We Tested 5 Buyer Personas on Perplexity: Only 1 Found Us

Reading time: 12 minutes

TLDR

A B2B SaaS client tested brand searches and saw 80% visibility. Success, right? We tested five realistic buyer personas describing their problems instead of the brand name. Only one of five found them. Eighty percent of target buyers couldn’t discover them despite perfect brand visibility. Real buyers search for problems, not brand names. The fix: create FAQ pages answering persona-specific questions, add problem-based schema markup, and optimize for how buyers actually search. Test persona visibility with Signal, not vanity brand searches.

Client: B2B SaaS startup ($2M ARR, growing fast) Their test: “Search for [our brand name] on ChatGPT and Perplexity” Their result: 80% visibility (ChatGPT mentioned them 4/5 times) Their conclusion: “We’re crushing AI visibility!”

Our test: 5 realistic buyer personas describing their problem, not the brand Our result: Only 1 persona (out of 5) found them The truth: 80% of their target buyers couldn’t discover them through AI

Here’s what persona-based testing revealed. And why brand searches lie.

The Brand Search Illusion

Most companies test AI visibility like this:

1. Open ChatGPT or Perplexity
2. Search for their brand name: “Tell me about [Company Name]”
3. See their company mentioned
4. Conclude: “We have great AI visibility!”

The problem: Real buyers don’t search for your brand. They search for their problem.

What Our Client Tested (Brand Searches)

Query: “What is [Company Name]?”

Perplexity response:

“[Company Name] is a project management platform designed for remote teams. It offers features like task tracking, asynchronous collaboration, and integration with popular tools like Slack and Zoom.”

Their takeaway: “Perplexity knows us!”

What they didn’t test: Would a buyer with a problem find them?

What We Tested: 5 Realistic Buyer Personas

We created 5 buyer personas based on their ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) and tested Perplexity with problem-based queries.

Persona 1: The Overwhelmed Remote Manager

Profile: Engineering manager, 50-person remote team, struggling with async communication

Query: “My remote engineering team is spread across 8 time zones. We’re drowning in Slack messages and people miss important updates because they’re asleep when decisions happen. I need a way to make async work actually work without everyone being online at the same time. What tools should I look at?”

Perplexity response: Mentioned 6 tools:

1. Notion
2. Twist
3. Loom
4. Asana
5. Linear
6. Basecamp

Our client: Not mentioned

Why they missed: Perplexity associated “async communication” with Twist and Loom, not their product (even though async is their core feature).

Persona 2: The Ex-Agency Project Manager

Profile: Left agency life, joined startup, needs lightweight PM tool (not enterprise bloat)

Query: “I just joined a 25-person startup after working at a huge agency. I’m used to Jira but it’s way too complicated for this team. I need something that does sprints and task tracking but doesn’t require a PhD to set up. Ideally works with Slack since that’s where we live. What are my options?”

Perplexity response: Mentioned 5 tools:

1. Linear
2. Asana
3. Monday.com
4. ClickUp
5. [Client’s Product]

Our client: Mentioned (rank #5)

Why they appeared: Perplexity picked up on “Slack integration” + “lightweight vs Jira” from their website content.

Persona 3: The Documentation-Obsessed Lead

Profile: Senior IC who needs team to document decisions, not just chat about them

Query: “Our team makes decisions in Slack threads and then 3 months later nobody remembers why we chose X over Y. I need a tool that forces people to document the ‘why’ behind decisions, not just the ‘what.’ Bonus points if it integrates with our existing Slack and GitHub workflow.”

Perplexity response: Mentioned 4 tools:

1. Notion
2. Confluence
3. Coda
4. Slite

Our client: Not mentioned

Why they missed: Perplexity associated “documentation” with Notion/Confluence. Client’s product does decision documentation, but their marketing emphasized “project management” over “decision documentation.”

Persona 4: The “Zoom Fatigue” VP

Profile: VP of Eng tired of 30 hours/week in meetings, wants async-first culture

Query: “I’m spending 30 hours a week in Zoom meetings and my team is burned out. I want to move to an async-first culture where we document decisions and people can contribute on their own schedule. What tools actually enable this vs just claiming they do?”

Perplexity response: Mentioned 5 tools:

1. Twist
2. Loom (for video async updates)
3. Notion
4. GitLab (async workflows)
5. Basecamp

Our client: Not mentioned

Why they missed: “Async-first” is their core differentiator, but Perplexity associated it with Twist (from Doist, makers of Todoist. strong brand).

Persona 5: The Compliance-Worried Startup

Profile: SaaS startup with first enterprise customer, needs audit trails for SOC 2

Query: “We just landed our first enterprise customer and they’re asking about our change management process for SOC 2 compliance. Our current setup is chaotic. decisions happen in Slack, tasks in Linear, docs in Notion. I need a single source of truth that shows who decided what and when, with audit trails. What project management tools handle this?”

