Kato et al. (2026) — Generative Marketing Mix Modeling (GMMM) for AI Answer Exposure

Summary:

This paper is about a new way to measure whether generative AI tools help marketing. The authors call it Generative Marketing Mix Modeling, or GMMM.

The idea is to connect things like brand mentions in AI answers and sponsored placements in AI answers to business results such as sales or conversions.

It was written by Masahiro Kato, Daiki Honma, and Taka Kato, and posted on arXiv.

The main goal is to build a causal framework for two things:

• GEO, where a company changes its own content so AI tools may mention it more;
• GEM, where a company pays for sponsored placements in AI answers.

The authors want to show how to turn those hard-to-see exposures into inputs for a marketing mix model, and how to estimate the business effect of turning GEO or GEM on versus off over time.

They mostly do this with theory and simulation, not a live business experiment.

They set up statistical models for expected brand mentions and sponsored placements, then run simulated market data to test how well different estimation methods recover the true effects.

For the empirical input, they collected 2,240 complete answers from two GPT models, using 56 product-recommendation questions in English and Japanese, with 20 repeated answers per question-model pair. They recorded whether the target brand name, Glasp, appeared in each answer.

The paper also includes a separate referral-traffic analysis from public data, but the authors say that dataset is missing key pieces needed for the full method.

The most important findings are these.

First, brand mentions in AI answers vary a lot by model, language, and use case, so one simple overall mention rate is not enough.

Second, the paper argues that to estimate GEO exposure properly, you should not just count mentions in sample answers. You also need to combine mention probability with question volume, which AI system users choose, and whether people actually notice the mention.

Third, in the simulations, estimating carryover and saturation inside the model mattered a lot. That explained most of the improvement over a simpler plug-in approach that kept those settings fixed.

Fourth, letting business outcome data feed back into the measurement side did not show a steady benefit. The joint method sometimes improved coefficient recovery, but it did not consistently improve estimation of the final GEO effect.

Fifth, the total estimated GEO effect could look fairly accurate even when its internal pieces were much less accurate, because errors in different parts sometimes canceled each other out. Sixth, adding a matching randomized estimate could help in some setups, but if that outside estimate was misaligned with the target setting, it introduced bias.