Highlights
- The dataset: This study is an analysis of over 170,000 AI source citations using prompts specific to the printing and copy industry. It analyzes AI responses from four AI models run in 12 countries over the course of Q2 2026.
- 1 shared domain for ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot: The only source in both models' top-20 lists (kwikkopy.com.au).
- 47% of Grok's citations are from user-generated domains: Yelp, Reddit, Instagram, and Facebook edge out commercial content.
- 68% of German citations are local: German prompts point to a .de domain far more than Spanish prompts (35%) do.
- ~91% of top sources differ between any two models: Any two of the four share only about 9% of their top-20 cited printing domains, far more fragmented than hotels (27%) or universities (25%).
- 72% of Microsoft Copilot's citations are from commercial domains: Print-shop sites and local directories, making Microsoft Copilot the most commercial model.
Which sources should you target to get cited as a printing and copy shop brand?
The distinctive character of each model's top sources tells the story better than any single number.
| Model | Top sources | Citation character |
|---|---|---|
| Grok | reddit.com, Yelp, facebook.com, Instagram, Tripadvisor | Review aggregators + social |
| Microsoft Copilot | copytop.com, printerette.nl, corep.fr, copicentro.net | Commercial print shops + directories |
| ChatGPT | reddit.com, loc8nearme.com, trustanalytica.org, papeleriahada.es | Reddit + directory/reputation content |
| Google AI Overview | google.com, m.yelp.com, goldiesoffice.nl, happycopy.nl | Local commercial + regional directories |
The closest thing to common ground is kwikkopy.com.au, which appears in every model's top tier, but there is no printing equivalent of a single dominant source every model trusts. The top cited sources here also appear in Temso's publisher directory.
How have AI source rankings changed over time in the printing and copy industry?
We split the ~16-week window at its midpoint (early May 2026) and compared each domain's citation volume across halves. We report movement within Microsoft Copilot and read it as a directional signal for one model rather than the whole market.
The clean signal: worldwide.com.au surged from #14 to #3 on a +52% jump in citations, and imprentafacil.com.mx climbed twelve places on an +87% jump. At the same time several established Spanish-market listings fell off a cliff, imprentasmexico.com.mx lost 93% of its citations (#5 → #24) and expertise.com went from 177 citations to zero. Even inside a single model, the printing-services source list is volatile over a few weeks: a brand can climb fast, and a directory can vanish.
What type of content do AI models cite for printing and copy shops?
The models differ not just on which domains but on what type of content they trust. We classified every cited domain into six categories.
Three distinct strategies emerge. Microsoft Copilot is the company-website model, nearly three of every four citations go to a commercial print-shop or directory page, and it almost never cites a forum or review thread (3.6% UGC). Grok is the crowd-wisdom model, user-generated content edges out commercial (47.1% vs 39.7%), reflecting its heavy diet of Yelp, Reddit, Instagram, and Facebook. ChatGPT is the most balanced and the only model that meaningfully cites reference material (19.9%, roughly 8× Grok or Google AI Overview). Google AI Overview sits closest to Microsoft Copilot on commercial weight but is the only model to lean noticeably on editorial and institutional content. Microsoft Copilot rewards a strong owned website; Grok rewards a strong review and social profile, they are not the same investment.
Do AI models cite local-language content for printing and copy shops?
Outside English-speaking markets, models vary sharply in how often they cite local-country domains. Using country-code top-level domains as a proxy for local-language sourcing, the local-domain citation rate ranges from 67.6% (German) down to 35.1% (Spanish). English prompts are excluded, English content overwhelmingly lives on generic domains.
German-language printing content is the most locally rooted: roughly two in three German citations point to a .de site. Spanish sits at the bottom at 35.1%, but that is a measurement artifact as much as a behavior. Spanish spans three markets here (Mexico, Spain, Argentina), and a large share of Spanish-language printing content sits on .com rather than .mx.es, or .ar, so the proxy undercounts genuinely local Spanish sources. A ccTLD is a proxy for localization, not a measure of it, read these as a directional signal of how often models reach for nationally registered domains.
Which AI model relies most on local sources for printing and copy shops?
The same local-domain measure, sliced by model, shows the assistants behave very differently in non-English markets. Microsoft Copilot leans local hardest among well-sampled models; Grok defaults to the global web.
Among well-sampled models, Microsoft Copilot is the most locally anchored, two in three of its citations in non-English prompts go to a national-TLD site, and in the Germanic markets it is emphatic, sending 93% of Dutch and 87% of German citations to national-TLD sites. Grok, which cites by far the most sources overall, reaches local domains only about 41% of the time; it defaults to global review aggregators regardless of market. Google AI Overview posts a higher headline rate (78.1% overall) but is thin outside Dutch, so its row is indicative, not conclusive. In the Netherlands and Germany, a locally registered print-shop site is close to the price of entry for Microsoft Copilot; in Spanish- and French-speaking markets, a .com is no handicap.
Should printing and copy shops optimize for each AI model separately?
