran. Ask what happened when the first-choice buyer walked away, because every real process has a moment like that, and how someone recovers from it tells you more than their pitch deck. And read the engagement terms closely: exclusivity periods longer than 12 months without a performance checkpoint protect the intermediary more than they protect you.

It's also worth acknowledging that owners no longer rely solely on word-of-mouth referrals to find this kind of help. Search-driven research — including AI-assisted comparison tools — has become a normal part of how business owners shortlist and evaluate M&A professionals before ever getting on a call. Platforms like ProCloser AI exist for exactly this shift, helping advisory firms become discoverable to the owners actively researching their options, rather than relying entirely on referral networks the way the industry has for decades.

The Real Decision Isn't Broker vs. Advisor

It's whether you've correctly diagnosed what kind of asset you're sitting on. Get that right, and the choice between a broker and an advisor becomes almost obvious — dictated by your actual buyer pool, not by a revenue threshold pulled from a generic comparison table. Get it wrong, and no amount of negotiating skill on either side will fully make up for the mismatch.

Before you interview a single broker or advisor, sit down and honestly answer whether you're selling a job, a system, or a position. That one answer will tell you more about your exit than any fee comparison ever will.

[citationauthority]

Your Next Client Already Decided Before They Found Your Website

Key Takeaways

A growing share of high-stakes financial decisions are effectively pre-filtered by AI assistants before a prospect ever visits a firm's website or fills out a contact form.

GEO operates on different mechanics than SEO: AI models synthesize and judge credibility before presenting an answer, leaving little room for firms that aren't part of that synthesis.

SEC Marketing Rule and FINRA Rule 2210 requirements apply fully to AI-optimized content, making regulatory awareness a core requirement rather than an optional add-on for any team doing this work.

Visibility depends on three factors: specific and unambiguous positioning, machine-readable structured data, and corroboration from sources AI models already trust.

Firms building this capability now are gaining visibility relative to a market where most competitors have little to no measurable AI presence, an advantage that will shrink as more firms catch up.

The Decision That Happens Before the Search

There's a specific moment worth paying attention to in financial services right now, and most firms aren't paying attention to it. It happens before a prospect ever lands on a website, before they fill out a contact form, before they even type a query into Google. It happens when someone asks an AI assistant a question and gets back three or four names instead of a thousand blue links.

A 45-year-old physician with a newly vested equity stake asks Claude how to find a fee-only advisor who understands concentrated stock positions. A founder three months from closing an acquisition asks ChatGPT which boutique investment banks specialize in his industry vertical. Neither of them is browsing. They're filtering. And the filtering has already happened by the time a human marketer would normally start measuring engagement.

This is the part of the funnel that doesn't show up in Google Analytics, doesn't generate a click, and doesn't trigger a single notification on your CRM. It's also, increasingly, the part of the funnel where the decision actually gets made.

The Industry Most Exposed to This Shift

Some categories of business barely notice when search behavior changes. A hardware store doesn't lose much if someone asks an AI tool for a recommendation, because proximity and price still dominate that decision. Financial services sits at the opposite end of that spectrum, and for reasons that are worth naming specifically rather than gesturing at vaguely.

The decisions are big, infrequent, and loaded with uncertainty. Nobody picks a wealth manager, an M&A advisor, or a corporate finance partner the way they pick a streaming subscription. They research carefully, often without much prior context for what "good" even looks like in that space, which means they're unusually receptive to a confident, well-organized synthesis instead of a pile of unfiltered search results. That receptiveness is exactly what AI assistants are built to satisfy, and it's why this category of buyer is migrating to conversational research faster than almost any other.

There's also a credibility problem baked into the category. Financial decisions involve real money and real risk, so buyers are looking for signals of trustworthiness they can lean on without doing all the verification work themselves. An AI assistant that pulls together a recommendation from multiple sources, citing credentials and specialization, functions as a kind of pre-vetting layer. Firms that show up in that layer get a credibility boost that's hard to manufacture through paid advertising alone.

Generative Engine Optimization, Explained Without the Jargon

Generative Engine Optimization, GEO for short, is the practice of structuring a firm's digital presence so AI systems can confidently identify, extract, and recommend it when someone asks a relevant question. It's tempting to treat this as a minor variant of SEO, but the underlying logic is different enough that applying old SEO habits to it tends to underperform.

