Launching today
Your customers ask AI before they ask Google, and most brands have no idea whether they show up or lose to a competitor. Every other tool hands you a visibility score and stops there. Scribble does the whole loop: audit where you're invisible across every AI engine, create content that closes the gap, and amplify it through 50,000 creators who only get paid when AI cites them. A gap report won't win customers. Being the cited answer will.
Scribble Network
Hey Product Hunt Fam!
I'm Kaavya, co-founder of Scribble Network. I've been a marketer and community builder for as long as I can remember, and have been deep in the GEO rabbit hole for a while now.
Two shifts got us here:
Creator and UGC budgets are eating into platform ad spend.
AI search loves to cite UGC when it builds an answer.
Which raised a question we couldn't drop:
Could money spent on creators actually move a brand's AI search visibility?
We tested it.
We were best suited to do this, because we started Scribble two years ago as a UGC platform with 50,000+ creators and over 100 campaigns run.
So we plugged that platform and creators into a homemade AI visibility intelligence tool and ran it on one client across 25 queries.
The tool generated content topics and gaps that the creators then made authentic content about on surfaces LLMs could read.
They were at around 2% aggregate visibility across the top 5 models. The market leader on the same queries was at 58%. Three months of steady UGC on the surfaces LLMs actually read, and that client now sits at roughly 25%.
That's when it clicked.
Every AI visibility tool out there could tell us we were invisible and where the answers came from. None could get us cited.
That's a distribution problem, but almost every AI Search product was treating it like a visibility problem
So we built the thing nobody else has: the first AI Search tool married to a creator platform.
We don't just measure your AI visibility, we fix it.
Our product attributes each brand mention back to the exact creator post that earned it.
And the platform now pays creators when they get cited. Creators love this.
This is our edge. We came at this from distribution and not measurement.
We never asked 'how do we track this?', we asked 'how do we actually get brands cited?'
The answer to this already lives in Scribble; try it on your own brand and tell me what you find.
Honest feedback wanted.
My co-founders and I are here all day answering everything.
PicWish
@kaavya_prasad interesting approach with the creator bounties!
a question. how do you prevent attribution messiness if multiple creators write about the same query and both get cited?
Scribble Network
@mohsinproduct There is no attribution messiness. Let's take this case. 2 creators are cited for one answer. It's never for the same section. Article one would have been used for one point and article 2 would be used to make another one. We have seen different sections in an answer get cited from the same piece also. The attribution is down to the last word with Scribble and we haven't experienced messiness yet.
Definitely looks like a useful resource for GEO, which is a market that lacks maturity compared to SEO and is crying out for orgs/products that help and give a boost to small startups. I find the pricing page slightly confusing because the headline pricing doesn't suggest any content generation for the insight plan but, scrolling down, it seems you get 10 pages of creator sourced LLM pages. This feels worth promoting in the headlines? Unless it's not as beneficial as it sounds. One other query. You say Claude is coming soon, but only for the Custom plan. Would it not be possible to select the four you want to be tracked? Perhaps swap Perplexity out for Claude etc. All in all, this is definitely a product I will consider using. Congratulations.
Scribble Network
@martin_tanner You're absolutely right - our pricing page definitely needs work. The insight plan has content via creators, and it's damn useful. It ensures that the website gets cited at least, if not mentioned. With regard to swapping LLMs that are important to you - defnitely on the roadmap. This needs a bit of engineering on our end. Also, Claude has been tricky to serve on insight, but nothing our engineering overlords can't fix. Really thoughtful questions and we will report back to you soon with both these fixed!
How does the creator payout system actually work? Do the 50,000 creators pick which brands to cite, or do you assign them briefs, and what stops them from just gaming AI citations to chase the payout?
Scribble Network
@znuranbarlr0wv Good question! So creators don't pick brands themselves; we find the queries where a brand is losing to competitors, turn those into bounties, and creators opt into the ones they want to write for. Usually around 100- 300 creators per campaign out of the 50k.
On payouts: creators aren't paid for publishing, or even for a single citation. Their piece has to show up as a source in the AI answer more than three times in a week before it pays. One-off appearances don't count.
On gaming, honest answer: we can't stop people from trying, and we don't have to. The LLM labs are the ones fighting astroturfing, and they're better at it than we'd ever be. We literally watch it fail every day, people copy-paste ChatGPT answers back out as content, word for word, and it never gets cited. What actually gets picked up, consistently, is genuine opinion from real people who've actually used the thing.
That's the whole reason our model works, we're not gaming the engines; we're feeding them the one thing they're actively looking for, which is authentic human content.
Happy to go deeper on any of it!
Interesting concept! One question that came to mind - how do you ensure the quality and authenticity of the content? If an author has never actually used the product, they're essentially writing promotional material about something they have no real experience with. Isn't there a risk that AI ends up recommending brands based on just technically well-written texts?
Scribble Network
@julia_shtogren Really fair question! And honestly, it does happen now, and then, someone writes a technically clean piece about something they've never touched but that content doesn't last.
The engines recycle their sources constantly, and pieces that haven't been lived, just fall out on refresh. What sticks is content with real experience in it, because that's literally what the models are hunting for when they cite UGC over brand pages in the first place.
It's also why bounties are opt-in, not assigned. The ones who don't get cited maybe once, and since payment only kicks in after a piece holds as a source three times in a row, un-lived content basically doesn't pay.
So yeah, the risk you're describing is real, but the engines and our inbuilt economics both punish it.
ran it on my own site and the gap report actually flagged two prompts where competitors were getting cited instead of me, which was a bit of a gut punch but useful. the creator amplification angle is interesting too, hadn't seen that tied into AI visibility before.
Scribble Network
@halimepolatcan Ha, the gut punch is the point 😅 better to know than to guess! And yes, tying creators into visibility is the whole bet, the gap report tells you where you're losing, the creators are how you actually take the spot back. Thanks for running it and sharing!
The full loop approach actually clicked for me, I ran the audit on a small client site and the content suggestions lined up with the gaps it flagged instead of feeling generic. Really curious how the creator amplifier piece works in practice.
Scribble Network
@erafettinsabee This is so good to hear, thank you for actually running it! 🙏
We turn the gaps the audit flagged into bounties, creators from the network opt in and write for those exact queries, and the product tracks which piece gets cited, by which model. Then creators get paid when their piece holds as a source.
Let me know if you want ot chat about running a camapign with us.
Love the shift from just measuring AI visibility to actually helping brands become the cited answer.👏🏻
The creator network is an interesting approach too. Curious, how do you measure whether a piece of content is genuinely influencing AI citations over time rather than just improving traditional SEO metrics?
Scribble Network
@worksforme Love this question. We don't infer from SEO metrics at all, we query the models directly. For every tracked query, we fetch the live AI answers across all five engines and log which sources each one actually used, over time. So "influence" isn't proxied through rankings or traffic, it's observed: this post was a source in this answer, on this date, and held (or fell out) on refresh. Google rankings can improve without a single AI citation moving, and vice versa, which is exactly why we track them separately.
@kaavya_prasad That's a really smart distinction. I like that you're tracking actual citations in live AI responses instead of using SEO as a proxy. It makes a lot more sense given how differently LLMs retrieve information. Thanks for explaining....it'll be interesting to see how those citation patterns evolve as the models continue to change. 👏
Scribble Network
@worksforme 100%! The models will keep changing, but trusting external content isn't going anywhere, how it's weighted will and that's something we'll keep iterating on.