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 25% of champagne & cognac answers, typically in position 2.3. Krug follows at 23%, Bollinger at 23%.
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 | 25% | 2.3 | 8% | — |
| 2 | Krug | 23% | 3.1 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Bollinger | 23% | 3.5 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Louis Roederer | 13% | 2.8 | 0% | — |
| 5 | Veuve Clicquot | 13% | 3.8 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Moët & Chandon | 13% | 3.9 | 0% | 0% |
| 7 | Rémy Martin | 12% | 1.4 | 25% | 29% |
| 8 | Taittinger | 12% | 3.4 | 17% | — |
| 9 | Salon | 12% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Courvoisier | 10% | 2.5 | 8% | 50% |
| 11 | Martell | 10% | 2.7 | 25% | 100% |
| 12 | Ruinart | 10% | 5.3 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Hennessy | 8% | 2.4 | 0% | 0% |
| 14 | Laurent-Perrier | 8% | 4.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 15 | Pol Roger | 8% | 4.6 | 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 128 against ABK6 at 99, 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. Moët & Chandon doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Rémy Martin converts 29% of reads; Moët & Chandon just 0%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dom Pérignon | 25% | 2.3 | 8% | — |
| 2 | Krug | 23% | 3.1 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Bollinger | 23% | 3.5 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Louis Roederer | 13% | 2.8 | 0% | — |
| 5 | Veuve Clicquot | 13% | 3.8 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Moët & Chandon | 13% | 3.9 | 0% | 0% |
| 7 | Rémy Martin | 12% | 1.4 | 25% | 29% |
| 8 | Taittinger | 12% | 3.4 | 17% | — |
| 9 | Salon | 12% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Courvoisier | 10% | 2.5 | 8% | 50% |
| 11 | Martell | 10% | 2.7 | 25% | 100% |
| 12 | Ruinart | 10% | 5.3 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Hennessy | 8% | 2.4 | 0% | 0% |
| 14 | Laurent-Perrier | 8% | 4.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 15 | Pol Roger | 8% | 4.6 | 0% | — |
Three models. Three different answers.
Ask about champagne & cognac and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Dom Pérignon, Gemini → Krug, ChatGPT → Bollinger. Their top-five lists share just 38% 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 | 5% | 30% | 5% | 25pp |
| Krug | 15% | 35% | 20% | 20pp |
| Bollinger | 15% | 25% | 30% | 15pp |
| Martell | 0% | 15% | 15% | 15pp |
| Dom Pérignon | 20% | 30% | 25% | 10pp |
| Ruinart | 10% | 5% | 15% | 10pp |
| Camus | 5% | 0% | 10% | 10pp |
| Taittinger | 5% | 15% | 15% | 10pp |
| Courvoisier | 5% | 10% | 15% | 10pp |
| Armand de Brignac | 0% | 10% | 0% | 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 |
Laurent-Perrier 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. Krug is the widest gap: well-built pages that still aren't converting into citations.
| Brand | Readiness | Pages cited | Pages profiled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laurent-Perrier | 56 | 17% | 12 |
| Martell | 50 | 25% | 4 |
| Rémy Martin | 48 | 43% | 7 |
| Krug | 42 | 0% | 99 |
| G.H. Mumm | 33 | 67% | 3 |
| Pol Roger | 29 | 0% | 82 |
| Bollinger | 27 | 0% | 64 |
| Hennessy | 13 | 33% | 3 |
| Dom Pérignon | 0 | 3% | 37 |
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 Sun, 13 Sep 2026 08:46:02 GMT.