From guardrails to governance: A CEO’s guide for securing agentic systems

The previous article in this series, “Rules fail at the prompt, succeed at the boundary,” focused on the first AI-orchestrated espionage campaign and the failure of prompt-level control. This article is the prescription. The question every CEO is now getting from their board is some version of: What do we do about agent risk?

Across recent AI security guidance from standards bodies, regulators, and major providers, a simple idea keeps repeating: treat agents like powerful, semi-autonomous users, and enforce rules at the boundaries where they touch identity, tools, data, and outputs.

The following is an actionable eight-step plan one can ask teams to implement and report against:  

Eight controls, three pillars: govern agentic systems at the boundary. Source: Protegrity

Constrain capabilities

These steps help define identity and limit capabilities.

1. Identity and scope: Make agents real users with narrow jobs

Today, agents run under vague, over-privileged service identities. The fix is straightforward: treat each agent as a non-human principal with the same discipline applied to employees.

Every agent should run as the requesting user in the correct tenant, with permissions constrained to that user’s role and geography. Prohibit cross-tenant on-behalf-of shortcuts. Anything high-impact should require explicit human approval with a recorded rationale. That is how Google’s Secure AI Framework (SAIF) and NIST AI’s access-control guidance are meant to be applied in practice.

The CEO question: Can we show, today, a list of our agents and exactly what each is allowed to do?

2. Tooling control: Pin, approve, and bound what agents can use

The Anthropic espionage framework worked because the attackers could wire Claude into a flexible suite of tools (e.g., scanners, exploit frameworks, data parsers) through Model Context Protocol, and those tools weren’t pinned or policy-gated.

The defense is to treat toolchains like a supply chain:

  • Pin versions of remote tool servers.
  • Require approvals for adding new tools, scopes, or data sources.
  • Forbid automatic tool-chaining unless a policy explicitly allows it.

This is exactly what OWASP flags under excessive agency and what it recommends protecting against. Under the EU AI Act, designing for such cyber-resilience and misuse resistance is part of the Article 15 obligation to ensure robustness and cybersecurity.

The CEO question: Who signs off when an agent gains a new tool or a broader scope? How does one know?

3. Permissions by design: Bind tools to tasks, not to models

A common anti-pattern is to give the model a long-lived credential and hope prompts keep it polite. SAIF and NIST argue the opposite: credentials and scopes should be bound to tools and tasks, rotated regularly, and auditable. Agents then request narrowly scoped capabilities through those tools.

In practice, that looks like: “finance-ops-agent may read, but not write, certain ledgers without CFO approval.”

The CEO question: Can we revoke a specific capability from an agent without re-architecting the whole system?

Control data and behavior

These steps gate inputs, outputs, and constrain behavior.

4. Inputs, memory, and RAG: Treat external content as hostile until proven otherwise

Most agent incidents start with sneaky data: a poisoned web page, PDF, email, or repository that smuggles adversarial instructions into the system. OWASP’s prompt-injection cheat sheet and OpenAI’s own guidance both insist on strict separation of system instructions from user content and on treating unvetted retrieval sources as untrusted.

Operationally, gate before anything enters retrieval or long-term memory: new sources are reviewed, tagged, and onboarded; persistent memory is disabled when untrusted context is present; provenance is attached to each chunk.

The CEO question: Can we enumerate every external content source our agents learn from, and who approved them?

5. Output handling and rendering: Nothing executes “just because the model said so”

In the Anthropic case, AI-generated exploit code and credential dumps flowed straight into action. Any output that can cause a side effect needs a validator between the agent and the real world. OWASP’s insecure output handling category is explicit on this point, as are browser security best practices around origin boundaries.

The CEO question: Where, in our architecture, are agent outputs assessed before they run or ship to customers?

6. Data privacy at runtime: Protect the data first, then the model

Protect the data such that there is nothing dangerous to reveal by default. NIST and SAIF both lean toward “secure-by-default” designs where sensitive values are tokenized or masked and only re-hydrated for authorized users and use cases.

In agentic systems, that means policy-controlled detokenization at the output boundary and logging every reveal. If an agent is fully compromised, the blast radius is bounded by what the policy lets it see.

This is where the AI stack intersects not just with the EU AI Act but with GDPR and sector-specific regimes. The EU AI Act expects providers and deployers to manage AI-specific risk; runtime tokenization and policy-gated reveal are strong evidence that one is actively controlling those risks in production.

The CEO question: When our agents touch regulated data, is that protection enforced by architecture or by promises?

Prove governance and resilience

For the final steps, it’s important to show controls work and keep working.

7. Continuous evaluation: Don’t ship a one-time test, ship a test harness

Anthropic’s research about sleeper agents should eliminate all fantasies about single test dreams and show how critical continuous evaluation is. This means instrumenting agents with deep observability, regularly red teaming with adversarial test suites, and backing everything with robust logging and evidence, so failures become both regression tests and enforceable policy updates.

The CEO question: Who works to break our agents every week, and how do their findings change policy?

 8. Governance, inventory, and audit: Keep score in one place

AI security frameworks emphasize inventory and evidence: enterprises must know which models, prompts, tools, datasets, and vector stores they have, who owns them, and what decisions were taken about risk.

For agents, that means a living catalog and unified logs:

  • Which agents exist, on which platforms
  • What scopes, tools, and data each is allowed
  • Every approval, detokenization, and high-impact action, with who approved it and when

The CEO question: If asked how an agent made a specific decision, could we reconstruct the chain?

And don’t forget the system-level threat model: assume the threat actor GTG-1002 is already in your enterprise. To complete enterprise preparedness, zoom out and consider the MITRE ATLAS product, which exists precisely because adversaries attack systems, not models. Anthropic provides a case study of a state-based threat actor (GTG-1002) doing exactly that with an agentic framework.

Taken together, these controls do not make agents magically safe. They do something more familiar and more reliable: they put AI, its access, and actions back inside the same security frame used for any powerful user or system.

For boards and CEOs, the question is no longer “Do we have good AI guardrails?” It’s: Can we answer the CEO questions above with evidence, not assurances?

This content was produced by Protegrity. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

New Ecommerce Tools: February 4, 2026

Every week we publish a rundown of new services for ecommerce merchants. This installment includes rollouts for website builders, B2B and B2C commerce platforms, shipping, buy-now pay-later, checkout integrations, and agentic commerce.

Got an ecommerce product release? Email updates@practicalecommerce.com.

New Tools for Merchants

Cartpanda unveils all-in-one commerce platform. Cartpanda has launched an ecommerce platform for creators, brands, and affiliate-driven businesses operating at scale. According to the company, the platform combines transactions, payments, and operations into a single system. Cartpanda also operates a curated marketplace to facilitate partnerships between operators and affiliates.

Home page of Cartpanda

Cartpanda

FedEx enhances post-purchase tools for enterprises. FedEx has announced improved tracking and returns capabilities called Tracking+ and Returns+. Shippers can embed the tools into their owned digital channels. Key AI capabilities include automated responses to common delivery and returns questions, performance insights across tracking and returns, pattern and anomaly detection in delivery and returns data, and automated returns policy and experience adjustments using merchant-defined rules and workflows. FedEx says it provides the capabilities in collaboration with parcelLab.

USPS launches delivered duty paid. The U.S. Postal Service has launched an international service called USPS Delivered Duty Paid, enabling senders to prepay import duties, taxes, and fees in accordance with the destination country’s requirements. Senders can purchase USPS DDP as an extra service when sending goods (i) via Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International, and First-Class Package International Service, (ii) at a retail service counter, (iii) online using Click-N-Ship, (iv) through USPS APIs, or (v) using USPS’s global shipping software.

Klarna backs Google’s Universal Commerce Protocol for agentic commerce. Klarna, a buy-now-pay-later service, is joining Google’s Universal Commerce Protocol, an open standard that helps AI agents and commerce systems work together across the shopping lifecycle. UCP enables consumers to shop in AI conversations while giving agents, merchant systems, and payment providers a standardized way to interact across multiple AI platforms. The announcement builds on Klarna’s recent support for Google’s Agent Payments Protocol.

Home page of Klarna

Klarna

BigCommerce expands Stripe integration for optimized checkout. Commerce, the parent company of BigCommerce, has expanded its partnership with Stripe. The upgraded integration gives BigCommerce merchants access to Stripe’s Optimized Checkout Suite, including local and alternative payment methods such as Link, buy-now pay-later, and regional options. The integration also allows merchants to access Stripe’s fraud prevention tools. Merchants can upgrade an existing Stripe integration directly from the BigCommerce dashboard.

Runner AI launches self-optimizing ecommerce engine. Runner AI has unveiled an ecommerce engine that autonomously tests, learns, and optimizes conversion rates. The new engine combines conversational storefront generation with a self-optimizing backend that runs continuous A/B tests on layouts, copy, and user flows. Store owners can test any feature (e.g., reviews, pop-ups, upsells, content) simply by asking, per Runner AI.