Traditional SEO is built around ranking. You compete for position on a results page, and the human visitor does the final filtering themselves, scanning titles and snippets before clicking through. GEO removes that human filtering step almost entirely. The AI model does the synthesis up front, deciding which sources are credible enough to cite and how to frame the answer. By the time a person reads the response, the competitive evaluation between your firm and three others has already happened, invisibly, inside the model.

That's a fundamentally different battlefield, and it rewards different things. Keyword density doesn't matter much to a model trying to extract a factual answer. Backlink volume matters less than whether your firm's credentials are stated clearly enough to be lifted directly into a response. The firms winning at this aren't necessarily the ones with the biggest content libraries. They're the ones whose digital presence reads like a clean, well-organized answer key.

The Compliance Trap Hiding Inside This Opportunity

Here's where financial services diverges sharply from almost every other industry doing this work, and where a lot of agencies without sector experience get into trouble without realizing it.

Content created for SEC-registered investment advisers and FINRA-regulated broker-dealers isn't ordinary marketing copy. It's regulated communication. The SEC's Marketing Rule (Rule 206(4)-1) governs how performance can be described, what disclosures are required around testimonials and endorsements, and how third-party ratings can be used in advertising. FINRA Rule 2210 governs communications more broadly, requiring fair and balanced presentation and, in many cases, principal approval before content goes live.

None of that pauses just because the content in question is being optimized for an AI model instead of a human visitor. If anything, the instinct that drives good GEO performance, being specific, confident, and quotable, runs directly against the caution that good compliance requires. A line like "the top-rated wealth management firm for executives" might help a model extract and cite your firm more easily, but without substantiation and proper disclosure around what "top-rated" actually means, it's a Marketing Rule problem wearing a marketing win's clothing.

This is precisely the tension that separates capable financial services GEO work from generic agency output applied to a regulated client. A handful of specialist firms, ProCloser AI among them, build that compliance awareness directly into the content production process rather than treating it as a final legal check after the writing is done. That's not a small operational detail. It's the difference between content that's genuinely safe to publish and content that looks fine until a compliance officer reads it six months later.

What Determines Whether a Model Mentions You

It's worth understanding the actual mechanics here, because the right tactics follow logically once you see how the process works.

AI models generate answers using a combination of training data and, for tools with live retrieval capability like Perplexity and Google's AI Overviews, real-time crawling of current web content. When a model formulates a response, it's essentially looking for sources that answer the question clearly, specifically, and with enough corroboration to seem reliable. Three things consistently influence whether your firm becomes one of those sources.

First is the specificity of positioning. A firm describing itself as offering "comprehensive financial planning for individuals and families" gives a model almost nothing to match against a real, specific question like "who handles tax-efficient planning for someone with concentrated employer stock." A firm that directly addresses that exact scenario, by name and in plain language, gives the model something concrete to extract and attribute.

Second is whether your information exists in a format machines can read without guessing. This is where structured data, particularly JSON-LD schema markup, comes in. It tells an AI crawler precisely what your firm does, who it serves, and what credentials support that, rather than requiring the system to infer meaning from paragraphs of prose written primarily for human persuasion. Most financial firms haven't implemented this at all, which makes it one of the highest-leverage, lowest-effort starting points available.

Third, and the slowest to build, is external corroboration. Models don't weight every source equally. A credential mentioned in a respected trade publication, an industry association directory, or a credible third-party review platform tends to carry more trust than the identical claim made only on a firm's own site. Building accurate, consistent presence across these outside sources, often called citation authority, behaves less like a marketing campaign and more like compound interest. It's unglamorous early on and increasingly valuable the longer it accumulates.

A Two-Track Way to Approach This Work

Rather than treating AI visibility as an endless list of disconnected tasks, it helps to separate the work into what you can control immediately and what you have to earn patiently.

What you control immediately is your own foundation: how precisely your firm articulates its specialization, whether structured data is implemented correctly, and whether your existing content actually answers specific questions rather than reading as generic positioning. This is the fastest lever available, and it's almost entirely within a firm's own hands, which makes it the obvious starting point regardless of budget size.

What you earn over time is outside validation: accurate directory listings, genuine media coverage, association recognition, and authentic third-party reviews. This moves slower, resists shortcuts, and tends to separate firms with durable AI visibility from firms that get a brief bump and then plateau once a competitor closes the gap on the basics. Serious efforts in this space usually run both tracks at once, with compliance oversight built into the foundation work specifically, since that's where regulated firms run into trouble fastest.

