Quelqu'un d'autre a du mal à passer de la position 3 à la position 1 dans les réponses IA ? Qu'est-ce qui a vraiment fonctionné pour vous ?

Position 1 vs Position 3 is often NOT about what you’re doing - it’s about what you’re missing.

The gap I see most often:

Your competitor likely has something you don’t that AI systems interpret as a “definitive source” signal. This could be:

1. Wikipedia mention - Even a single sentence on a relevant Wikipedia page creates massive authority signals for ChatGPT especially
2. Industry standard setter - Are they cited as defining the category? (e.g., “Company X pioneered this approach…”)
3. Media positioning - Not just mentions, but mentions that position them as the leader

How I’d diagnose your situation:

Run the same prompt 10 times and note the exact phrasing used to describe your competitor vs you. Are they described as “leading” or “top” while you’re described as “also notable” or “another option”?

That language reveals how AI has categorized you. You need to change that categorization, not just add more content.

Am I Cited’s competitive analysis shows this positioning data clearly - you can see the context around each mention, not just whether you’re mentioned.

Been through this exact situation. Here’s what finally moved us from position 3 to position 1:

The breakthrough insight:

We weren’t competing on content quality. We were competing on perceived category leadership.

What we did:

1. Published original research - A survey with 500+ respondents that became the cited source for industry statistics. When AI systems see others citing YOUR data, you become the authority.

2. Got quoted in news articles - Not just mentioned, but actually quoted as an expert. This signals to AI that journalists consider you the go-to source.

3. Created the comparison content - We wrote the definitive “X vs Y vs Z” comparison that included ourselves. This comparison became what AI cited when answering comparison queries.

Timeline: About 4 months from starting these efforts to seeing consistent position 1 rankings.

The key wasn’t more content - it was becoming the SOURCE that other content references.

Technical angle here that people overlook:

Check how AI crawlers see your content.

I’ve seen cases where the “position 1” competitor has their key value proposition in the first 100 words of the page, while the “position 3” brand has it buried after navigation, hero images, and intro fluff.

AI systems extract content in chunks. If your most compelling answer is in chunk 3 while your competitor’s is in chunk 1, you’re starting from behind.

Quick test:

1. Disable JavaScript in your browser
2. View your page source
3. Is your main answer visible in the first rendered content?

If your key information only appears after JavaScript loads, many AI crawlers might not see it at all. That’s an instant position disadvantage.

We moved from average position 2.8 to 1.4 over 6 months. The biggest factor?

Reddit presence.

Perplexity pulls 47% of citations from Reddit. Google AI Overview heavily weights Reddit too. If your competitor is genuinely active in relevant subreddits and you’re not, that’s a massive position disadvantage.

But it has to be authentic. We didn’t spam - we had team members who actually used Reddit personally start contributing genuinely helpful answers in our industry subreddits.

After about 3 months of consistent, valuable participation, we started seeing our position improve. The AI systems recognized us as a brand that “real people recommend.”

One thing I’ve learned from tracking this obsessively:

Position stability matters as much as average position.

Some brands are position 1 in 70% of responses but position 5 in 30%. Others are consistently position 2 across 95% of responses.

The consistent position 2 is often better because AI systems see you as reliably relevant, and you’re more likely to move to position 1 through incremental improvements.

If your competitor is position 1 inconsistently, there may be specific query types where you can overtake them more easily. Am I Cited’s prompt tracking helped me identify these opportunities.

Running an agency focused on this, here’s the framework we use for position improvement:

Position 1 signals (what AI systems look for):

1. Category definition - Are you described as defining or leading the category?
2. Source of truth - Do other sources cite YOUR data/research?
3. Expert consensus - Do multiple expert sources recommend you?
4. Recency + authority - Are you both current AND established?

The position gap formula:

If you’re stuck at position 3, identify which of these four signals is weakest. That’s where to focus.

Most brands stuck at position 3 have good content but weak “source of truth” signals. They’re citing others’ data rather than being cited.

Quick win: Find the statistic or claim most commonly cited in your industry. Can you produce original research that becomes the new source for that claim?

Small brand perspective - we can’t compete on domain authority or media mentions, but we found our positioning angle:

Niche specificity.

For broad queries like “best project management tool,” we’re not even mentioned. But for specific queries like “best project management tool for remote design teams,” we’re often position 1.

We stopped trying to compete on general queries and optimized intensely for specific use cases. Our content now explicitly states “for [specific use case]” in headlines, first paragraphs, and throughout.

This didn’t improve our overall position average, but it made us position 1 for the queries that actually convert for us.

This thread is gold. Let me summarize what I’m taking away:

The position 1 vs position 3 gap isn’t about more content - it’s about:

1. Category leadership signals (Wikipedia, being quoted as expert)
2. Being the SOURCE others cite (original research, definitive comparisons)
3. Technical content positioning (answer in first 100 words)
4. Community presence (authentic Reddit participation)
5. Niche specificity (own specific queries vs competing broadly)

My immediate action plan:

1. Audit how competitor is described vs us in AI responses (using Am I Cited)
2. Check if competitor has Wikipedia mention we’re missing
3. Plan original research that can become an industry-cited source
4. Review page structure - is our value prop in the first content chunk?
5. Consider focusing on specific query variants where we can win

The insight about being a “source” rather than just having good content really clicked. We’ve been creating content that cites industry stats - we need to BE the industry stats.

Worth noting: this is very similar to the featured snippet race from 5-10 years ago.

Back then, everyone wanted position 0. The brands that won weren’t necessarily the biggest - they were the ones who structured content specifically for extraction.

Same principle applies here. AI systems are looking for content they can confidently extract and cite. Make that extraction as easy as possible:

• Clear, direct answers in the first paragraph
• Structured data that confirms what the content says
• Consistent terminology that matches how the question is asked

The brands getting position 1 have often optimized for extractability, not just authority.

One more data point: we found that position often correlates with how specifically AI describes your use case.

Position 1 brands are often described with specificity: “Brand X is ideal for enterprise teams needing…”

Position 3 brands are described generically: “Brand Y is also a good option…”

If you can influence how AI categorizes your ideal use case, you improve position for those queries. This is where product page content and customer testimonials become really important - they teach AI what specific problems you solve.