Klaviyo introduces a ChatGPT app. Klaviyo has launched an app for ChatGPT, helping marketers leverage Klaviyo data directly inside a conversational AI environment. With the app, ChatGPT users (i) ask in plain language how campaigns and flows are performing, (ii) view real Klaviyo data returned as interactive cards and tables, (iii) click into deep-dive analytics for any campaign or flow, and (iv) get insights and recommended next steps. Klaviyo says its users can soon execute campaigns directly from ChatGPT.

Home page of Klaviyo

Klaviyo

Acoustic lifecycle marketing integrates with ecommerce platforms. Acoustic, a lifecycle marketing platform, has announced native integrations with Shopify, WooCommerce, and BigCommerce. Acoustic says the integrations provide real-time, enterprise-scale ingestion of product catalogs, customer profiles, order events, and behavioral signals, giving ecommerce and retail marketers a continuously updated view of every customer interaction. Marketers can see the moment intent appears and act on those signals through Acoustic.

Bolt selects Affirm as its default BNPL provider. Bolt, a financial technology platform for one-click checkout, has partnered with Affirm as its default buy-now pay-later provider. The partnership will roll out to select merchants starting this month. Bolt will integrate Affirm into its one-click checkout alongside card payments for both logged-in and guest shoppers, without requiring additional integration work from merchants.

PressMeGPT launches WordPress AI website builder and theme generator. PressMeGPT, a provider of AI tools for WordPress users, has launched its AI WordPress Theme Generator & Website Builder for creating custom themes from natural language descriptions. Key features include multiple theme variations, mobile-first output, stock photography from Unsplash, Gutenberg block and full site editor compatibility, Google Fonts support, Fontawesome and Lucide React compatibility for icons, one-click export and installation, and more.

Home page of PressMeGPT

PressMeGPT

Mastercard launches Agent Suite for enterprises. Mastercard has announced services scheduled for Q2 2026 to help businesses integrate agentic AI into their daily operations. Mastercard Agent Suite will combine technical support with customizable AI agents, leveraging the company’s payments expertise, technology platforms, and 4,000 global advisors. Merchants can configure rules for inventory, margins, promotions, and brand voice through an agent that provides conversational guidance at key moments in the shopping journey across channels.

Moglix launches Cognilix, an AI operating system for B2B. Moglix, an India-based seller of industrial tools and equipment, has announced the launch of Cognilix, an AI operating system for B2B procurement. The Cognilix platform enables enterprises to automate buying through AI workflows covering digital catalogues, request-for-quote comparisons, supplier onboarding, compliance, competitive e-auctions, and inventory forecasting informed by historical usage and lead times. It also enables B2B selling through digital storefronts and marketplaces with integrated order management, payments, logistics, and real-time inventory visibility.

ThriveCart introduces a card-linked alternative to BNPL. ThriveCart, a no-code sales and payments platform, has launched ThrivePay Installments, which combine pre-authorized credit card limits with payments over 3, 6, or 12 months. Merchants receive the full amount upfront.

Home page of ThrivePay Installments

ThrivePay Installments

Google’s Mueller Calls Markdown-For-Bots Idea ‘A Stupid Idea’ via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Some developers have been experimenting with bot-specific Markdown delivery as a way to reduce token usage for AI crawlers.

Google Search Advocate John Mueller pushed back on the idea of serving raw Markdown files to LLM crawlers, raising technical concerns on Reddit and calling the concept “a stupid idea” on Bluesky.

What’s Happening

A developer posted on r/TechSEO, describing plans to use Next.js middleware to detect AI user agents such as GPTBot and ClaudeBot. When those bots hit a page, the middleware intercepts the request and serves a raw Markdown file instead of the full React/HTML payload.

The developer claimed early benchmarks showed a 95% reduction in token usage per page, which they argued should increase the site’s ingestion capacity for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) bots.

Mueller responded with a series of questions.

“Are you sure they can even recognize MD on a website as anything other than a text file? Can they parse & follow the links? What will happen to your site’s internal linking, header, footer, sidebar, navigation? It’s one thing to give it a MD file manually, it seems very different to serve it a text file when they’re looking for a HTML page.”

On Bluesky, Mueller was more direct. Responding to technical SEO consultant Jono Alderson, who argued that flattening pages into Markdown strips out meaning and structure,

Mueller wrote:

“Converting pages to markdown is such a stupid idea. Did you know LLMs can read images? WHY NOT TURN YOUR WHOLE SITE INTO AN IMAGE?”

Alderson argued that collapsing a page into Markdown removes important context and structure, and framed Markdown-fetching as a convenience play rather than a lasting strategy.

Other voices in the Reddit thread echoed the concerns. One commenter questioned whether the effort could limit crawling rather than enhance it. They noted that there’s no evidence that LLMs are trained to favor documents that are less resource-intensive to parse.

The original poster defended the theory, arguing LLMs are better at parsing Markdown than HTML because they’re heavily trained on code repositories. That claim is untested.

Why This Matters

Mueller has been consistent on this. In a previous exchange, he responded to a question from Lily Rayabout creating separate Markdown or JSON pages for LLMs. His position then was the same. He said to focus on clean HTML and structured data rather than building bot-only content copies.

That response followed SE Ranking’s analysis of 300,000 domains, which found no connection between having an llms.txt file and how often a domain gets cited in LLM answers. Additionally, Mueller has compared llms.txt to the keywords meta tag, a format major platforms haven’t documented as something they use for ranking or citations.

So far, public platform documentation hasn’t shown that bot-only formats, such as Markdown versions of pages, improve ranking or citations. Mueller raised the same objections across multiple discussions, and SE Ranking’s data found nothing to suggest otherwise.

Looking Ahead

Until an AI platform publishes a spec requesting Markdown versions of web pages, the best practice remains as it is. Keep HTML clean, reduce unnecessary JavaScript that blocks content parsing, and use structured data where platforms have documented schemas.

The Real SEO Skill No One Teaches: Problem Deduction via @sejournal, @billhunt

Most SEO failures are not optimization failures. They are reasoning failures that occur before optimization even begins.

In enterprise SEO escalations, the pattern is remarkably consistent. Teams jump straight to causes, debate theories, and assign blame before anyone clearly articulates the actual problem they are trying to understand.

Once blame enters the conversation, problem definition disappears. Teams shift into CYA mode, and without a shared understanding of the problem, every proposed fix becomes guesswork.

The Failure Pattern Everyone Recognizes

If you’ve worked in enterprise SEO long enough, you’ve seen this meeting.

A stakeholder raises an issue. Google is showing the wrong title or site name. Search visibility dropped. A location isn’t represented correctly. The room doesn’t go quiet. It fills with explanations.

Someone points to a lack of internal links. Another suggests Google rewrote the titles. Yet another CMS defect is mentioned. A recent Google update is blamed. Someone inevitably asks whether hreflang is broken.

Each explanation sounds plausible in isolation. Each reflects real experience. But none of them is grounded in a clearly stated problem.

Everyone is trying to be helpful. No one has actually said what outcome the system produced.

SEO discussions often collapse not because teams lack expertise, but because they skip the most important step: precisely describing the system outcome they are trying to explain.

Meeting Two: Activity Without Clarity

What usually follows is a second meeting. On the surface, it feels productive.

Teams arrive having done work. The CMS has been reviewed. A detailed technical SEO audit is complete. Google update trackers and industry forums have been checked for similar impacts, along with LinkedIn commentary. Multiple diagnostic tools have been run.

There is evidence of many man-hours of activity presented. There are screenshots of issues and non-issues, and it all looks like progress toward a resolution. In reality, it is often a misdirected effort.

If the original problem was vague or incorrectly framed, all of that analysis is aimed at the wrong target. Only later does the realization set in. While the audits detected issues, they are not related to this problem.

Time and attention were spent validating assumptions instead of diagnosing system behavior.

That’s not an execution failure. It’s a problem definition failure.

Why SEO Conversations Go Off The Rails

That failure isn’t accidental. It’s structural, and SEO is uniquely exposed to it.

I have often been critical, stating that the search industry lacks root cause analysis. That’s true, but it’s not because teams aren’t trying. There is no shortage of audits, checklists, or prescriptive processes when a traffic drop or SERP anomaly appears. The problem is that those tools narrow thinking rather than clarify it. They push teams toward doing something before anyone has agreed on what actually happened.

In many SEO conversations, signals are treated as probabilistic guesses rather than observed outcomes. Rankings fluctuate, a listing looks different, traffic dips, and the discussion quickly drifts toward familiar explanations. Google must have changed something. A ranking factor shifted. An update rolled out.

What gets missed is far more mundane and far more common. Control is spread across teams. Changes are made inside one department and are never communicated to another. Content, templates, navigation, schema, analytics, and infrastructure evolve independently. Cause and effect don’t move in straight lines, and no single team sees the whole system.