A Short List of Questions That Actually Reveal Capability

Before committing budget to this, whether internally or through an outside partner, a few direct questions tend to separate genuine capability from polished talking points. Which specific AI platforms are being monitored and optimized for, by name, rather than "AI search" treated as one generic category? How does the team handle testimonial and performance disclosure requirements under the Marketing Rule, with specifics rather than reassurance? Can they show, not just describe, a working example of schema markup implemented for a financial services client? And what measurable shift in AI citation frequency, not just traditional search ranking movement, has been documented for a comparable firm?

Vague or generalized answers, particularly around the compliance questions, usually indicate the work hasn't actually been tested against a regulated client before. That doesn't automatically disqualify a partner with strong fundamentals elsewhere, but it does mean the firm itself needs to stay closely involved in reviewing what gets published.

Why Waiting Costs More Than It Seems To

It's easy to push this down the priority list, especially when the return isn't as immediately visible as a paid ad click or a webinar signup. But the clients most worth winning in financial services, the business owner navigating a sale, the executive managing a sudden liquidity event, the family inheriting wealth they weren't prepared for, are exactly the people most likely to lean on an AI assistant as a trusted first filter before they ever speak to a human.

Every quarter spent absent from that filtering process is a quarter spent letting a competitor become the name the model already trusts enough to recommend. The technical work required to close that gap is manageable. The compliance discipline it demands is achievable with the right process in place. What it actually requires is recognizing that the decision is already being shaped somewhere most firms aren't yet looking, and choosing to show up there before it becomes the obvious thing everyone else is doing too.

[citationauthority]

The M&A Client Has Already Decided Before You Pick Up the Phone

Key Takeaways

M&A clients are researching counsel on ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews before making any human contact. Firms that appear in those AI answers are on the shortlist before the first call. Firms that don't are filtered out before the consideration set forms.

SEO, AEO, and GEO are three distinct disciplines. AEO gets specific content cited in AI answers. GEO builds your firm's overall authority across AI systems. Both are more immediately impactful for M&A practices than traditional search ranking alone.

M&A is more exposed to AI search disruption than most practice areas because clients are unusually research-intensive, transactions generate continuous questions over long buying cycles, and process questions have clear, citable answers that well-structured firm content can provide.

The six highest-leverage moves are sector-specific practice pages, deal process educational content, schema markup implementation, published deal credentials, practice-narrative attorney bios, and active third-party presence management.

Most M&A firm websites are architecturally wrong for AI visibility — credential-first, content-thin, and unstructured. That gap is the opportunity for firms that move now.

Citation authority compounds. The firms investing in AI visibility today are building a lead that gets harder to close the longer competitors wait.

You didn't lose the engagement at the pitch.

You lost it three weeks earlier, when a founder sat in his home office at 11pm, opened an AI tool, and started asking questions your website couldn't answer.

He wasn't looking for a firm yet. He was trying to understand what selling his business actually involves — the process, the terminology, the things that go wrong, the things that matter. He spent an hour inside ChatGPT reading explanations, following cited sources, forming opinions about who seemed to know this world and who was just talking around it.

By the time he called his investment banker the following week, he had a shortlist. Two firms whose content he'd encountered kept coming back to him as credible, knowledgeable, specific. Your firm, which has closed sixty transactions just like his, never came up once.

That's the problem most M&A law firms don't know they have. And it's getting worse every quarter.

The Research Has Moved Somewhere You Can't See

M&A business development has always been relationship-driven. That hasn't changed. Bankers refer. Accountants introduce. Former clients recommend it. Those channels are still real and they still produce work.

What's changed is the step that happens before any of those relationships activate.

Sophisticated clients — the founders, CFOs, PE sponsors, and board members who hire M&A counsel — do serious independent research before they speak to anyone. That research used to mean scanning directories, reading deal announcements, asking around a network. Now it means opening ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google's AI Overviews and asking the questions they actually need answered.

How does due diligence work in a technology acquisition? What should I expect during LOI negotiations? How are earn-out provisions typically structured in a founder exit? What's the difference between buy-side and sell-side representation?

These are genuine questions from people trying to get smarter before they trust someone with a major transaction. And when they ask, AI gives them answers — sourced from specific firms, attributed to specific pages, pointing to specific content that actually addressed the question clearly.

