Dayside Media network
How you get found The network Pricing Use cases Reviews
English
Englishen Españoles Françaisfr Portuguêspt Deutschde
Sign in
Use cases

What are you trying to fix?

Flagship We're invisible Nothing ranks for our category and no assistant has heard of us. We rank for our own name and nothing else The pure search job: category phrases, not brand phrases. Launch Coverage across several titles while the launch is still being searched for. Funding announcement A raise that lands in more than one place, and stays there. Category creation You named a new category; teach the internet the term. Losing the comparison Competitors own “alternatives to X” in search and in chat answers. Due diligence What an investor or enterprise buyer finds when they search you. A new market or language The Spanish editions as a wedge into Spanish-speaking demand. Employer brand Coverage on career titles while you are hiring.
All nine, in full

Same two halves, same proof, different titles and different urgency. Every price is the real one for the shape beside it.

Flagship use case

We’re invisible.

Nothing ranks for your category and no assistant has heard of you. Both halves have the same root cause — nobody independent has written about you — so both halves have the same fix.

The search half

What it looks like today
You rank for your own name and nothing else.
Category phrases return competitors, directories and affiliate round-ups.
Your only pages about the category are on your own domain, which reads as marketing.
What a campaign changes
Permanent indexed pages on publications already ranking in your category.
Your brand beside the queries your buyers type, across many phrasings and two languages.
Followed links with your own anchor text from topically relevant domains.
A brand search that returns independent coverage, not just your homepage and three directories.
Typical shape: 16 titles, 32 pages, 32 links
Your cluster plus the two nearest, sponsored, newsroom-written — around $2,117.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked who to use, assistants name three companies. You are not one of them.
Asked about you directly, the answer is hedged or wrong, because there is nothing to read.
A live search during the answer finds your homepage and stops.
What a campaign changes
Pages that exist to be read, on ordinary public publications in your category.
Pages in the retrievable set, so a search during an answer can find and quote them.
Independent corroboration of what you do — the thing a model has to check a claim against.
A prompt-check list in your cabinet, so you can ask the questions yourself and see.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

We rank for our own name and nothing else.

The pure search job. Your brand query is fine; the phrases that describe what you sell belong to somebody else. That is a coverage gap, not a ranking problem, and it is the half you cannot publish yourself.

The search half

What it looks like today
Your brand query returns your homepage, your profiles and a directory — every result is you.
The phrases that describe what you sell return competitors and comparison sites you have never spoken to.
Your own blog covers the category, and search treats it as marketing because it is on your domain.
What a campaign changes
Pages about the category on domains that already rank for it.
Your anchor text on followed links, chosen by you, from titles in your own sector.
A second page of brand results that is not entirely your own properties.
The same article in English and Spanish, as two indexed pages rather than one.
Typical shape: 10 titles, 20 pages, 20 links
Your own cluster, sponsored, your text edited to house standards — around $693.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked about you by name, an assistant describes you roughly correctly — it read your homepage.
Asked what to use for the job you do, it lists the companies with category coverage.
There is nothing to cite about you except you.
What a campaign changes
Category pages that mention you, which is what a retrieval step actually looks for.
Third-party wording for what you do, rather than your own marketing paraphrased back.
Coverage filed under category questions, not only under your name.
The prompt list in your cabinet, so you can put the category questions yourself.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

Launch.

A launch is searched for in a narrow window and then remembered by whatever was written during it. The window closes; the pages do not.

The search half

What it looks like today
The launch is searched for over about a fortnight, and your only page about it is your own announcement.
Aggregators outrank you for your own product name within days.
Nothing exists for the problem the product solves — only for the product.
What a campaign changes
Several titles carrying the launch inside the window when people are looking for it.
Permanent pages, so the launch is still findable a year later when the aggregator post has rotated away.
Links with your anchor text from titles in the sector rather than from a wire reprint.
English and Spanish editions of each piece, published together.
Typical shape: 8 titles, 16 pages, 16 links
Eight titles in your cluster, sponsored, newsroom-written for speed — around $1,210.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked about the product, an assistant has your site and a reprint of your own words.
The launch appears in answers about you, and not in answers about the category.
Nothing independent to cite means nothing to check the announcement against.
What a campaign changes
Independent pages dated inside the launch window, which is what a later retrieval finds.
The same claim carried by more than one publication.
Coverage of the problem as well as the announcement, so it answers category questions too.
A prompt list to run through the fortnight after, in your cabinet.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

Funding announcement.