When no one clearly states the outcome the system produced, the group defaults to what feels responsible: activity.

Root cause analysis turns into a checklist exercise. Teams start debating causes before agreeing on the outcome itself. Meetings fill with effort, artifacts, and action items, but clarity never quite arrives.

Systems, however, don’t respond to effort. They respond to inputs.

The Missing Skill: Problem Deduction

The most important SEO skill isn’t keyword research, schema, technical audits, GEO, or any other optimization acronym that happens to be in fashion. Those are all processes and tools. Useful ones. But they only matter after the real work has been done. That work is problem deduction.

Problem deduction is the discipline of slowing the conversation down long enough to understand what the system actually produced, not what the team expected it to produce. It requires stepping outside of assumptions, resisting familiar explanations, and describing the outcome in neutral terms before trying to fix anything.

Only then does real analysis begin. Teams can reason backward through the signals that contributed to the outcome, distinguish between inputs they can change and constraints they inherited, and act without blame or superstition driving the discussion.

In practice, problem deduction means the ability to:

  • Observe a system outcome without bias, focusing on what the system produced rather than what was intended.
  • Describe that outcome precisely and neutrally, without embedding assumptions about cause.
  • Reason backward through contributing signals, identifying which inputs could plausibly influence the result.
  • Separate fixable inputs from historical constraints, so effort is spent where it can actually matter.
  • Act without blame or superstition, keeping decisions grounded in evidence rather than instinct.

This doesn’t replace technical SEO or root cause analysis. It makes them possible.

Problem deduction is systems thinking applied to search. And almost no one teaches it.

A Real-World Enterprise Example

Recently, I reviewed an enterprise case where a client was frustrated that Google consistently displayed a specific location as the site name, regardless of the user’s location or query intent. The conversation followed a familiar arc. At first, explanations came quickly. Someone pointed to internal linking, noting that this location had accumulated more authority over time. Others suggested Google’s automatic title rewrites were to blame. The CMS came up, along with the possibility of injected or inconsistent code. SEO implementation gaps were also mentioned. Each explanation sounded reasonable. All of them were based on real experience. But none of them described the outcome. So we stopped the discussion and reset the conversation by stating the problem plainly:

Google selected a location, not the brand name, as the site name representing the brand in search results.

That single sentence changed the tone of the room. Once the outcome was clearly defined, the reasoning became straightforward. The discussion shifted from speculation to diagnosis, and the signals that led to that result became much easier to trace.

How Google Actually Made That Decision

Google wasn’t confused. It was responding to a consistent set of reinforcing signals.

Once the outcome was clearly defined, the explanation stopped being mysterious. Several independent signals all pointed to the same conclusion, and Google simply followed the strongest, most consistent path.

1. Misapplied WebSite Schema

One issue started at the structural level. Location pages had been marked up as if each were a separate website entity, rather than reinforcing the primary brand domain. Multiple pages effectively claimed to be “the website,” diluting canonical authority and causing the schema signal to cancel itself out through duplication. Google didn’t misunderstand the markup. It received conflicting declarations and discounted them logically.

2. Title Tag Dilution

At the same time, title tags failed to reinforce a clear hierarchy. The homepage HTML title tag attempted to carry too much information at once, referencing the marketing tagline first, then the brand and first location, and finally the other locations, separated by commas, into a single tag. Instead of clarifying the relationship between the brand and locations, the structure blurred it. Google responded by favoring the location that was most consistently reinforced across signals. Google favored the most consistently reinforced location, not arbitrarily, but logically.

3. External Corroboration Bias

External signals reinforced the same outcome. Inbound links, citations, and references disproportionately pointed to a single location. From Google’s perspective, the broader web corroborated what on-site signals already suggested. One location appeared to represent the brand more clearly than the others. This wasn’t favoritism. It was corroboration.

What Could Be Easily Fixed And What Couldn’t

Once the actual problem was clearly identified, the conversation changed. The issue wasn’t that Google was behaving unpredictably. It was that something in the system was consistently telling Google to treat a single location as the site name rather than the brand itself.

With the problem framed that way, analysis became practical. Instead of debating theories, we could examine the systems that contributed to that outcome and begin correcting them. Just as importantly, it allowed us to distinguish between changes that could be made immediately and those that would require sustained effort.

Some corrections were straightforward. Because the schema was generated programmatically, the WebSite markup could be adjusted immediately to reinforce the primary brand entity. The brand team also agreed to simplify the homepage title, focusing it on the brand and tagline, while allowing individual location pages to carry the weight of location-specific signals.

Other signals were less malleable. External corroboration, built up through years of links and citations pointing to a single location, couldn’t be reversed quickly. That work would take time and consistent reinforcement.

Problem deduction didn’t just tell us what to fix. It told us where to start, what to expect, and how much effort each correction would realistically require.

SEO teams waste enormous effort trying to “fix” things that can only change gradually. Problem deduction helps teams focus on directional correction rather than instant reversal.

Why Root Cause Analysis Often Fails In SEO

Root cause analysis breaks down when teams try to answer why” before agreeing on “what.”

In enterprise SEO, that failure is amplified by how work is organized. Control is decentralized across content, engineering, analytics, brand, legal, localization, and platform teams. No single group owns the full system, yet everyone is accountable to their own KPIs. When an anomaly appears, the instinct isn’t to describe the outcome carefully. It’s to protect territory.

Conversations shift quickly. Causes are proposed before outcomes are defined. Responsibility is implied, then deflected. Each team points to the part of the system it doesn’t control. The discussion becomes less about understanding behavior and more about avoiding fault.

At the same time, the process itself narrows thinking. Root cause analysis turns into a checklist exercise. Teams reach for audits, tools, and familiar diagnostic steps, not because they are wrong, but because they are safe. Checklists create motion without requiring agreement, and activity becomes a substitute for clarity.

When internal explanations feel uncomfortable or politically risky, attention often shifts outward. Someone cites a recent Google update. Another references a post from a well-known SEO or a chart showing sector-wide volatility. External signals offer a kind of relief. If “everyone” is seeing impact, then no one internally has to explain their system.

But those signals are rarely diagnostic. Used too early, they short-circuit reasoning rather than support it.

The result is a familiar pattern. Meetings generate effort, artifacts, and action items, but the outcome itself remains vaguely defined. Teams stay busy. Nothing really changes.

Problem deduction interrupts that cycle. It forces agreement on what the system actually produced before explanations, defenses, or fixes enter the conversation. Once the outcome is clearly defined, decentralization becomes navigable, blame loses its power, and root cause analysis shifts from performance to purpose.

That’s when it starts working.

The Skill Enterprises Should Be Hiring For First

Not long ago, an advisory client asked me a deceptively simple question while defining a new enterprise search role.

“What is the single most important skill we should hire for?”

They were expecting a familiar answer. Something about technical SEO depth, AI search experience, schema expertise, or platform fluency. That’s usually how these conversations go.

I didn’t give them any of those. Instead, I said critical reasoning.

There was a pause.

Despite what many people in the search industry believe, technical skills are the easy part. Tools can be learned. Platforms change. Gaps get closed. Teams adapt. What’s far harder to teach is the ability to think clearly when the system doesn’t behave the way you expected it to.

Enterprise SEO is full of that kind of ambiguity. Signals conflict. Outcomes are indirect. Ownership is fragmented. And when things go wrong, pressure builds quickly.

In those moments, the people who struggle most aren’t the ones who lack tactical knowledge. They’re the ones who can’t slow the conversation down long enough to reason.

The skill that matters is the ability to observe what the system actually produced without bias, describe it precisely, separate symptoms from causes, reason backward through contributing signals, and resist the urge to jump to conclusions or assign blame.

In other words, problem deduction.

Specifically (as highlighted above), the ability to:

  • Observe a system outcome without bias.
  • Describe it precisely.
  • Separate symptoms from causes.
  • Reason backward through contributing signals.
  • Resist jumping to conclusions or assigning blame.

I told them plainly: We can teach the mechanics of search. What’s nearly impossible to teach is how to reason critically if that muscle isn’t already there. People either have it or they don’t. Enterprise SEO punishes the absence of that skill more than almost any other digital discipline.

This Is Bigger Than SEO

Once you recognize the pattern, it becomes hard to unsee.

The same failure mode that derails root cause analysis also explains why SEO so often turns political. When outcomes aren’t clearly defined, teams fill the gap with narratives. Best practices harden into superstition. Google updates become a convenient external explanation for internal incoherence. Infrastructure issues quietly masquerade as ranking problems because they’re harder to confront directly.

None of this happens because teams are careless. It happens because modern digital systems are fragmented by design.