Yes, almost completely. If the four models drew from a shared notion of "the authoritative printing sources," their top-cited lists would look alike. They do not. Comparing each model's 20 most-cited domains pairwise, the average overlap is just 9.2%, with a range of 2.6% to 14.3%.
The reference Hotel-industry report found a 27% average overlap. Printing and copy shops is far more fragmented, unsurprising for a hyper-local, long-tail service category where there is no dominant "Booking.com" of printing to anchor every model. The one connective tissue is a handful of chains and platforms that surface across models, kwikkopy.com.au appears in every model's top-20, and snap.com.au recurs across several. A printing brand that optimizes for one assistant is effectively invisible in the ~91% of sources the others prefer.
How many sources does each AI model cite per answer?
Counting cited sources per response reveals a large difference in how widely each model casts its net.
Grok cites roughly 5.9× more sources per answer than ChatGPT. The confidence intervals are tight and non-overlapping, so the gap is real, not sampling noise. Practically, Grok gives a printing brand many more shots at being cited in a single answer, but each citation is one of ~31, so individual prominence is diluted. ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot cite a short, curated list where landing a single citation carries far more weight.
Context
This analysis draws from Temso's AI visibility monitoring platform, which tracks how brands appear in AI model responses across ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Grok, and Google AI Overview. The dataset covers printing-and-copy-shop prompts across 12 countries and 7 languages over roughly sixteen weeks (March–June 2026). It is over 170,000 cited source references drawn from 16,510 AI responses (322,143 total source references including uncited links).
It measures what AI models cite, not the underlying quality of any print shop. Google AI Overview is thinly sampled here (248 responses), which we flag wherever it affects a finding. These findings reflect citation behavior for printing prompts in the monitored markets and may not generalize to other verticals or prompt types.
Methodology
How we measured this
We tracked four AI models responding to printing-and-copy-shop prompts in local languages across 12 countries. Each response was parsed to extract source citations: the URLs, domains, and metadata referenced. Domain categories (commercial, UGC, reference, editorial, institutional, other) were assigned from a global domain registry. Cross-model overlap was measured by comparing each model pair's 20 most-cited domains, the share of domains the two lists hold in common, then averaging across all six pairs. Temporal analysis split the observation period at its midpoint (2026-05-04) and compared domain rankings within Microsoft Copilot. Model coverage varied across the observation window, so temporal movement is reported within a single model rather than across all four.
The analysis covers over 170,000 cited sources from 16,510 AI responses. Sample sizes exceeded recommended thresholds for every reported finding. Localization is measured by a country-code-domain proxy (the source records carry the prompt language but no verified per-page language), so those figures are directional and exclude English-language prompts, which sit overwhelmingly on generic domains. A two-proportion z-test on the extreme overlap pair (2.6% vs 14.3%) returned p ≈ 0.07, so we lead with the average rather than any single pair.
Frequently asked questions
Do AI models cite different sources for print-shop recommendations?
Yes, dramatically so, more than in any category we have measured. Any two of the four models share only about 9.2% of their top-20 cited printing domains, and ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot shared just one (kwikkopy.com.au). Roughly 90.8% of the sources one model relies on are absent from another's top list.
Which AI model favors company websites over reviews for print shops?
Microsoft Copilot, decisively. 71.9% of its citations are commercial domains, print-shop sites and local business directories, and only about 3.6% are user-generated reviews or forums. It is the model where a strong owned website pays off most.
Which model cares most about reviews and social proof?
Grok. Over 47% of its citations are user-generated content (Yelp, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram), edging out commercial sites at 39.7%. If your reviews and social presence are weak, Grok will notice.
Do print shops need local-language web content for AI visibility?
Often, yes, but it depends on the market. In Germany and the Netherlands roughly 61–68% of citations go to national-TLD sites, and Microsoft Copilot pushes that past 90%. In Spanish- and French-speaking markets only about 35–42% do, so a .com is no real handicap there.
Which AI model relies most on local sources for print shops?
Among well-sampled models, Microsoft Copilot, 66.7% of its citations in non-English prompts use a national domain, rising to 87–93% in German and Dutch markets. Grok relies on local sources least at about 41%, defaulting to global review platforms. Google AI Overview posts a higher rate but is too thin outside Dutch to rely on.
How many sources does each model cite per answer?
Grok, by a wide margin, about 31 cited sources per answer, roughly 6× more than ChatGPT (5.3), Microsoft Copilot (7.9), or Google AI Overview (8.4). More citations from Grok means more chances to appear, but each one is diluted among dozens.
How fast do AI print-shop source rankings change?
Quickly. Within Microsoft Copilot, worldwide.com.au climbed from #14 to #3 (+52% in citations) while imprentasmexico.com.mx lost 93% of its citations and dropped from #5 to #24 in the back half of the window.
Is one AI ranking enough to optimize for in printing?
No. The models share only about 9% of their top sources and weight content types very differently, so visibility on one model does not transfer to the others. Build a strong, locally registered company website for Microsoft Copilot and Google AI Overview, cultivate reviews and social proof for Grok, and treat each assistant as a separate channel.
