In every actor check we have run so far, Google's AI could describe the actor and ChatGPT had never heard of them.
It means that when someone types your name into ChatGPT, Google's AI mode, or Perplexity, the answer contains you, and describes you accurately. Not a stranger with your name. Not a confident paragraph of invented credits. You. Right now most working actors are legible to one of those engines and invisible to the others, and almost nobody has checked which.
Google's AI builds its answer from what it already indexes about you: your site, your IMDb, your press. If you exist in its index, it can usually assemble something.
ChatGPT answers mostly from what it absorbed in training, which is weighted toward sources it treats as authoritative. If nobody wrote about you anywhere it trusts, you are not there, and it will say so.
Both invent when unsure. The failure mode is not silence, it is a confident wrong answer built from someone else who shares your name.
None of them ask you. There is no profile to claim and no form to fill in. You change the answer by changing what they read.
Nobody does, and anyone quoting you a percentage made it up. What we can tell you is what the engines say about you today, which is measurable, and that the number of people who look someone up by asking an AI instead of searching is going one direction. The honest case for fixing this is not that casting is doing it at scale right now. It is that it costs little to be correctly described, and a wrong answer compounds quietly for years.
Same name spelling, same credits, same bio facts everywhere you appear, so the engines resolve you to one person instead of three.
A site on your own domain with entity schema gives every engine something authoritative to point at. Platforms cannot do this for you.
Coverage, interviews, festival listings, cast pages. This is the slow part, and it is the part that moves ChatGPT.
One link is enough. The free check scores you out of 100 in about thirty seconds and tells you which of these gaps is yours, before you spend anything.
We do not have reliable numbers and neither does anyone quoting them. What is measurable is what the engines say about you when asked, and that AI answers are increasingly the first thing anyone sees when they look a person up, whether that person is a casting associate, a director, a journalist, or an audience member.
Because its answer comes largely from what it absorbed during training, which favours sources it treats as authoritative. An actor with real credits but little written coverage outside the casting platforms is usually invisible to it, even while Google's AI can describe them in detail from the index.
You cannot submit yourself. You change what the engines read: one consistent identity across every platform, a site on your own domain with structured data that states who you are, and coverage on sources the engines already trust. It is slow and it is not a switch.
Ours is the part of your free check that asks Google's AI and ChatGPT who you are and records whether each one identifies you and whether it cites anything you own. It is a measurement of the current answer, not a prediction.
Partly. You can block specific AI crawlers in robots.txt, and the free check reports which ones your site currently allows. Blocking them does not remove what is already in a model, and for most actors being correctly described is worth more than being absent.
No. The two feed each other: the structured data and consistency that make you legible to an AI engine are largely the same work that makes you rank, and Google's AI answers are built from the index that traditional optimization affects.