As described earlier, control is decentralized across content, engineering, analytics, brand, legal, localization, and platform teams. No one owns the entire system, yet everyone is accountable to their own KPIs. When something goes wrong, describing the outcome precisely feels risky. It invites scrutiny. It raises uncomfortable questions about ownership and handoffs.

So conversations drift. Causes are debated before outcomes are agreed upon. Responsibility is implied, then deflected. Checklists replace reasoning because they allow motion without alignment. And when internal explanations feel politically unsafe, attention shifts outward – to Google updates, industry chatter, or gurus diagnosing sector-wide volatility.

Those external signals provide relief, but not resolution. They describe correlation, not causation. They offer context, not clarity and allow organizations to stay busy without ever confronting how their own systems produced the result.

This is where SEO begins to overlap with something broader: findability.

Whether someone encounters a brand through Google, an AI assistant, a marketplace, or a vertical search engine, the underlying questions are the same. Are we present? Are we represented clearly and consistently? Does that representation invite deeper engagement, or does it confuse and fragment trust?

Those outcomes don’t depend on isolated optimizations. They depend on coherent systems that behave predictably across surfaces.

Problem deduction is what makes that coherence possible. By forcing agreement on what the system actually produced before explanations or fixes enter the room, it cuts through decentralization, neutralizes blame, and restores reasoning. Root cause analysis stops being performative and starts serving its purpose.

That’s when the conversation changes. And that’s when progress actually begins.

The Real Takeaway

Google didn’t choose the wrong site name. It chose the only version of the brand the system clearly defined.

The real SEO skill isn’t knowing what to change. It’s knowing what actually happened before you touch anything at all.

Until enterprises teach, hire for, and reward problem deduction, SEO conversations will continue to spin in circles, fixing symptoms while the system quietly reinforces the same outcomes.

And no amount of optimization can fix a problem that was never clearly defined in the first place.

More Resources:


Featured Image: KitohodkA/Shutterstock

Information Retrieval Part 2: How To Get Into Model Training Data

There has never been a more important time in your career to spend time learning and understanding. Not because AI search differs drastically from traditional search. But because everyone else thinks it does.

Every C-suite in the country is desperate to get this right. Decision-makers need to feel confident that you and I are the right people to lead us into the new frontier.

We need to learn the fundamentals of information retrieval. Even if your business shouldn’t be doing anything differently.

Here, that starts with understanding the basics of model training data. What is it, how does it work and – crucially – how do I get in it.

TL;DR

  1. AI is the product of its training data. The quality (and quantity) the model trains on is key to its success.
  2. The web-sourced AI data commons is rapidly becoming more restricted. This will skew data representativity, freshness, and scaling laws.
  3. The more consistent, accurate brand mentions you have that appear in training data, the less ambiguous you are.
  4. Quality SEO, with better product and traditional marketing, will improve your appearance in the training and data, and eventually with real-time RAG/retrieval.

What Is Training Data?

Training data is the foundational dataset used in training LLMs to predict the most appropriate next word, sentence, and answer. The data can be labeled, where models are taught the right answer, or unlabeled, where they have to figure it out for themselves.

Without high-quality training data, models are completely useless.

From semi-libelous tweets to videos of cats and great works of art and literature that stand the test of time, nothing is off limits. Nothing. It’s not just words either. Speech-to-text models need to be trained to respond to different speech patterns and accents. Emotions even.

Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett

How Does It Work?

The models don’t memorize, they compress. LLMs process billions of data points, adjusting internal weights through a mechanism known as backpropagation.

If the next word predicted in a string of training examples is correct, it moves on. If not, it gets the machine equivalent of Pavlovian conditioning.

Bopped on the head with a stick or a “good boy.”

The model is then able to vectorize. Creating a map of associations by term, phrase, and sentence.

  • Converting text into numerical vectors, aka Bag of Words.
  • Capturing semantic meaning of words and sentences, preserving wider context and meaning (word and sentence embeddings).

Rules and nuances are encoded as a set of semantic relationships; this is known as parametric memory. “Knowledge” baked directly into the architecture. The more refined a model’s knowledge on a topic, the less it has to use a form of grounding to verify its twaddle.

Worth noting that models with a high parametric memory are faster at retrieving accurate information (if available), but have a static knowledge base and literally forget things.

RAG and live web search is an example of a model using non-parametric memory. Infinite scale, but slower. Much better for news and when results require grounding.

Crafting Better Quality Algorithms

When it comes to the training data, drafting better quality algorithms relies on three elements:

  1. Quality.
  2. Quantity.
  3. Removal of bias.

Quality of data matters for obvious reasons. If you train a model on poorly labeled, solely synthetic data, the model performance cannot be expected to exactly mirror real problems or complexities.

Quantity of data is a problem, too. Mainly because these companies have eaten everything in sight and done a runner on the bill.

Leveraging synthetic data to solve issues of scale isn’t necessarily a problem. The days of accessing high-quality, free-to-air content on the internet for these guys are largely gone. For two main reasons:

  1. Unless you want diabolical racism, mean comments, conspiracy theories, and plagiarized BS, I’m not sure the internet is your guy anymore.
  2. If they respect company’s robots.txt directives at least. Eight in 10 of the world’s biggest news websites now block AI training bots. I don’t know how effective their CDN-level blocking is, but this makes quality training data harder to come by.

Bias and diversity (or lack of it) is a huge problem too. People have their own inherent biases. Even the ones building these models.

Shocking I know…

If models are fed data unfairly weighted towards certain characteristics or brands, it can reinforce societal issues. It can further discrimination.

Remember, LLMs are neither intelligent nor databases of facts. They analyze patterns from ingested data. Billions or trillions of numerical weights that determine the next word (token) following another in any given context.

How Is Training Data Collected?

Like every good SEO, it depends.

  1. If you built an AI model explicitly to identify pictures of dogs, you need pictures of dogs in every conceivable position. Every type of dog. Every emotion the pooch shows. You need to create or procure a dataset of millions, maybe billions, of canine images.
  2. Then it must be cleaned. Think of it as structuring data into a consistent format. In said dog scenario, maybe a feline friend nefariously added pictures of cats dressed up as dogs to mess you around. Those must be identified.
  3. Then labeled (for supervised learning). Data labeling (with some human annotation) ensures we have a sentient being somewhere in the loop. Hopefully, an expert to add relevant labels to a tiny portion data, so that a model can learn. For example, a dachshund sitting on a box looking melancholic.
  4. Pre-processing. Responding to issues like cats masquerading as dogs. Ensuring you minimize potential biases in the dataset like specific dog breeds being mentioned far more frequently than others.
  5. Partitioned. A portion of the data is kept back so the model can’t memorise the outputs. This is the final validation stage. Kind of like a placebo.

This is, obviously, expensive and time-consuming. It’s not feasible to take up hundreds of thousands of hours of expertise from real people in fields that matter.

Think of this. You’ve just broken your arm, and you’re waiting in the ER for six hours. You finally get seen, only to be told you had to wait because all the doctors have been processing images for OpenAI’s new model.

“Yes sir, I know you’re in excruciating pain, but I’ve got a hell of a lot of sad looking dogs to label.”

Data labeling is a time-consuming and tedious process. To combat this, many businesses hire large teams of human data annotators (aka humans in the loop, you know, actual experts), assisted by automated weak labeling models. In supervised learning, they sort the initial labeling.

For perspective, one hour of video data can take humans up to 800 hours to annotate.

Micro Models

So, companies build micro-models. Models that don’t require as much training or data to run. The humans in the loop (I’m sure they have names) can start training micro-models after annotating a few examples.

The models learn. They train themselves.

So over time, human input decreases, and we’re only needed to validate the outputs. And to make sure the models aren’t trying to undress children, celebrities, and your coworkers on the internet.

But who cares about that in the face of “progress.”

Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett

Types Of Training Data

Training data is usually categorized by how much guidance is provided or required (supervision) and the role it plays in the model’s lifecycle (function).

Ideally a model is largely trained on real data.

Once a model is ready, it can be trained and fine-tuned on synthetic data. But synthetic data alone is unlikely to create high-quality models.

  • Supervised (or labeled): Where every input is annotated with the “right” answer.
  • Unsupervised (or unlabeled): Work it out yourself, robots, I’m off for a beer.
  • Semi-supervised: where a small amount of the data is properly labeled and model “understands” the rules. More, I’ll have a beer in the office.
  • RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback): humans are shown two options and asked to pick the “right” one (preference data). Or a person demonstrates the task at hand for the mode to imitate (demonstration data).
  • Pre-training and fine-tuning data: Massive datasets allow for broad information acquisition, and fine-tuning is used to turn the model into a category expert.
  • Multi-modal: Images, videos, text, etc.

Then some what’s known as edge case data. Data designed to “trick” the model to make it more robust.

In light of the let’s call it “burgeoning” market for AI training data, there are obvious issues of “fair use” surrounding it.

“We find that 23% of supervised training datasets are published under research or non-commercial licenses.”

