How much time do you spend on your brand name, not only on your product?
Lately I see people coming to IvaBot by its name. Some of them asked ChatGPT, others read about it somewhere and then searched for the name. It made me realise how much it matters to have backlinks, citations, articles about you or your brand, comparison tables and so on.
So I now put a big part of my energy into the brand name, and this is where it goes:
LinkedIn, because it is a recognisable platform tied to my own name.
Indie Hackers, because AI answers cite it well and it tells enough about the creator.
Directories.
Brand mentions with backlinks or in roundups.
Places in comparison tables.
Social networks, as a social signal.
Answers on forums.
A mention does not need a backlink every time. What matters is that your brand or company is named, and it works better when the description of the brand is always worded the same way, together with contact details, prices and everything else.
I do most of this by intuition rather than on the basis of solid data, so I am curious how others handle it. How much time do you spend on your brand name, is it a priority for you, and have you seen results from it?
You said people are already coming to IvaBot by name now — that's actually a measurable thing, right? Direct/branded search traffic before you started this vs after. That would tell you if it's working way faster than intuition can, even without knowing which channel did it.
Great insights, Galyna! I completely agree that building brand recognition through consistent descriptions—even without backlinks—creates a powerful virtuous cycle.
This made me wonder: When you launch a new product or service in the future, how do you plan to handle your existing brand accounts and profiles? Do you pivot the existing account, keep them separate, or shift focus to a personal/studio brand?
I’d love to hear how you and others handle this when scaling multiple projects. I'm still experimenting on my end, but I’ll be sure to share any interesting results or data as I go!
I've been thinking about this more recently too.
I used to treat the brand name mostly as something you choose once, get the domain for, and then move on to the actual product. But I'm starting to think the information that accumulates around the name becomes an asset of its own.
One thing I'd add though is that mentions probably aren't equal. A directory page saying “X is an AI tool for Y” feels much less valuable than a discussion, comparison, tutorial, or experiment where the product is mentioned in a useful context.
Especially with AI search, it seems like having the same brand consistently associated with a clear use case across multiple independent sources matters more than just collecting backlinks.
So I'm spending more time on distribution now, but trying to make each mention contain some actual information rather than just placing the name everywhere.
This resonates with distribution forcing functions. Your brand name becomes a signal only when it survives the filter of visibility - from Indie Hackers citations to comparison tables. The repetition and consistency you mention are load-bearing because they transform mentions into a coherent pattern that AI and humans alike recognize. The real leverage point isn't the activity, it's having a measurement system that tells you which surface area (LinkedIn vs forums vs directories) compounds over time. Most teams move on before the frequency reaches the threshold where it sticks.
Nice progress. What is the next thing you are focusing on?
Almost none until I had to say it out loud to someone, which is when spelling it twice started costing more than picking a better name would have.
Nice progress. What is the next thing you are focusing on?
Interesting approach. What was the hardest part to get right?
Nice progress. What is the next thing you are focusing on?
Thanks for sharing the numbers, that makes it much easier to follow.
Good point. Did you test that with users before committing to it?
What made you pick this stack over the alternatives?
Interesting approach. What was the hardest part to get right?
Nice progress. What is the next thing you are focusing on?
Thanks for sharing the numbers, that makes it much easier to follow.
Good point. Did you test that with users before committing to it?
What made you pick this stack over the alternatives?
Interesting take. Would you still recommend this approach to someone starting today?
Nice progress. What is the next thing you are focusing on?
Agree that shipping is the easy part. I renamed my project before launch (from a made-up word to "The Sixth Man", a basketball term fans already know), and it made every post and DM easier: nobody asks what the name means, it explains the idea by itself.
The "describe it the same way everywhere" point is underrated. I use one line on every profile and it's already less confusing for people who see it twice.
Love this angle. Building Xstream4K right now so this hits close to home — what made you look into it in the first place?
Interesting approach. What was the hardest part to get right?
Nice progress. What is the next thing you are focusing on?
Good point. Did you test that with users before committing to it?
Thanks for sharing the numbers, that makes it much easier to follow.
What made you pick this stack over the alternatives?
Interesting take. Would you still recommend this approach to someone starting today?
Interesting take. Would you still recommend this approach to someone starting today?
Yes, and I would start even earlier than I did. From the first day I would write one short description of the product and use exactly the same wording everywhere
We chose “UtilitySEO” because the domain was available and the name describes what it does in two words. Zero minutes on creative naming — but the trade-off is that a literal name competes with the generic phrase. Anyone searching “utility SEO” gets the category, not us.
Our brand numbers are small enough to be honest about: DA 3, ten referring domains and they’re all spam, four visits a month. What’s actually working is exactly what you describe — the IH posts and comments where we share real numbers get cited by AI assistants. We had someone run a five-engine AI visibility audit on our domain: GPT cited us 5/5, Perplexity 4/5, Qwen 1/5.
The pattern is that AI cites specificity. A post with “DA 3, four visits” gets referenced where “we’re early-stage” doesn’t. The brand name matters less than whether the content around it gives AI something concrete to cite.
Exactly, I see the same thing. Articles with fresh information get indexed and cited every time, especially when they include tests I ran myself, links to sources and an up-to-date review. AI seems to reward proof that someone actually did the work.
One thing I would add is consistency. When the brand is described in the same words everywhere, with the same prices and contact details, AI assistants stop mixing it up with other names. For a long time IvaBot was confused with a better-known brand with a similar name, and that changed quickly once the description became the same across all mentions.
Have you been able to trace which mentions actually lead to branded searches or qualified visits, or are you still treating all brand visibility signals as roughly equal?
I do not treat them as equal, but I trace the difference by watching what happens after each mention rather than with exact attribution.
The mentions that work best are the ones on large platforms within the topic. On LinkedIn, for example, I share my own experience, people see my photo, my work and probably mutual connections, and I can see that after posts without any link people search for IvaBot.
Two SEO-focused sites also worked well. They published the pros and cons of services like IvaBot, IvaBot caught people's interest there and brought signups. Now ChatGPT and Google's AI answers cite that comparison table, so it works as a long-term investment.
Posts here on Indie Hackers, where I share my project honestly, are also one of the main sources AI cites, because they show clearly who I am, what I do and why the project was built.
For quite a long time Google and AI assistants confused my SaaS with a better-known brand with a similar name. As soon as I started working on brand growth, that changed, and it changed very quickly.
I have probably forgotten some channels too, but these are the ones where I see a clear effect.
That distinction between visibility and downstream behavior is worth digging into. Could be useful to compare notes on that by email sometime, if you’re open to it.
**A bit of context I missed in the post: I work in SEO, and a few months ago I launched IvaBot, a pay-as-you-go tool that tracks Google positions, keywords and backlinks together with how often ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini mention a brand. I have not left SEO, but I now combine it with brand marketing, which is what this post is about.
Good point. Did you test that with users before committing to it?
Makes sense. Are you planning to charge for it, or keep it free for now?
How did you decide this was worth building in the first place?
I built it for my own SEO work first. I needed to track positions, backlinks and AI citations for clients in one place, and I did not want another monthly subscription for it.
Clear and practical, thanks. Did anything surprise you along the way?
Honestly, everything surprised me, because IvaBot is my first SaaS. It started with writing code, which I had never done before, and now it is promotion, where I work more like a marketer than an SEO specialist.
Nice work shipping it. What has been the biggest challenge since launch?
Thanks! The biggest challenge has been getting known, not building. Shipping the product turned out to be the easier part, and getting people and AI assistants to know the name takes much more time. That is actually why I wrote this post, because most of my energy now goes into the brand name rather than new features.