Skincare,
according to AI
Every week we ask ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini the questions real UK consumers ask about skincare — and record exactly which brands they put forward. Right now, Aveeno owns the conversation.
0 AI answers this run · 0 brands named · measured, never estimated
Aveeno is the default answer.
Named in 15% of skincare answers, typically in position 3.3. CeraVe follows at 12%, Vaseline at 12%.
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 | Aveeno | 15% | 3.3 | 5% | 33% |
| 2 | CeraVe | 12% | 1.7 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Vaseline | 12% | 3.3 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Nivea | 8% | 3.2 | 0% | — |
| 5 | La Roche-Posay | 7% | 1.5 | 5% | 100% |
| 6 | Cetaphil | 7% | 2.5 | 5% | — |
| 7 | E45 | 5% | 2.3 | 0% | — |
| 8 | Garnier | 5% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Cetraben | 3% | 1.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 10 | Childs Farm | 3% | 2.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 11 | Simple | 3% | 4.0 | 10% | 0% |
| 12 | Aquaphor | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Avene | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Diprobase | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 15 | No7 | 2% | 2.0 | 5% | — |
The referees of skincare.
The independent sources AI models cite when answering skincare questions — the places a brand needs to be seen, reviewed and ranked.
Aveeno converts reads into citations. Childs Farm doesn't.
When Claude or ChatGPT opens a brand's own pages while answering, does the page make the cited-sources list? Aveeno converts 33% of reads; Childs Farm just 0%. That gap is a content problem, not a visibility problem.
Full data table
| # | Brand | Visibility | Avg. position | Citation share | Read→cited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aveeno | 15% | 3.3 | 5% | 33% |
| 2 | CeraVe | 12% | 1.7 | 0% | — |
| 3 | Vaseline | 12% | 3.3 | 0% | — |
| 4 | Nivea | 8% | 3.2 | 0% | — |
| 5 | La Roche-Posay | 7% | 1.5 | 5% | 100% |
| 6 | Cetaphil | 7% | 2.5 | 5% | — |
| 7 | E45 | 5% | 2.3 | 0% | — |
| 8 | Garnier | 5% | 3.7 | 0% | — |
| 9 | Cetraben | 3% | 1.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 10 | Childs Farm | 3% | 2.0 | 0% | 0% |
| 11 | Simple | 3% | 4.0 | 10% | 0% |
| 12 | Aquaphor | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 13 | Avene | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 14 | Diprobase | 2% | 2.0 | 0% | — |
| 15 | No7 | 2% | 2.0 | 5% | — |
Three models. Three different answers.
Ask about skincare and the brand you are shown depends on the assistant: Claude → Nivea, Gemini → Vaseline, ChatGPT → Aveeno. Their top-five lists share just 0% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vaseline | 5% | 30% | 0% | 30pp |
| CeraVe | 5% | 25% | 5% | 20pp |
| Aveeno | 5% | 15% | 25% | 20pp |
| Nivea | 5% | 15% | 5% | 10pp |
| Simple | 0% | 10% | 0% | 10pp |
| Garnier | 0% | 10% | 5% | 10pp |
| La Roche-Posay | 0% | 10% | 10% | 10pp |
| E45 | 0% | 10% | 5% | 10pp |
| Cetraben | 5% | 0% | 5% | 5pp |
| Cetaphil | 5% | 10% | 5% | 5pp |
Editorial carry skincare.
Every page AI opened while answering, classified by what kind of page it is. Editorial supply the most citations; Reviews convert best — 94% of the ones models opened were actually cited.
The data behind this chart
| Page type | Cited | Read but not cited | Conversion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Editorial | 120 | 40 | 75% |
| How-to guides | 100 | 11 | 90% |
| Product pages | 43 | 3 | 93% |
| category-page | 19 | 6 | 76% |
| Other | 17 | 28 | 38% |
| Reviews | 16 | 1 | 94% |
| Listicles | 10 | 9 | 53% |
| Documentation | 10 | 16 | 38% |
Structured data is what separates cited from ignored.
Of the skincare pages models actually opened, how much more often each feature's pages ended up in the cited sources. Structured data is worth 31 percentage points; cites its sources pages fare 35pp 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 | 525 | 81% | 236 | 50% | +31pp |
| Named author | 339 | 82% | 422 | 63% | +19pp |
| Specifications | 34 | 85% | 727 | 71% | +14pp |
| Answer up front | 200 | 76% | 561 | 70% | +5pp |
| Updated this year | 167 | 74% | 594 | 71% | +3pp |
| Comparison table | 102 | 68% | 659 | 72% | -4pp |
| Hard statistics | 219 | 54% | 542 | 79% | -25pp |
| Cites its sources | 32 | 38% | 729 | 73% | -35pp |
The Ordinary 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Ordinary | 50 | 100% | 3 |
| No7 | 46 | 100% | 3 |
| Inkey List | 34 | 100% | 15 |
| Simple | 33 | 100% | 6 |
| Aveeno | 33 | 100% | 3 |
| Eucerin | 31 | 100% | 6 |
| Sanex | 25 | 100% | 3 |
| CeraVe | 24 | 82% | 11 |
| Green People | 23 | 100% | 6 |
| La Roche-Posay | 21 | 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 skincare 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 Tue, 01 Sep 2026 04:01:26 GMT.