So pay people.

The Spectrum Of Supervision

In supervised learning, the AI algorithm is given labeled data. These labels define the outputs and are fundamental to the algorithm being able to improve over time on its own.

Let’s say you’re training a model to identify colors. There are dozens of shades of each color. Hundreds even. So while this is an easy example, it requires accurate labeling. The problem with accurate labeling is its time-consuming and potentially costly.

In unsupervised learning, the AI model is given unlabeled data. You chuck millions of rows, images, or videos at a machine, sit down for a coffee, and then kick it when it hasn’t worked out what to do.

It allows for more exploratory “pattern recognition.” Not learning.

While this approach has obvious drawbacks, it’s incredibly useful at identifying patterns a human might miss. The model can essentially define its own labels and pathway.

Models can and do train themselves, and they will find things a human never could. They’ll also miss things. It’s like a driverless car. Driverless cars may have fewer accidents than when a human is in the loop. But when they do, we find it far more unpalatable.

We don’t trust tech autonomy. (Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett)

It’s the technology that scares us. And rightly so.

Combatting Bias

Bias in training data is very real and potentially very damaging. There are three phases:

  1. Origin bias.
  2. Development bias.
  3. Deployment bias.

Origin bias references the validity and fairness of the dataset. Is the data all-encompassing? Is there any obvious systemic, implicit, or confirmation bias present?

Development bias includes the features or tenets of the data the model is being trained on. Does algorithmic bias occur because of the training data?

Then we have deployment bias. Where the evaluation and processing of the data leads to flawed outputs and automated/feedback loop bias.

You can really see why we need a human in the loop. And why AI models training on synthetic or inappropriately chosen data would be a disaster.

In healthcare, data collection activities influenced by human bias can lead to the training of algorithms that replicate historical inequalities. Yikes.

Leading to a pretty bleak cycle of reinforcement.

The Most Frequently Used Training Data Sources

Training data sources are wide-ranging in both quality and structure. You’ve got the open web, which is obviously a bit mental. X, if you want to train something to be racist. Reddit, if you’re looking for the Incel Bot 5000.

Or highly structured academic and literary repositories if you want to build something, you know, good … Obviously then you have to pay something.

Common Crawl

Common Crawl is a public web repository, a free, open-source storehouse of historical and current web crawl data available to pretty much anyone on the internet.

The full Common Crawl Web Graph currently contains around 607 million domain records across all datasets, with each monthly release covering 94 to 163 million domains.

In the Mozilla Foundation’s 2024 report, Training Data for the Price of a Sandwich, 64% of the 47 LLMs analysed used at least one filtered version of Common Crawl data.

If you aren’t in the training data, you’re very unlikely to be cited and referenced. The Common Crawl Index Server lets you search any URL pattern against their crawl archives and Metehan’s Web Graph helps you see how “centered you are.”

Wikipedia (And Wikidata)

The default English Wikipedia dataset contains 19.88 GB of complete articles that help with language modeling tasks. And Wikidata is an enormous, incredibly comprehensive knowledge graph. Immensely structured data.

While representing only a small percentage of the total tokens, Wikipedia is perhaps the most influential source for entity resolution and factual consensus. It is one of the most factually accurate, up-to-date, and well-structured repositories of content in existence.

Some of the biggest guys have just signed deals with Wikipedia.

Publishers

OpenAI, Gemini, etc., have multi-million dollar licensing deals with a number of publishers.

The list goes on, but only for a bit … and not recently. I’ve heard things have clammed shut. Which, given the state of their finances, may not be surprising.

Media & Libraries

This is mainly for multi-modal content training. Shutterstock (images/video), Getty Images have one with Perplexity, and Disney (a 2026 partner for the Sora video platform) provides the visual grounding for multi-modal models.

As part of this three-year licensing agreement with Disney, Sora will be able to generate short, user-prompted social videos based on Disney characters.

As part of the agreement, Disney will make a $1 billion equity investment in OpenAI, and receive warrants to purchase additional equity.

Books

BookCorpus turned scraped data of 11,000 unpublished books into a 985 million-word dataset.

We cannot write books fast enough for models to continually learn on. It’s part of the soon to happen model collapse.

Code Repositories

Coding has become one of the most influential and valuable features of LLMs. Specific LLMs like Cursor or Claude Code are incredible. GitHub and Stack Overflow data have built these models.

They’ve built the vibe-engineering revolution.

Public Web Data

Diverse (but relevant) web data results in faster convergence during training, which in turn reduces computational requirements. It’s dynamic. Ever-changing. But, unfortunately, a bit nuts and messy.

But, if you need vast swathes of data, maybe in real-time, then public web data is the way forward. Ditto for real opinions and reviews of products and services. Public web data, review platforms, UGC, and social media sites are great.

Why Models Aren’t Getting (Much) Better

While there’s no shortage of data in the world, most of it is unlabeled and, thus, can’t actually be used in supervised machine learning models. Every incorrect label has a negative impact on a model’s performance.

According to most, we’re only a few years away from running out of quality data. Inevitably, this will lead to a time when those genAI tools start consuming their own garbage.

This is a known problem that will cause model collapse.

  • They are being blocked by companies that do not want their data used pro bono to train the models.
  • Robots.txt protocols (a directive, not something directly enforceable), CDN-level blocking, and terms of service pages have been updated to tell these guys to get lost.
  • They consume data quicker than we can produce it.

Frankly, as more publishers and websites are forced into paywalling (a smart business decision), the quality of these models only gets worse.

So, How Do You Get In The Training Data?

There are two obvious approaches I think of.

  1. To identify the seed data sets of models that matter and find ways into them.
  2. To forgo the specifics and just do great SEO and wider marketing. Make a tangible impact in your industry.

I can see pros and cons to both. Finding ways into specific models is probably highly unnecessary for most brands. To me this smells more like grey hat SEO. Most brands will be better off just doing some really good marketing and getting shared, cited and you know, talked about.

These models are not trained on directly up-to-date data. This is important because you cannot retroactively get into a specific model’s training data. You have to plan ahead.

If you’re an individual, you should be:

  • Creating and sharing content.
  • Going on podcasts.
  • Attending industry events.
  • Sharing other people’s content.
  • Doing webinars.
  • Getting yourself in front of relevant publishers, publications, and people.

There are some pretty obvious sources of highly structured data that models have paid for in recent times. I know, they’ve actually paid for it. I don’t know what the guys at Reddit and Wikipedia had to do to get money from these guys, and maybe I don’t want to.

How Can I Tell What Datasets Models Use?

Everyone has become a lot more closed off with what they do and don’t use for training data. I suspect this is both legally and financially motivated. So, you’ll need to do some digging.

And there are some massive “open source” datasets I suspect they all use:

  • Common Crawl.
  • Wikipedia.
  • Wikidata.
  • Coding repositories.

Fortunately, most deals are public, and it’s safe to assume that models use data from these platforms.

Google has a partnership with Reddit and access to an insane amount of transcripts from YouTube. They almost certainly have more valuable, well-structured data at their fingertips than any other company.

Grok trained almost exclusively on real-time data from X. Hence why it acts like a pre-pubescent school shooter and undresses everyone.

Worth noting that AI companies use third party vendors. Factories where data is scraped, cleaned and structured to create supervised datasets. Scale AI is the data engine that the big players use. Bright Data specialise in web data collection.

A Checklist

OK, so we’re trying to feature in parametric memory. To appear in the LLMs training data so the model recognizes you and you’re more likely to be used for RAG/retrieval. That means we need to:

  1. Manage the multi-bot ecosystem of training, indexing, and browsing.
  2. Entity optimization. Well-structured, well-connected content, consistent NAPs, sameAs schema properties, and Knowledge Graph presence. In Google and Wikidata.
  3. Make sure your content is rendered on the server side. Google has become very adept at rendering content on the client side. Bots like GPT-bot only see the HTML response. JavaScript is still clunky.
  4. Well-structured, machine-readable content in relevant formats. Tables, lists, properly structured semantic HTML.
  5. Get. Yourself. Out. There. Share your stuff. Make noise.
  6. Be ultra, ultra clear on your website about who you are. Answer the relevant questions. Own your entities.

You have to balance direct associations (what you say) with semantic associations (what others say about you). Make your brand the obvious next word.

Modern SEO, with better marketing.

More Resources:


Read Leadership In SEO, subscribe now.


Featured Image: Collagery/Shutterstock

The PPC Skills That Won’t Be Replaced By Automation

The best PPC specialists aren’t just campaign managers. They’re business consultants who happen to use paid advertising as their primary tool. As automation handles more tactical optimization, the value of a PPC professional increasingly lies in their ability to solve business problems, not just reduce cost-per-click.

Specialists who command premium rates and drive real growth possess skills that extend far beyond the ad platforms themselves. Here are the consulting capabilities that separate tactical executors from strategic growth partners.

