Haircare,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about haircare — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, L'Oréal Paris owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
L'Oréal Paris is the default answer.
Named in 45% of haircare answers, typically in position 2.1. Garnier follows at 23%, Olaplex at 17%.
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 | L'Oréal Paris | 45% | 2.1 | 29% | 28% |
| 2 | Garnier | 23% | 4.1 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Olaplex | 17% | 2.7 | 7% | 50% |
| 4 | Redken | 17% | 2.9 | 14% | 80% |
| 5 | Schwarzkopf | 13% | 2.5 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Tresemmé | 13% | 3.5 | 4% | 100% |
| 7 | Faith in Nature | 10% | 1.5 | 14% | 50% |
| 8 | Clairol | 10% | 2.5 | 4% | 100% |
| 9 | Living Proof | 10% | 2.5 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Aussie | 10% | 2.7 | 0% | — |
| 11 | Alberto Balsam | 10% | 2.8 | 0% | — |
| 12 | Philip Kingsley | 10% | 3.7 | 4% | 100% |
| 13 | Pantene | 10% | 5.2 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Kérastase | 8% | 2.0 | 4% | — |
| 15 | Color Wow | 8% | 2.6 | 4% | 33% |
Haircare is decided on attraction.
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 haircare, Got2b leads attraction at 112 against Clairol at 86, indexed on the category at 100.
Each whorl lights one ring per index threshold cleared. See the full haircare desire edition →
The referees of haircare.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering haircare questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Redken converts reads into citations. L'Oréal Paris doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Redken converts 80% of reads; L'Oréal Paris just 28%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L'Oréal Paris | 45% | 2.1 | 29% | 28% |
| 2 | Garnier | 23% | 4.1 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Olaplex | 17% | 2.7 | 7% | 50% |
| 4 | Redken | 17% | 2.9 | 14% | 80% |
| 5 | Schwarzkopf | 13% | 2.5 | 0% | — |
| 6 | Tresemmé | 13% | 3.5 | 4% | 100% |
| 7 | Faith in Nature | 10% | 1.5 | 14% | 50% |
| 8 | Clairol | 10% | 2.5 | 4% | 100% |
| 9 | Living Proof | 10% | 2.5 | 0% | — |
| 10 | Aussie | 10% | 2.7 | 0% | — |
| 11 | Alberto Balsam | 10% | 2.8 | 0% | — |
| 12 | Philip Kingsley | 10% | 3.7 | 4% | 100% |
| 13 | Pantene | 10% | 5.2 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Kérastase | 8% | 2.0 | 4% | — |
| 15 | Color Wow | 8% | 2.6 | 4% | 33% |
All three models agree: L'Oréal Paris.
A rare consensus — every model puts L'Oréal Paris first, and their top-five lists overlap 9%. Winning here means winning everywhere at once.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garnier | 10% | 40% | 20% | 30pp |
| L'Oréal Paris | 30% | 55% | 50% | 25pp |
| Pantene | 0% | 25% | 5% | 25pp |
| Living Proof | 0% | 25% | 5% | 25pp |
| Olaplex | 10% | 30% | 10% | 20pp |
| Kérastase | 0% | 20% | 5% | 20pp |
| Faith in Nature | 5% | 20% | 5% | 15pp |
| Monday Haircare | 5% | 15% | 0% | 15pp |
| OGX | 0% | 15% | 5% | 15pp |
| Amika | 0% | 0% | 15% | 15pp |
Structured data is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the haircare pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Structured data is worth 10 percentage points; updated this year pages fare 13pp 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structured data | 214 | 94% | 66 | 85% | +10pp |
| Comparison table | 30 | 97% | 250 | 92% | +5pp |
| Named author | 98 | 90% | 182 | 93% | -4pp |
| Hard statistics | 47 | 83% | 233 | 94% | -11pp |
| Updated this year | 54 | 81% | 226 | 95% | -13pp |
Faith in Nature 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faith in Nature | 22 | 100% | 4 |
| L'Oréal Paris | 20 | 100% | 8 |
| Redken | 19 | 100% | 4 |
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.
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 10:09:16 GMT.