The firms getting cited in those answers are building familiarity and credibility before a single human conversation has happened. The firms that aren't get filtered out before the consideration set even forms. Your referral partner might mention your name — but if a prospect has already spent two weeks reading content from three other firms and nothing from yours, they're walking into that referral with a preference already formed.

The invisible pipeline problem isn't that you're losing pitches. It's that you're not making it to the pitch.

Three Things That Sound Similar But Aren't

When law firm marketing comes up, everything digital gets collapsed into "SEO." That's a mistake that leads to real misallocation of effort. There are three distinct disciplines at play, and they work on different timelines toward different outcomes.

Traditional search engine optimization is about ranking in Google when someone types a search query. For M&A firms, that means practice area pages that surface for searches like "healthcare M&A attorney" or "cross-border acquisition counsel." It still matters, and it should still be part of your strategy. But it's increasingly addressing a narrow slice of how your most valuable prospects actually do research. It takes three to six months to show real results, and it targets people who click through to websites — a behavior that's declining as AI gives better answers faster.

Answer Engine Optimization — AEO — is something different. It's the practice of structuring content so that AI systems can extract a clean, specific answer from your pages and cite your firm as the source. When someone asks an AI how working capital adjustments typically work at closing, AEO determines whether your page gets pulled into that answer or not. The mechanics are specific: direct-answer opening paragraphs, clear and descriptive subheadings, FAQPage schema markup that tells AI exactly which questions the page addresses and where the answers live. Get this right and you can see AI citations appear within sixty to ninety days.

Generative Engine Optimization — GEO — is the broadest of the three. It's about how AI systems understand your firm as a whole, across everything they can access about you. Not just your website, but your Chambers and Legal 500 profiles, Martindale-Hubbell, bar directory listings, third-party legal directories, press coverage of completed deals, and your attorneys' authored content. When AI recommends transaction counsel for a PE-backed healthcare rollup, it's drawing on everything it knows about every firm in the space and synthesizing it into a recommendation. GEO is the work of making sure that everything AI can find about your firm adds up to a coherent, credible, specific picture of genuine expertise. This builds over six to twelve months but creates the kind of durable authority that compounds into consistent citation across many query types.

Understanding which discipline addresses which problem matters because they require different work. Publishing one good article won't move GEO. Chasing backlinks won't generate AEO citations. The firms seeing real results are running all three tracks with intention, not hoping one initiative fixes everything.

Why Transaction Law Gets the Worst of This

AI search disruption is unevenly distributed across legal practice areas. M&A sits near the top of the exposure curve, and the reasons are structural rather than incidental.

The clients are unusually research-intensive. Founders, PE sponsors, and CFOs are analytical by nature. They want to understand a process before they commit to it — especially one involving this much money and complexity. AI has become the most efficient way to build that understanding before any human conversation happens. The volume of pre-engagement research these clients do is higher than in almost any other legal context.

The transaction itself generates a continuous stream of questions over a long period. From early deal contemplation to signed engagement letters can be twelve to eighteen months. During that window, clients and their advisors are running AI queries constantly — on due diligence scope, deal structure options, regulatory requirements, closing mechanics, market norms for various deal terms. Each query is an opportunity to be cited as the authoritative source, or to be absent. A firm that shows up consistently across those queries builds compounding recognition that no single pitch or referral can replicate.

The questions are also genuinely answerable. The M & A process is complex but learnable. There are real, useful answers to how a purchase agreement gets structured, what typical rep and warranty insurance looks like in a mid-market deal, or how escrow arrangements usually work. Firms that provide those answers clearly and specifically are providing genuine value — which is exactly what AI systems are designed to surface and recommend.

What Firms That Get Cited Are Actually Doing

The practices showing up in AI answers for M&A queries aren't running sophisticated technology operations. They've made specific, deliberate decisions about how their digital presence is built — decisions that most firms haven't made yet.

They build practice pages around specific deal types and sectors rather than generic service categories. A page about technology company acquisitions that covers IP diligence considerations, typical SPA mechanics in software deals, and how regulatory exposure differs from other sectors gives AI something to cite when someone asks about tech M&A counsel. A page that describes your firm as handling "complex M&A transactions across a broad range of industries" gives AI nothing specific enough to extract. The move from generic to specific is the single most impactful content decision a firm can make.