Business Economics And Profit Optimization

Return on ad spend (ROAS) is a lazy metric.

For years, I’ve watched businesses optimize toward arbitrary ROAS targets that bear no relationship to actual profitability. A 400% ROAS sounds impressive until you realize the client is losing money on every sale after accounting for product costs, shipping, and overhead.

Understanding business economics means knowing the difference between revenue generation and profit generation. It means asking questions most PPC specialists never consider. What’s the true cost of this product? How do return rates vary by acquisition channel? What’s the cash flow impact of 30-day payment terms?

When you can structure campaigns around contribution margin rather than revenue multiples, you transition from order taker to strategic advisor. You start having conversations about product mix optimization, not just keyword expansion. You identify that promoting lower margin products at aggressive ROAS targets is destroying profitability, even as revenue climbs.

This shift requires moving beyond platform metrics and integrating P&L understanding into every strategic decision. Tools can help, but the real value comes from combining financial acumen with campaign execution.

Strategic Consulting

The hardest skill to develop is knowing when PPC isn’t the answer.

I’ve sat in countless meetings where stakeholders obsess over minor bid adjustments while ignoring fundamental business problems. The real issue isn’t your Quality Score. It’s that your product market fit is weak, your pricing is uncompetitive, or your checkout process has a 85% abandonment rate.

Great consultants diagnose the actual problem, not just the visible symptoms. They recognize when poor PPC performance stems from weak value propositions that no amount of creative testing will fix. Or pricing strategies that make profitable acquisition impossible. Or product quality issues driving high return rates. Or seasonal demand shifts being misinterpreted as campaign degradation. Or website conversion barriers that make every click more expensive. This strategic approach to scaling requires moving beyond reactive optimizations, which I’ve covered in depth in my SCALE Framework article.

This requires stepping back from the platform interface and analyzing the entire customer journey. It means being comfortable telling a client that, before you optimize their ads, they need to fix their product pages, streamline their checkout, or reconsider their market positioning.

The specialists who can’t make this distinction end up optimizing deck chairs while the ship sinks.

Cross-Channel Strategy And Attribution Understanding

Channel silos are relics of an attribution-obsessed past.

The most valuable insight I can provide a client often has nothing to do with their Google Ads account. It’s recognizing that their Meta prospecting campaigns are generating awareness that makes Search more efficient. Or that their shopping campaigns are supporting brand term performance. Or that their display retargeting is shortening the consideration cycle.

Understanding how channels interact requires moving beyond last click thinking and grasping incrementality. It means knowing when a Search campaign should get credit for a conversion that happened because a user first saw a YouTube ad three weeks prior.

With marketing mix modeling gaining traction, Google’s Meridian being a clear signal, the future belongs to strategists who think in systems, not channels. This doesn’t mean you need to be an expert in every platform. But you need enough understanding to collaborate effectively and build cohesive strategies.

The T-shaped specialist who can manage PPC deeply while understanding SEO, CRO, email, and content marketing will always outperform the narrow specialist who only looks at their own metrics.

Conversion Rate Optimization And Post-Click Experience

Most PPC specialists treat the click as the finish line. It’s actually the starting line.

I’ve watched teams spend weeks debating headline variations while completely ignoring a landing page that converts at 2% when the industry standard is 8%. The math is simple. Improving that conversion rate to 4% has the same impact as doubling your traffic, except it’s often easier and cheaper to execute.

Yet CRO remains dramatically undervalued because it falls into a “no man’s land.” Developers don’t have the marketing context. Marketing teams lack the technical ability to implement changes. Agencies focus on what happens before the click because that’s what they’re paid to manage.

This creates a massive opportunity. The consultant who can identify conversion barriers, inefficient checkout flows, weak trust signals, poor mobile experiences, confusing navigation, and actually drive implementation becomes invaluable.

This requires user research skills, competitive analysis, hypothesis development, and enough technical understanding to work effectively with development teams. It means running structured A/B tests, not just making changes based on best practices you read in a blog post.

When you can demonstrate that optimizing the post-click experience generated a 50% revenue increase without touching ad spend, you’re no longer a PPC manager. You’re a growth consultant.

Stakeholder Management And Change Leadership

The best strategy in the world is worthless if you can’t get it implemented.

I’ve learned this the hard way. Early in my career, I’d present brilliant recommendations backed by compelling data, only to watch them die in committee because I hadn’t built buy-in with the right stakeholders or framed the change in terms that resonated with their priorities.

Consulting is as much about organizational navigation as technical expertise. It requires understanding that the CFO cares about cash flow, the CMO worries about brand equity, and the head of ecommerce is measured on conversion rate. You need to tailor your recommendations accordingly.

Great consultants master the soft skills that don’t appear in any PPC certification. Building credibility gradually rather than expecting instant authority. Communicating complex concepts without condescension. Managing expectations during testing phases when results aren’t immediate. Navigating political dynamics when data conflicts with executive intuition. Knowing when to push hard and when to compromise strategically.

This is especially critical when recommending major strategic shifts like changing attribution or tracking solutions, restructuring account architecture, or reducing spend on sacred cow campaigns that leadership loves but data shows are inefficient.

Change management isn’t about having the right answer. It’s about getting that answer implemented.

Data Translation And Business Storytelling

Data without narrative is just noise.

The ability to transform campaign metrics into business insights that non-technical stakeholders understand might be the most undervalued skill in PPC. Anyone can report that CPC increased 15% month over month. A consultant explains that rising competition from two new market entrants is driving auction pressure, quantifies the revenue impact, and presents three strategic options with clear trade-offs.

This requires moving beyond dashboard screenshots and learning to tell stories with data. Connecting platform metrics to business outcomes executives actually care about. Identifying patterns across multiple data sources like CRM, analytics, and ads platforms. Building business cases that project return on investment and acknowledge risk honestly. Presenting recommendations with clear logic, not just best practices. Adapting your communication style to your audience’s sophistication level.

I’ve found that the specialists who master this skill get invited into strategic planning conversations, not just campaign reviews. They become trusted advisors whose input shapes budget allocation, product roadmaps, and market expansion decisions.

Continuous Learning And Adaptive Thinking

Digital marketing changes daily. Your expertise has a half-life.

The consulting skills that matter most can’t be learned from a certification course. They’re developed through experience, curiosity, and willingness to work outside your comfort zone. The specialists who stay relevant are those who read beyond PPC news. Business strategy, behavioral economics, technology trends. They study industries deeply enough to understand their unique economics and customer behavior. They experiment constantly, even when current approaches are working. They seek out perspectives that challenge their assumptions. They recognize when their mental models are outdated and rebuild them.

What worked in 2020 doesn’t work in 2026. What works today won’t work in 2030. The only sustainable competitive advantage is the ability to learn faster than the market evolves.

Futureproof Your PPC Expertise

As AI and automation handle more tactical execution, the gap between order takers and strategic consultants will widen dramatically. The specialists who thrive will be those who can solve business problems using PPC as one tool among many.

They’ll understand profit mechanics well enough to structure campaigns around real business objectives. They’ll diagnose problems accurately rather than optimizing the wrong things efficiently. They’ll see channels as interconnected systems, not isolated silos. They’ll drive post-click optimization with the same rigor as pre-click management. They’ll navigate organizational complexity to get strategies implemented. They’ll translate data into narratives that drive action.

These aren’t nice-to-have skills for some future state. They’re what separates the valuable from the replaceable right now.

The question isn’t whether you can run a profitable Search campaign. It’s whether you can solve the business problems that make running that campaign worthwhile in the first place.

More Resources:


Featured Image: Master1305/Shutterstock

Using AI For SEO Can Fail Without Real Data (& How Ahrefs Fixes It) via @sejournal, @ahrefs

This post was sponsored by Ahrefs. The opinions expressed in this article are the sponsor’s own.

If you’ve ever run into the limits of solo AI or manual SEO tools, this article is for you.

AI on its own can write and suggest ideas, but without reliable data to anchor those suggestions, it can miss the mark. On the other hand, traditional SEO dashboards are powerful – yet slow and siloed. The emerging sweet spot? Connecting AI to real, live SEO data so you can ask natural language questions and get deep answers fast.

Ahrefs Uses Its Own MCP Server & It Improves SEO Workflows

At its core, MCP stands for Model Context Protocol – an open standard that lets compatible AI assistants (like ChatGPT and Claude) directly access external data sources and tools through a standardized connection. This means you can ask your AI assistant questions like “which keywords my competitor ranks for that I don’t” or “which sites are gaining the most organic traffic this year” – and get answers based on real, up-to-date SEO data instead of guesses.

Imagine you’re planning to launch a new eCommerce product. Instead of manually exporting CSVs from multiple dashboards and painstakingly combining them, you could simply prompt an AI assistant to pull competitive insights, keyword opportunities, and content ideas directly from a connected SEO dataset – all in one place. That’s the power of an MCP integration.