A raise lands in one wire and is reprinted by everyone. Six months later the only page still standing is a database entry with the round size and nothing else.

The search half

What it looks like today
The raise appears on one wire and three aggregators, all reprinting the same paragraph.
A search for your name and “funding” returns the wire, not you.
Months on, the page still ranking is a database entry with a number in it.
What a campaign changes
The round covered by several titles in your sector, each with its own angle.
Permanent pages that stay indexed after the news cycle has moved on.
Followed links from topically relevant domains, which a wire reprint does not carry.
A Spanish edition of each piece, where your market includes Spanish-speaking demand.
Typical shape: 6 titles, 12 pages, 12 links
Six titles across your cluster, sponsored, newsroom-written — around $907.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked about your funding, an assistant quotes the round size and the lead investor, and stops.
Asked what you are doing with it, there is nothing to read.
One source repeated ten times is still one source, and answers read alike because of it.
What a campaign changes
Several independent accounts of the same round, which is what separates a checkable fact from a press release.
Pages about what the company does, not only about what it raised.
Coverage on titles a model already retrieves from for your sector.
The prompt list, so you can see whether the round changed what is said about you.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

Category creation.

You named the thing. Until other people use the name in ordinary sentences, it is a product word, and search and assistants both treat it as one.

The search half

What it looks like today
The term you coined returns your site and nothing else, which reads as a company word.
Buyers search the old term, and the old term returns the incumbents.
There is no page that defines the term without also selling something.
What a campaign changes
The term used in ordinary editorial sentences on publications that are not yours.
Pages connecting the new term to the old one, which is how a reader crosses over.
Repetition across titles and across months, which is what makes a term a term.
Both languages, because a category that exists in one is a product name in the other.
Typical shape: 20 titles, 40 pages, 40 links
Twenty titles across your cluster and its neighbours, authored, over several months — around $1,788.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked to define the term, an assistant quotes your homepage or declines.
Asked what the category contains, it describes the old category and its incumbents.
A term with one source is a claim, and a model treats it as one.
What a campaign changes
Multiple independent uses of the term — the only evidence a model has that it is a category.
Definitions written by editors rather than by you.
The term appearing in the same documents as the incumbents, so the two are associated.
The prompt list, to watch whether the definition holds.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

Losing the comparison.

Somebody else owns “alternatives to”. The round-ups that decide the shortlist were written from whatever coverage existed, and none of it was yours.

The search half

What it looks like today
“Alternatives to” your competitor returns a round-up that does not include you.
The round-ups that do include you are affiliate pages that rank you last.
You have no page making your own case that anyone independent published.
What a campaign changes
Articles in your category on titles that already rank for comparison queries.
Your framing of the trade-off, fact-checked, rather than an affiliate’s ranking of it.
Followed links from the pages where the comparison is actually being made.
Coverage naming what you do differently, in sentences a round-up can quote.
Typical shape: 12 titles, 24 pages, 24 links
Twelve titles where the comparisons are written, authored, newsroom-written — around $2,008.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked for alternatives, an assistant lists the companies with the most coverage.
Asked to compare you with them, it has their material and your homepage.
Your differentiator exists only in your own words, so it is weighed as a claim.
What a campaign changes
Editorial statements of the difference, which a model can quote without hedging.
Presence in the same documents as the competitors, which is how comparisons get assembled.
Coverage of the criteria you actually win on, not only of the product.
The prompt list, with the comparison questions written out.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

Due diligence.

Somebody is about to search you before a meeting. What they find is the answer, and an absence of independent coverage reads as unverified rather than as new.