Perplexity response: Mentioned 4 tools:

1. Jira (enterprise features)
2. Monday.com (audit logs)
3. ClickUp (compliance features)
4. Smartsheet

Our client: Not mentioned

Why they missed: They have audit trail features, but didn’t optimize content for “SOC 2” or “compliance” keywords.

The Reality: 20% Persona Visibility

Brand search visibility: 80% (mentioned in 4/5 brand-name queries)

Persona-based visibility: 20% (mentioned in 1/5 problem-based queries)

The gap: 60 percentage points of invisible lost opportunities

What This Means for Revenue

Client’s monthly traffic from AI platforms (estimated):

• Brand searches: ~200 queries/month → 80% visibility → 160 impressions
• Problem-based searches: ~2,500 queries/month → 20% visibility → 500 impressions

The missed opportunity:

• If persona visibility matched brand visibility (80%), they’d get 2,000 impressions/month instead of 500
• At 3% conversion to trial, that’s 45 extra trials/month vs current 15
• 3x trial volume just by fixing AI discovery for buyer personas

Why Brand Searches Lie: The 3 False Positives

False Positive #1: Existing Awareness Bias

Brand search: “Tell me about [Company]”

• Only people who already know the brand search this way
• Measures recall, not discovery

Problem search: “I need a tool that does X”

• How people actually discover new solutions
• Measures true discoverability

The illusion: High brand visibility makes you think you’re discoverable. You’re not. You’re just memorable to people who already know you.

False Positive #2: The “Just Describe Us” Trap

Brand search: AI describes your product accurately Problem search: AI recommends competitors because they optimized for the problem, not the product

Example:

• Client’s tagline: “Async-first project management”
• Perplexity’s association: Twist = async, Linear = project management
• Result: Perplexity recommended Twist + Linear, not the client (who does both)

The lesson: AI platforms build associations from web content. If competitors own the problem keywords, you’re invisible.

False Positive #3: The Platform Variance Mirage

Brand searches tend to be consistent across platforms:

• ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini all know major brands

Problem searches vary wildly:

• ChatGPT might mention you, Perplexity might not
• Depends on which sources each platform indexed and how recently

Our client’s results across platforms:

Brand search: 100% visibility (4/4 platforms) Persona search: 50% visibility (2/4 platforms)

The gap: You think you’re visible everywhere. You’re not.

How We Fixed It: The Signal Report

After identifying the persona visibility gap, we ran a full Signal report for the client with all 5 personas.

What Signal Revealed

Primary issue: Ghost Influence

Ghost Influence: 68% of relevant mentions didn’t name the client

What this means:

• Perplexity would describe features the client offers (“async decision documentation”)
• But attribute them to competitors or say “tools like Notion” (generic)
• The client was educating the market but competitors were capturing attribution

Example:

Query: “What tools help remote teams document decisions asynchronously?”

Perplexity response: “Tools like Notion and Confluence enable async documentation. For project management with decision tracking, consider Linear or Asana.”

Ghost influence: Perplexity described the client’s exact use case (async + decisions + project management) but didn’t name them.

The Fix: Persona-Optimized Content

We identified 3 content gaps killing their persona visibility:

Gap #1: Missing “Decision Documentation” Content

• Problem: Perplexity associated “decisions” with Notion/Confluence
• Fix: Published blog post: “Why Async Decision Documentation Beats Slack Threads”
• Result: Perplexity started citing this post for “decision documentation” queries

Gap #2: No “SOC 2 Compliance” Content

• Problem: Enterprise buyers searching for compliance features couldn’t find them
• Fix: Added FAQ page: “How [Product] Supports SOC 2 Compliance” with audit trail details
• Result: Perplexity mentioned them for compliance queries within 2 weeks

Gap #3: Under-Optimized “Async-First” Positioning

• Problem: Competitors (Twist, Basecamp) owned “async-first” association
• Fix: Homepage hero copy changed from “Project management for remote teams” → “The async-first project management platform for remote teams”
• Result: ChatGPT started mentioning them for “async-first” queries

3 Months Later: The Results

Before Signal:

• Persona visibility: 20% (1/5 personas found them)
• Ghost influence: 68%
• Platform coverage: 50% (2/4 platforms mentioned them for problem queries)

After Signal + Content Fixes:

• Persona visibility: 80% (4/5 personas found them)
• Ghost influence: 32% (cut in half)
• Platform coverage: 100% (all 4 platforms mention them for at least 3/5 personas)

Business impact:

• AI-driven trial signups increased 3.2x
• Cost per trial from AI channels dropped from $45 → $18 (organic discovery, no ads)
• Competitor comparison page visits increased 40% (buyers were finding them earlier in their research)

The Persona Testing Framework (How We Did It)

Step 1: Identify 3-5 Buyer Personas

Not demographics (“VP of Engineering, 100-500 employees”)

But psychographics (“Burned out from Zoom meetings, wants async culture”)

Our client’s 5 personas:

1. Overwhelmed Remote Manager (timezone chaos)
2. Ex-Agency PM (needs simplicity after Jira)
3. Documentation-Obsessed Lead (wants decision history)
4. Zoom Fatigue VP (async-first culture)
5. Compliance-Worried Startup (SOC 2 needs)

Step 2: Write Problem-Based Queries (Not Brand Queries)

Bad (brand query): “What is [Product Name]?”