Why AI + Real SEO Data Together Beats Guessing Or Generic Prompts

Most marketers use at least two types of tools: dedicated SEO platforms (for data) and AI assistants (for speed and interpretation). However:

  • AI on its own can hallucinate – it generates plausible-sounding answers, but without live data, those answers may be inaccurate or outdated.
  • SEO dashboards by themselves are often slow – you click around multiple screens, export reports, and manually interpret results.
  • Humans still need to make strategic decisions – but data plus AI frees up your time to focus on strategy, not grunt work.

Connecting AI to a live SEO dataset unites the best of both worlds: the intelligence and language fluency of modern AI with the accuracy and scale of professional SEO metrics.

15 Practical Use Cases & Prompts To Ask Your SEO AI Agent

Below are real prompt ideas and workflows you can incorporate into your planning, competitive research, and SEO execution. These are grouped from simple (fast answers) to advanced (deep analysis) – and all are grounded in actionable insights you can use today.

Level 1: Quick Insights You Can Get in Minutes

These are great for rapid decision-making and daily checks.

1. Identify Sites Growing Organic Traffic

Ask your AI:

Which of these 10 competitors has grown organic search traffic the most over the last 12 months?
This lets you quickly spot who is gaining momentum – and why – without manual reporting.

2. Find Competitor Rankings You Don’t Rank For

Tell me which first-page Google rankings [Competitor A] has that [My Site] doesn’t.
This gives you a direct gap list you can use for content or optimization ideas.

3. Most Linked-To Pages on Any Domain

List the top 10 pages on [domain] by number of backlinks, and show their estimated traffic.
This helps you spot proven content winners and consider similar formats.

4. Identify Organic Competitors

Give me a list of the closest organic search competitors for [My Site].
Great for broadening your competitive set beyond the obvious brands.

5. Combine Keyword Research With Headline Ideas

Help me find keywords people use before buying [product], and suggest related blog post headlines.
This blends keyword discovery with content planning in one step.

Level 2: Intermediate, More Strategic Queries

These involve deeper insights and slightly longer processing time.

6. Find Trending Keywords (and Why)

Show up to 20 trending keywords in my niche that may grow in popularity next year – include explanations.
This is better than a static list – you get context and rationale.

7. Analyze Multiple Domains at Scale

Give me a table of these 20 domains with Domain Rating, Organic Traffic, and number of top-3 rankings.
Great for benchmarking and competitor comparison.

8. Structure an Article With Keyword Insights

Help me build an article outline for [topic] based on keyword research.
This combines research with SEO content planning.

9. Top Ranking Sites for Specific Keyword Set

Among these keyphrases, tell me which sites rank in the highest positions.
Very helpful when exploring emerging niches within broader topics.

10. Find Broken Backlinks for Outreach Opportunities

Identify broken backlinks in this subfolder with high-authority referring domains.
Perfect for targeted link building.

Level 3: Advanced, High-Impact Research

These take more data and processing – but return strategic intelligence you can act on.

11. International SEO Expansion Ideas

Find similar businesses that have expanded into new countries and show where their organic traffic is growing.
A great way to spot untapped markets.

12. Competitor Content Strategy Deep Dive

Analyze top organic competitors and show their content themes, unique angles, and ranking patterns.
This helps refine your content planning with context beyond just keywords.

13. Comprehensive Site SEO Recommendations

You are an SEO expert with access to extensive data – offer recommendations to grow organic traffic for [brand].
This leverages the AI to synthesize data into strategic advice you can execute.

14. In-Depth Industry Ranking Patterns

Provide a list of top keyphrases where a site ranks first-page and includes certain SERP features.
Used for deep pattern discovery in competitive environments.

15. Multi-Domain Backlink Profile Analysis

Show backlink acquisition rates for these five competitors.
Useful for assessing link velocity and authority-building trends.

Tips to Get More Out of Data-Driven AI Prompts

Use these best practices to ensure your AI assistant actually retrieves the correct data:

  • Always specify that you want results from the SEO dataset rather than web search.
  • Include clear context (e.g., competitors, timeframes, regions).
  • Be explicit about limits (e.g., “show only keyword opportunities with volume > X”).
  • Track your usage and data limits via your SEO dashboard so you don’t hit quotas unexpectedly.

Image Credits

Featured Image: Image by Ahrefs. Used with permission.

Microbes could extract the metal needed for cleantech

In a pine forest on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the only active nickel mine in the US is nearing the end of its life. At a time when carmakers want the metal for electric-vehicle batteries, nickel concentration at Eagle Mine is falling and could soon drop too low to warrant digging.

But earlier this year, the mine’s owner started testing a new process that could eke out a bit more nickel. In a pair of shipping containers recently installed at the mine’s mill, a fermentation-derived broth developed by the startup Allonnia is mixed with concentrated ore to capture and remove impurities. The process allows nickel production from lower-quality ore. 

Kent Sorenson, Allonnia’s chief technology officer, says this approach could help companies continue operating sites that, like Eagle Mine, have burned through their best ore. “The low-hanging fruit is to keep mining the mines that we have,” he says. 

Demand for nickel, copper, and rare earth elements is rapidly increasing amid the explosive growth of metal-intensive data centers, electric cars, and renewable energy projects. But producing these metals is becoming harder and more expensive because miners have already exploited the best resources. Like the age-old technique of rolling up the end of a toothpaste tube, Allonnia’s broth is one of a number of ways that biotechnology could help miners squeeze more metal out of aging mines, mediocre ore, or piles of waste.

The mining industry has intentionally seeded copper ore with microbes for decades. At current copper bioleaching sites, miners pile crushed copper ore into heaps and add sulfuric acid. Acid-loving bacteria like Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans colonize the mound. A chemical the organisms produce breaks the bond between sulfur and copper molecules to liberate the metal.

Until now, beyond maintaining the acidity and blowing air into the heap, there wasn’t much more miners could do to encourage microbial growth. But Elizabeth Dennett, CEO of the startup Endolith, says the decreasing cost of genetic tools is making it possible to manage the communities of microbes in a heap more actively. “The technology we’re using now didn’t exist a few years ago,” she says.

Endolith analyzes bits of DNA and RNA in the copper-rich liquid that flows out of an ore heap to characterize the microbes living inside. Combined with a suite of chemical analyses, the information helps the company determine which microbes to sprinkle on a heap to optimize extraction. 

Two people in white coats and hard hats look up at steel columns inside a warehouse.
Endolith scientists use columns filled with copper ore to test the firm’s method of actively managing microbes in the ore to increase metal extraction.
ENDOLITH

In lab tests on ore from the mining firm BHP, Endolith’s active techniques outperformed passive bioleaching approaches. In November, the company raised $16.5 million to move from its Denver lab to heaps in active mines.

Despite these promising early results, Corale Brierley, an engineer who has worked on metal bioleaching systems since the 1970s, questions whether companies like Endolith that add additional microbes to ore will successfully translate their processes to commercial scales. “What guarantees are you going to give the company that those organisms will actually grow?” Brierley asks.

Big mining firms that have already optimized every hose, nut, and bolt in their process won’t be easy to convince either, says Diana Rasner, an analyst covering mining technology for the research firm Cleantech Group. 

“They are acutely aware of what it takes to scale these technologies because they know the industry,” she says. “They’ll be your biggest supporters, but they’re going to be your biggest critics.”

In addition to technical challenges, Rasner points out that venture-capital-backed biotechnology startups will struggle to deliver the quick returns their investors seek. Mining companies want lots of data before adopting a new process, which could take years of testing to compile. “This is not software,” Rasner says.  

Nuton, a subsidiary of the mining giant Rio Tinto, is a good example. The company has been working for decades on a copper bioleaching process that uses a blend of archaea and bacteria strains, plus some chemical additives. But it started demonstrating the technology only late last year, at a mine in Arizona. 

A large piece of machinery hovers over a mound of red dirt.
Nuton is testing an improved bioleaching process at Gunnison Copper’s Johnson Camp mine in Arizona.
NUTON

While Endolith and Nuton use naturally occurring microbes, the startup 1849 is hoping to achieve a bigger performance boost by genetically engineering microbes.

“You can do what mining companies have traditionally done,” says CEO Jai Padmakumar. “Or you can try to take the moonshot bet and engineer them. If you get that, you have a huge win.”

Genetic engineering would allow 1849 to tailor its microbes to the specific challenges facing a customer. But engineering organisms can also make them harder to grow, warns Buz Barstow, a Cornell University microbiologist who studies applications for biotechnology in mining.

Other companies are trying to avoid that trade-off by applying the products of microbial fermentation, rather than live organisms. Alta Resource Technologies, which closed a $28 million investment round in December, is engineering microbes that make proteins capable of extracting and separating rare earth elements. Similarly, the startup REEgen, based in Ithaca, New York, relies on the organic acids produced by an engineered strain of Gluconobacter oxydans to extract rare earth elements from ore and from waste materials like metal recycling slag, coal ash, or old electronics. “The microbes are the manufacturing,” says CEO Alexa Schmitz, an alumna of Barstow’s lab.