The search half

What it looks like today
A search for your name returns your site, your profiles and a funding database entry.
Nothing independent says what you do, which in diligence reads as unverified.
The only third-party pages are a review aggregate and a jobs board.
What a campaign changes
Independent coverage on named publications with editorial standards, dated and permanent.
Several sources saying the same thing about what you do, which is what corroboration means.
A first page of brand results that is not entirely your own properties.
Pages that outlast the diligence window, because they are articles and not campaigns.
Typical shape: 5 titles, 10 pages, 10 links
Five well-chosen titles, authored articles, your text edited — around $596.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked about you, an assistant hedges — which is the correct behaviour when there is one source.
Asked whether you are credible, it has nothing to weigh.
A wrong answer about you cannot be corrected, because there is nothing to correct it with.
What a campaign changes
More than one independent account, so an answer can be confident and still accurate.
Coverage carrying your actual claims, checked against sources you supplied.
Material retrieved when you are asked about directly, not only about your category.
The prompt list, so you can read the answer before the buyer asks the question.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

A new market or language.

Your site is in one language and the demand is searching in another. Translating your own pages gives you the same marketing twice; it does not give you a document anybody else wrote.

The search half

What it looks like today
Your site is in English and the demand you want is searching in Spanish.
Machine-translating your own pages gives you one domain’s worth of the same marketing, twice.
Nothing in Spanish that is not yours mentions you at all.
What a campaign changes
Every article published as a Spanish page as well, on the publication’s own domain.
A Spanish page written as Spanish, not as a translation of a sales page.
Indexed pages in the language the buyer is actually searching in, at no extra cost.
Links from those pages carrying your anchor text.
Typical shape: 10 titles, 20 pages, 20 links
Ten titles publishing both editions, sponsored, newsroom-written — around $1,323.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked in Spanish who to use, an assistant answers from Spanish-language sources. You are in none of them.
Asked about you in Spanish, it translates your English homepage and hedges.
This is not a ranking gap. There is no document.
What a campaign changes
Documents in Spanish that describe you — the only thing that closes a language gap.
The same claims corroborated in both languages.
Coverage on titles that publish both editions, so the two cite each other.
The prompt list, run in both languages.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.

Employer brand.

Candidates search you before they apply. The only independent voice on the first page is usually a review aggregate, and review aggregates are not written by the people who stayed.

The search half

What it looks like today
Candidates search your name and find your careers page and a review aggregate.
The aggregate is the only independent voice, and it is the loudest one.
Nothing describes what the work is actually like from outside the building.
What a campaign changes
Coverage on titles that write about work, hiring and teams, where candidates already read.
Pages about how you build, not only about what you sell.
A brand search returning something other than your careers page and a star rating.
Permanent pages, so the hire you make in a year still finds them.
Typical shape: 6 titles, 12 pages, 12 links
Six career and management titles, authored articles, your text edited — around $715.

The AI half

What it looks like today
Asked what it is like to work there, an assistant reads the review aggregate.
Asked about your engineering culture, it has your careers page’s own words.
One promotional source and one angry source average out to a hedge.
What a campaign changes
Independent accounts of how the team works, which is what a candidate’s assistant retrieves.
Coverage on career and management titles — a different corpus from your product coverage.
Material dated through the hiring window rather than years old.
The prompt list, with the questions candidates actually ask.
Measured how?
The free check gives you the baseline. Watching it move — same questions, every week, across four models — is the Always-on plan.
For individuals sits here too — same outcome framing at personal scale, and the guardrails on that page are not optional: Dayside is a publisher, not an immigration or legal adviser.
Start with the free check
Dayside Media network

One story, published across 20 independent publications in 24 industries — so search engines rank you and assistants name you.

English Español Français Português Deutsch
Product
How you get found The network Pricing & calculator Starter offer Free visibility check
Use cases
We’re invisible Launch & funding By industry Reviews & results For individuals
Company
Client cabinet Editorial standards Contact
Dayside sells editorial placements. It does not sell rankings, links by the link, or a promise that any assistant will name you.
© 2026 Dayside Media. Sponsored articles are labelled sponsored; authored pieces are written by the newsroom and fact-checked. Network figures read live from the newsroom database.