Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
As more and more American voters ask chatbots about candidates before casting ballots, political campaigns are pouring resources into a new battleground: getting artificial intelligence (AI) to list them first when answering “who performs best on issues like taxes, housing and public safety.” Several companies offering such services to campaigns disclosed that fees range from a few hundred dollars a month to $50,000 a month, with success fees of up to $200,000 for “winning the category.”
The practice is known as Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), seen as the successor to search engine optimization (SEO) in the AI era. A presentation prepared for Mike Minogue, a Republican candidate for governor in Massachusetts, shows that the strategy recommends his campaign create hundreds of “AI-friendly” policy pages and citations on websites frequently cited by chatbots, track how mainstream chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini answer political questions, and then systematically revise content until the answers reflect the candidate’s platform.
The document was written by Austin, Texas-based Visigent. CEO Thomas Howell said six campaigns are among its clients but declined to identify them. Minogue’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Howell said Visigent’s website lists software services at $134 a month, with large clients needing editorial design and development services paying up to $9,000 a month. In the political space, fees start at $5,000 a month; paid media placements, purchased placement slots or influencer tie-ins can push the monthly fee to $50,000. He expects prices to rise as the 2028 presidential cycle unfolds after the midterms. The presentation shows a success fee of up to $200,000 for “winning the category.”
The core logic of the strategy: beyond persuading voters directly, campaigns can shape the information environment by “feeding” the internet and AI assistants, thereby influencing how AI describes, compares and recommends candidates. The presentation states explicitly that campaigns must now compete to become “the recommended object in AI answers,” and proposes buying placements on high-authority websites already cited by AI models while producing YouTube and Reddit content—on the grounds that Reddit carries “disproportionately high” weight in retrieval.
CampSight, aimed at progressive candidates, takes a low-cost approach. Operated by the Run for Something Action Fund, the platform says it has helped younger candidates run for offices from school boards to state legislatures. It charges campaigns $9 to $250 a month, providing information on how large language models evaluate them and advice on influencing those models; state and federal races use “customized” pricing with a dedicated “strategist.” Amanda Litman, who heads the action fund, said in a social media post that dozens of campaigns have used CampSight, with more than 300 candidates and organizations on the waiting list.
The anxiety among campaigns is not unfounded. Cameron Hickey, CEO of the National Conference on Citizenship, said about 25% of eligible voters have asked chatbots for information about political candidates when deciding how to vote. Howell put it bluntly: “If you don’t put the right message out there, who knows what the AI will pick up.”
Pricing and positioning vary markedly among providers:
Note: Fee data comes from company disclosures and presentations prepared for campaigns.
Industry participants believe the practice is moving from fringe experiment to norm. Joe Bonilla, managing partner at New York creative strategy firm Relentless Awareness, said: “Campaigns using AI influence training are now the reality we face, and by the 2028 cycle, which includes the presidential election, this will be everywhere.” He added that the public is increasingly unlikely—and unable—to distinguish content generated by systems such as Claude and ChatGPT from content produced by humans.
Concerns persist. Meg Schwenzfeier of Caucus AI, which tracks voters’ AI use, said: “We are at the beginning of this new era. This year’s focus has been on candidates making sure their websites show up in chatbot results.” But she warned, “Chatbots speak very authoritatively and absorb a lot of unverified information, so we must guard against misinformation.”
Some industry players believe the risks are overstated. Jordan Haines, chief technology officer of Run for Something, told Reuters that when the organization launched its program last summer, it monitored Reddit comments appearing in AI answers the next day; but “this year, that deep fear really didn’t materialize. I think large language models have become quite savvy at distinguishing accurate and credible information from untrustworthy information.”
From a commercial standpoint, GEO service fees are tied to “AI recommendation share”—the frequency with which chatbots mention a candidate in responses. That means campaign spending metrics are shifting from click-through rates and impressions to “number of times mentioned by AI,” and an emerging services market around AI answer share has taken shape. For investors, whether such demand can settle into stable software subscription revenue or remains pulse-like purchasing tied to election cycles will determine the valuation logic for the providers involved. And on the campaign finance regulatory front, there is no clear answer yet on whether paying to influence AI output will be brought under existing advertising disclosure rules.
The news and data on this website are for reference only and do not constitute investment advice or an offer to buy or sell. Information is sourced from exchanges and public sources, and may be delayed, interrupted, or updated. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee timeliness, correctness, or completeness. Content may include external links for which we are not responsible. By using this site, you agree that we and our partners are not liable for any losses. Investment carries full responsibility; please carefully assess risks and consult professionals. If there are errors in the content, please contact us for correction.