To make a dent in the growing demand for metal, this new wave of biotechnologies will have to go beyond copper and gold, says Barstow. In 2024, he started a project to map out genes that could be useful for extracting and separating a wider range of metals. Even with the challenges ahead, he says, biotechnology has the potential to transform mining the way fracking changed natural gas. “Biomining is one of these areas where the need … is big enough,” he says. 

The challenge will be moving fast enough to keep up with growing demand.

The Download: squeezing more metal out of aging mines, and AI’s truth crisis

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

Microbes could extract the metal needed for cleantech

In a pine forest on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the only active nickel mine in the US is nearing the end of its life. At a time when carmakers want the metal for electric-vehicle batteries, nickel concentration at Eagle Mine is falling and could soon drop too low to warrant digging.

Demand for nickel, copper, and rare earth elements is rapidly increasing amid the explosive growth of metal-intensive data centers, electric cars, and renewable energy projects. But producing these metals is becoming harder and more expensive because miners have already exploited the best resources. Here’s how biotechnology could help.

—Matt Blois

What we’ve been getting wrong about AI’s truth crisis

—James O’Donnell

What would it take to convince you that the era of truth decay we were long warned about—where AI content dupes us, shapes our beliefs even when we catch the lie, and erodes societal trust in the process—is now here?

A story I published last week pushed me over the edge. And it also made me realize that the tools we were sold as a cure for this crisis are failing miserably. Read the full story.

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

TR10: Hyperscale AI data centers

In sprawling stretches of farmland and industrial parks, supersized buildings packed with racks of computers are springing up to fuel the AI race.

These engineering marvels are a new species of infrastructure: supercomputers designed to train and run large language models at mind-­bending scale, complete with their own specialized chips, cooling systems, and even energy supplies. But all that impressive computing power comes at a cost.

Read why we’ve named hyperscale AI data centers as of our 10 Breakthrough Technologies this year, and check out the rest of the list.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Elon Musk’s SpaceX has acquired xAI
The deal values the combined companies at a cool $1.25 trillion. (WSJ $)
+ It also paves the way for SpaceX to offer an IPO later this year. (WP $)
+ Meanwhile, OpenAI has accused xAI of destroying legal evidence. (Bloomberg $)

2 NASA has delayed the launch of Artemis II
It’s been pushed back to March due to the discovery of a hydrogen leak. (Ars Technica)
+ The rocket’s predecessor was also plagued by fuel leaks. (Scientific American)

3 Russia is hiring a guerilla youth army online
They’re committing arson and spying on targets across Europe. (New Yorker $)

4 Grok is still generating undressed images of men
Weeks after the backlash over it doing the same to women. (The Verge)
+ How Grok descended into becoming a porn generator. (WP $)
+ Inside the marketplace powering bespoke AI deepfakes of real women. (MIT Technology Review)

5 OpenAI is searching for alternatives to Nvidia’s chips
It’s reported to be unhappy about the speed at which it powers ChatGPT. (Reuters)

6 The latest attempt to study a notoriously unstable glacier has failed
Scientists lost their equipment within Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier over the weekend. (NYT $)
+ Inside a new quest to save the “doomsday glacier” (MIT Technology Review)

7 The world is trying to wean itself off American technology
Governments are growing increasingly uneasy about their reliance on the US. (Rest of World)

8 AI’s sloppy writing is driving demand for real human writers
Long may it continue. (Insider $)

9 This female-dominated fitness community hates Mark Zuckerberg
His decision to shut down three VR studios means their days of playing their favorite workout game are numbered. (The Verge)
+ Welcome to the AI gym staffed by virtual trainers. (MIT Technology Review)

10 This cemetery has an eco-friendly solution for its overcrowding problem
If you’re okay with your loved one becoming gardening soil, that is. (WSJ $)
+ Why America is embracing the right to die now. (Economist $)
+ What happens when you donate your body to science. (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale…I mean, space is called ‘space’ for a reason.”

—Elon Musk explains his rationale for combining SpaceX with xAI in a blog post.

One more thing

On the ground in Ukraine’s largest Starlink repair shop

Starlink is absolutely critical to Ukraine’s ability to continue in the fight against Russia. It’s how troops in battle zones stay connected with faraway HQs; it’s how many of the drones essential to Ukraine’s survival hit their targets; it’s even how soldiers stay in touch with spouses and children back home.

However, Donald Trump’s fickle foreign policy and reports suggesting Elon Musk might remove Ukraine’s access to the services have cast the technology’s future in the country into doubt.

For now Starlink access largely comes down to the unofficial community of users and engineers, including the expert “Dr. Starlink”—famous for his creative ways of customizing the systems—who have kept Ukraine in the fight, both on and off the front line. He gave MIT Technology Review exclusive access to his unofficial Starlink repair workshop in the city of Lviv. Read the full story.

—Charlie Metcalfe

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ The Norwegian countryside sure looks beautiful.
+ Quick—it’s time to visit these food destinations before the TikTok hordes descend.
+ Rest in power Catherine O’Hara, our favorite comedy queen.
+ Take some time out of your busy day to read a potted history of boats 🚣

Why Buyers Buy: Books for Marketers

Whether you’re looking for basic principles, deep dives, or inside info from top marketers, these hand-picked books will help you understand what motivates today’s buyers and drives marketing results.

Applied Consumer Psychology: How to Use Psychological Insights in Marketing

Cover of Applied Consumer Psychology

Applied Consumer Psychology

by Gareth J. Harvey

This encyclopedic text by a leading executive and former academic addresses consumer attention, motivation, and personality in marketing and copywriting. Reviewers call the book “a must-read for anyone serious about marketing,” saying it deserves “a permanent place on every marketer’s bookshelf” and offers “practical insights that marketers can apply immediately.”

Click Here: The Art and Science of Digital Marketing and Advertising

Cover of Click Here

Click Here

by Alex Schultz

Schultz is Meta’s chief marketing officer and V.P. of analytics, and a growth consultant. He writes candidly, asserting that “tools evolve, but principles are timeless,” viewing push notifications as an evolution of direct mail. In “Click Here,” he aims to provide a comprehensive guide to marketing for the internet age.

Hacking the Human Mind: The Behavioral Science Secrets Behind 17 of the World’s Best Brands

Cover of Hacking the Human Mind

Hacking the Human Mind

by Michael Aaron Flicker and Richard Shotton

The authors, consultants to prominent global brands, offer a behind-the-scenes look at the behavioral science techniques used by Apple, Dyson, and Starbucks.

Own The Insight: Turn First-Party Data Into Revenue Faster Than Your Competition Can React

Cover of Own The Insight

Own The Insight

by Lisa L. Fagen

With increasing advertising costs and stricter privacy regulations, capturing your own customer data is more important than ever. Fagen offers practical steps for connecting offline events with online behavior and sales — with examples, checklists, and frameworks.

Emotional Targeting: Win Hearts. Boost Sales. Own the Market

Cover of Emotional Targeting

Emotional Targeting

by Talia Wolf

Wolf, a conversion optimization specialist and consultant to top B2B brands, says buyers’ emotions drive sales, not product features and pricing alone. She shares her “Emotional Targeting Framework” for top marketing performance.

Marketing Psychology Decoded

Cover of Marketing Psychology Decoded

Marketing Psychology Decoded

by Suvodip Sen

Sen brings international business, consulting, and teaching experience to “Marketing Psychology Decoded.” The book covers core concepts such as consumer motivation, perception, buying decisions, and post-purchase behavior, and includes QR-code–linked videos.

Consumer Behavior Essentials You Always Wanted To Know

Cover of Consumer Behavior Essentials

Consumer Behavior Essentials

by Pablo Ibarreche

For 25 years, Ibarreche held brand management roles at Procter & Gamble and AIG. He is now a professor of international marketing at The University of CEMA in Argentina. This self-learning guide focuses on segmentation, tribal marketing, and consumer insights — illustrated with real-world examples, templates, and quizzes.

Science Not Sorcery: Behavioral Economics for Marketers

Cover of Science Not Sorcery

Science Not Sorcery

by Rebecca L. Sullivan

Sullivan practiced marketing for 15 years in the agency space. She now teaches consumer insights at Michigan State University’s Broad College of Business. This practical guide explains how neuroscience, psychology, and behavioral economics impact marketing results.

Hoodwinked: How Marketers Use the Same Tactics as Cults

Cover of Hoodwinked

Hoodwinked

by Mara Einstein, PhD

Einstein is a professor of media studies at City University of New York and a former marketing executive at MTV. She is now a critic of modern marketing techniques. In this book, she examines how marketers manipulate consumers.