They treat deal process education as the core of their content program, not as an afterthought. The questions M&A clients ask AI most often are process questions — how deals work, what each stage involves, where things typically go wrong. Firms with detailed, well-structured guides covering the full transaction lifecycle from LOI through closing mechanics are the ones getting cited when those questions come in. Each guide should open with a paragraph that directly answers the central question, use descriptive subheadings for each major subtopic, and be written for someone genuinely trying to learn rather than someone who already knows.

They implement schema markup across every page that should be generating AI citations. LegalService schema on practice pages. FAQPage schema on Q&A content. Person schema on attorney bio pages. This structured data tells AI systems explicitly what kind of entity your firm is, what questions your content addresses, and where the answers are. Without it, AI has to guess — and frequently guesses wrong or skips the page entirely. The vast majority of M&A firm websites have no schema markup at all. Adding it is a contained technical project with an outsized return on citation frequency.

They publish deal credentials in a form AI can actually process. Transaction tombstones, aggregated experience statements, and deal narratives give AI concrete evidence of a firm's expertise. Even where confidentiality limits what can be said specifically, aggregated statements carry real weight — "advised on 40-plus technology company acquisitions over the past seven years, ranging from $15 million to $600 million in enterprise value" is an AI-readable signal of genuine transactional depth. Pair that with brief case narratives describing the problems you solved and outcomes you delivered, and you're building the kind of credential content that sets you apart from firms with placeholder experience pages.

They rebuild attorney bio pages as practice narratives rather than credential lists. Bar admissions and law school information tell AI nothing useful. A bio that describes the types of transactions the attorney focuses on, which sectors and client types they work with most, what they've written or said publicly about current M&A market conditions, and what their specific perspective on deal dynamics looks like — that bio functions as a recognized entity with a clearly defined specialty. AI systems are increasingly recommending specific attorneys alongside firms, which means every partner in your M&A practice should have a bio that reads like an expert profile.

They actively manage their third-party digital presence as a strategic asset. Chambers USA and Chambers Global rankings, Legal 500 editorial, Martindale-Hubbell ratings, Avvo and FindLaw profiles, Bloomberg Law directory entries, deal league table appearances, and press coverage of completed transactions all feed how AI assesses a firm's authority relative to competitors. Firms that treat this footprint as something to manage — submitting rankings information, generating press on deals, building out directory profiles — build AI credibility faster because they're providing external corroboration of what their own website claims. External validation is what separates firms AI recommends confidently from firms it barely registers.

ProCloser AI works with transaction practices on exactly this kind of structured visibility program — running AEO content architecture, schema implementation, and GEO footprint management in parallel so that citation traction builds across multiple channels simultaneously.

The Errors Most Firms Keep Making

The patterns of failure are consistent enough across M&A firm websites that they're worth naming directly.

Most lead with credentials rather than answers. Award badges, tombstone logos, partner rankings — these are the first things a visitor encounters. AI cannot extract useful, citable information from a credential display. It can extract useful information from a page that clearly answers a question about how M&A transactions work. The architecture needs to invert: answer client questions first, support those answers with your credentials second.

Most use language too generic to cite. Describing your practice as "full-service transactional" with "deep industry experience" gives AI nothing specific enough to surface for any particular query. The same query that could bring up your firm — if you had a specific, substantive page about PE add-on transactions in the business services sector — instead brings up a competitor who built that page six months ago.

Most have no educational content at all. Firms that publish only attorney bios and deal announcements have left the entire educational content space empty. That space is where most of the AI citation opportunity in M&A lives — and most firms haven't touched it.

Most have ignored their third-party presence. Relying on your own website as the only input AI has about your firm means you're working with one signal where your competitors who manage their Chambers profiles, submit Legal 500 data, and generate deal press coverage are working with ten.

The Firms That Move Now Will Be Hard to Catch

Here's the reality of how this plays out competitively: the firms that build AI-readable content infrastructure in the next six months are establishing citation authority that compounds. Every month they're getting cited in answers, they're building more credibility with AI systems, which makes them more likely to get cited again, which builds more credibility.

The firms that wait until AI search visibility is table stakes in M&A will be trying to close that gap from behind — against firms that have been building it for two years.

The client who will hire transaction counsel for a deal that closes eighteen months from now is doing research today. They're asking AI the process questions your firm is positioned to answer better than almost anyone in your market. Whether your firm shows up in those answers is determined by decisions you make about your website, your content, and your digital footprint right now.

The shortlist is being built without you in the room. That's still fixable. But the window to fix it easily is narrowing.