Good (problem query): “My remote team is drowning in Slack. How do I make async communication work?”

Template:

“[Describe specific pain point in detail]. [Describe current broken solution]. [Ask for tool recommendations].”

Why it works: Mimics how real buyers search (describing symptoms, not solutions)

Step 3: Test Across 4+ AI Platforms

Minimum platforms:

• ChatGPT (highest usage)
• Perplexity (fast-growing, citation-based)
• Claude (Anthropic, high-quality responses)
• Gemini (Google, integrated with Search)

Bonus platforms (if resources allow):

• DeepSeek (emerging)
• Meta AI (Facebook/Instagram integration)
• Grok (X/Twitter integration)

Step 4: Document Visibility Gaps

For each persona query, note:

• Was your product mentioned? (Yes/No)
• What rank? (#1, #3, #5, not mentioned)
• Which competitors were mentioned instead?
• Did the AI describe your features without naming you? (Ghost Influence)

Pattern recognition:

• If 4/5 personas don’t find you → major content gap
• If you’re always rank #5-6 → need stronger differentiation
• If AI describes your features but doesn’t name you → ghost influence (need attribution signals)

Step 5: Fix Content Gaps (Prioritized)

High-impact fixes (do these first):

1. Homepage hero copy: Add persona problem language (“async-first for remote teams” not “project management”)
2. FAQ page: Answer exact persona questions (“How does this work for SOC 2?”)
3. Blog posts: Write for persona pain points (“Why Slack Threads Kill Remote Team Decisions”)

Medium-impact fixes (do if resources allow):

1. Case studies: Feature customers matching personas
2. Comparison pages: “[Your Product] vs Notion for Decision Documentation”
3. How-to guides: “Setting Up Async-First Workflows in [Product]“

Common Mistakes in Persona Testing

Mistake #1: Testing Generic Queries

Generic: “What are the best project management tools?” Persona-specific: “What project management tools work for remote teams across 8 time zones?”

Why it matters: Generic queries get generic results (top 10 lists). Persona queries reveal discovery gaps.

Mistake #2: Only Testing One Platform

Single platform: Test only ChatGPT, assume results apply everywhere Multi-platform: Test ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini

Why it matters: Platform variance is huge. ChatGPT might know you, Perplexity might not.

Mistake #3: Not Tracking Ghost Influence

Binary thinking: “They mentioned us” = success, “They didn’t” = failure Ghost awareness: Track when AI describes your features without naming you

Why it matters: Ghost influence means you’re almost visible. Small content fixes can flip this.

Mistake #4: Testing as Yourself (Not Your Buyer)

Your query: “What’s the best tool for async-first project management?” (uses your marketing language) Buyer query: “I hate that my team lives in Slack and I miss half the decisions. What do I do?” (uses their pain language)

Why it matters: Buyers don’t speak your marketing language. They describe problems in their own words.

What to Do Next

Option 1: DIY Persona Testing (Free)

1. Write 3-5 persona descriptions
2. Craft problem-based queries for each
3. Test on ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini
4. Document gaps and fix content

Time: 4-6 hours Cost: Free (your time)

Option 2: Run a Signal Report ($50)

What you get:

• Professional persona testing across 6 AI platforms
• Ghost influence analysis (where you’re mentioned without attribution)
• Competitive positioning (which competitors own your persona keywords)
• Prioritized content fix recommendations

Time: 15 minutes to submit, 15 minutes to review report Cost: $50

Get a Signal report

The Bottom Line

Brand searches measure awareness.

Persona searches measure discoverability.

Our client had 80% brand awareness in AI platforms but only 20% persona discoverability.

The gap cost them 3x trial volume they should have been getting.

One $50 Signal report revealed the issue. Three content fixes closed the gap in 3 months.

Your brand search visibility might be perfect. Your persona visibility probably isn’t.

Related Reading

• Signal vs AI Visibility Tools Comparison
• How AI Discovers Businesses
• Why Manually Checking ChatGPT is Costing You Time
• Ghost Influence Explained

Ready to test your real persona visibility? Run a Signal report ($50) and find out which buyer personas can actually discover you through AI. Brand searches lie. Personas tell the truth.