Champagne & Cognac,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about champagne & cognac — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Dom Pérignon owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Dom Pérignon is the default answer.
Named in 23% of champagne & cognac answers, typically in position 2.0. Bollinger follows at 20%, Krug at 15%.
Every brand AI names, ranked.
Visibility is the share of answers naming the brand; citation share is its slice of all brand-owned pages cited; read→cited is how often its pages convert a read into a citation.
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dom Pérignon | 23% | 2.0 | 9% | — |
| 2 | Bollinger | 20% | 4.0 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Krug | 15% | 2.2 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Rémy Martin | 13% | 1.5 | 27% | 67% |
| 5 | Hennessy | 13% | 2.5 | 9% | — |
| 6 | Pol Roger | 13% | 4.9 | 0% | — |
| 7 | Taittinger | 13% | 5.0 | 9% | — |
| 8 | Moët & Chandon | 12% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Veuve Clicquot | 12% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Laurent-Perrier | 12% | 5.1 | 18% | 50% |
| 11 | Martell | 10% | 2.8 | 9% | 0% |
| 12 | Courvoisier | 10% | 3.5 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Louis Roederer | 8% | 3.2 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Billecart-Salmon | 8% | 5.4 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Delamain | 5% | 3.0 | 0% | — |
Dom Pérignon is named most. That is not the same as being wanted.
Being named is visibility. Underneath it, every answer describes a brand in three ways — how much it stands out, how much it belongs, and how much it is returned to. In champagne & cognac, Salon leads attraction at 119 against Canard-Duchêne at 81, indexed on the category at 100.
Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared. See the full champagne & cognac desire edition →
The referees of champagne & cognac.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering champagne & cognac questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Rémy Martin converts reads into citations.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Rémy Martin converts 67% of reads. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dom Pérignon | 23% | 2.0 | 9% | — |
| 2 | Bollinger | 20% | 4.0 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Krug | 15% | 2.2 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Rémy Martin | 13% | 1.5 | 27% | 67% |
| 5 | Hennessy | 13% | 2.5 | 9% | — |
| 6 | Pol Roger | 13% | 4.9 | 0% | — |
| 7 | Taittinger | 13% | 5.0 | 9% | — |
| 8 | Moët & Chandon | 12% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Veuve Clicquot | 12% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Laurent-Perrier | 12% | 5.1 | 18% | 50% |
| 11 | Martell | 10% | 2.8 | 9% | 0% |
| 12 | Courvoisier | 10% | 3.5 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Louis Roederer | 8% | 3.2 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Billecart-Salmon | 8% | 5.4 | 0% | — |
| 15 | Delamain | 5% | 3.0 | 0% | — |
The models do not agree on who leads.
Ask about champagne & cognac and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Dom Pérignon, Gemini → Dom Pérignon, ChatGPT → Bollinger. Their top-five lists share just 10% of names.
Brands whose visibility swings most between models — the bar per model, widest gap on the right.
The data behind this chart
| Brand | Claude | Gemini | ChatGPT | Spread |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louis Roederer | 0% | 20% | 5% | 20pp |
| Bollinger | 10% | 25% | 25% | 15pp |
| Veuve Clicquot | 10% | 20% | 5% | 15pp |
| Pol Roger | 5% | 20% | 15% | 15pp |
| Dom Pérignon | 20% | 30% | 20% | 10pp |
| Taittinger | 10% | 10% | 20% | 10pp |
| Krug | 10% | 20% | 15% | 10pp |
| Courvoisier | 5% | 15% | 10% | 10pp |
| Laurent-Perrier | 5% | 15% | 15% | 10pp |
| Martell | 5% | 10% | 15% | 10pp |
Editorial carry champagne & cognac.
Every page AI opened while answering, classified by what kind of page it is. Editorial supply the most citations; category-page convert best — 96% of the ones models opened were actually cited.
The data behind this chart
| Page type | Cited | Read but not cited | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial | 50 | 35 | 59% |
| How-to guides | 50 | 6 | 89% |
| Product pages | 31 | 4 | 89% |
| category-page | 26 | 1 | 96% |
| Other | 15 | 9 | 63% |
| Listicles | 11 | 3 | 79% |
| Community threads | 5 | 5 | 50% |
Specifications is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the champagne & cognac pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Specifications is worth 5 percentage points; cites its sources pages fare 64pp worse. Measured within the read population, so selection can't flatter it.
The data behind this chart
| Feature | Pages with | Cited % | Pages without | Cited % | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specifications | 79 | 77% | 204 | 73% | +5pp |
| Structured data | 220 | 75% | 63 | 71% | +3pp |
| Named author | 132 | 68% | 151 | 79% | -11pp |
| Hard statistics | 61 | 61% | 222 | 77% | -17pp |
| Updated this year | 98 | 62% | 185 | 80% | -18pp |
| Answer up front | 121 | 62% | 162 | 83% | -21pp |
| Comparison table | 57 | 56% | 226 | 78% | -22pp |
| Cites its sources | 34 | 18% | 249 | 82% | -64pp |
Rémy Martin builds pages AI can quote.
Readiness scores each brand's own pages on the structure models reward — a direct answer up front, tables, hard numbers, named authors, structured data, recency, specifications. Set against how often those pages are actually cited.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rémy Martin | 54 | 100% | 3 |
Readiness is the share of eight measurable structural signals present on a brand's profiled pages. It is a build-quality measure, not a ranking of the brand.
The questions champagne & cognac pages have to settle.
Read straight off the pages AI cited: the consumer questions cited content answers most often. Content that fails to settle these is content models have no reason to quote.
Nineteen more categories.
Method: 20 unbranded consumer prompts per category, spread across the buying journey, run weekly against ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. Read→cited uses Claude and ChatGPT only (Gemini does not separate the two). Correlational observations of model behaviour at the time of the run. Data from the run completed Wed, 02 Sep 2026 10:25:24 GMT.