Mktg.Tech Media Kit

1. Who we are

Mktg.Tech is a research publication, not a directory and not a media business. We evaluate marketing software against a published framework and publish the scores, the reasoning, and the sources behind them.

We are newer than most sites in this category. The first ranking went live on 25 January 2026. 7 months later there are 20 categories covering 200 products, each scored out of 100 against the 7-Point Evaluation Framework, with named strengths, a stated limitation for every entrant, and a downloadable research workbook listing every source consulted.

Research is done by named people, not a byline: Michael Brown and Erik Chavez, whose backgrounds are published in full.

2. Reach, and what the number does not mean

We do not lead with pageviews. Our output is read most often by AI assistants answering software questions, so the number that describes our reach is how often our rankings get cited in those answers.

306,468 citations to date. The source is Bing Webmaster Tools’ AI Performance report.

Five qualifications, all of which matter more than the headline:

• It is one vendor’s ecosystem. The figure counts Microsoft Copilot and its partner surfaces: Copilot, Bing, and the search engines and assistants that ground on the Bing index. It does not include Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Claude. We publish the full surface by surface map at What Are Microsoft Copilot and Partners?, including which surfaces we could not verify.
• It is concentrated by category. Across the 13 rankings covered by the per-page report, as of 2 September 2026, our three largest categories account for roughly 79% of the citations counted there, the median sits near 10,313 and the smallest at 74. Those come from a separate per-page export, which itemises slightly less than the headline total. Microsoft does not explain the shortfall, so we do not. Ask us for your category’s figure rather than assuming the headline applies to it, or read it off the ranking itself: every one prints its own count and date at the top.
• It is concentrated in time. The busiest 14 days carried 174,746 citations, which is 57% of everything recorded to date. The cumulative total describes a recent surge more than a long steady run, and we would rather say so than let the number imply otherwise.
• Daily figures are not a clean trend line. The report contains days recording zero between days recording thousands. Those are gaps in Microsoft’s reporting rather than actual stops, which is also why we do not quote a current daily rate.
• It counts citations, not people. A citation is a reference to the page inside an AI answer. It is not an impression, a click, a session, or a visitor, and it should not be compared to those.

For shape: the busiest single day recorded 16,205 citations, and the widest covered 16 distinct pages, up from two when the site started being cited. We watch that second number more closely than the total, because it says whether citations are spreading across the catalog or resting on one report.

Microsoft reports one aggregate total and provides no per-surface breakdown, so neither we nor anyone else can attribute a citation to a specific product inside that ecosystem. Every figure here is a dated snapshot rather than a live counter, and each ranking prints its own count and date at the top of the page.

3. How a product gets evaluated

We actively want to hear about products that shipped recently. A ranking is only as good as the version of the product it describes, and the fastest way for us to get that wrong is to score last year’s release.

• Submissions are free. Submit a product at any time. It costs nothing.
• A submission buys nothing. It does not influence placement, scoring, or whether a product is included at all. Submitted products are scored on the same evidence as products that never contact us.
• What helps. Current pricing pages, release notes or changelogs, documentation, and named customer results with numbers in them. What does not help is a pitch deck.
• What we will not do. Guarantee inclusion, guarantee a position, share a score before publication, or remove a limitation because a vendor disputes it. Factual errors are a different matter and we fix those: see Corrections & Updates.

4. Editorial standards

• Published framework. The 7-Point Evaluation Framework sets out the criteria, weights, scoring scale, data sources, and inclusion rules. Scores are reproducible from it.
• Sources published. Each ranking ships a research workbook listing every source consulted, including source conflicts we could not resolve and vendor claims we could not verify. We publish what failed verification rather than dropping it.
• Named researchers. Every ranking credits the people who did the work.
• Stated limitations. Every entrant carries a limitation, including the highest scoring one. A ranking with no downsides listed is an advertisement.
• Corrections on the record. Corrections & Updates documents how errors are reported, verified, and logged, including what we will not do.
• No affiliate relationships in the rankings, and no vendor has paid for placement, ranking influence, or editorial consideration.

5. Name and type

The name

Mktg.Tech. Mixed case, one full stop, no space. Not MKTG.TECH, not Mktg Tech, and not lowercase in running text even though the domain is.

Typefaces

6. Color

The palette is built for a dark background. On light surfaces, use #0087A3 in place of the primary accent so text stays legible; the raw cyan does not carry enough contrast on white.

7. Icon and badge

The icon

There is no wordmark file. The logotype is set live in Tiny5 rather than exported, so for anything needing a mark, use the icon:

Two things the files will not tell you. The mark is black on a transparent background and there is no reversed version, so it needs a light surface: place it on a dark one and all that survives is the white bar through the middle. It is also cropped flush to all four edges, with no padding built in, so add clear space of about a tenth of its width yourself rather than butting it against neighboring elements.

Do not recolor, rotate, outline, add effects to, or set type inside the icon. If you need a size or format that is not here, ask through the contact form and we will export it rather than have it redrawn.

The report badge

This is what an included product receives. One badge per report, per year:

How to distribute it

Each ranking page carries the three routes below, next to the badge itself:

• Download the PNG for decks, one-pagers, print, and anywhere an embed is not possible. Transparent background, so it sits on light or dark.
• Copy the HTML embed for a website or docs. It is a linked image, so it stays verifiable:

  Copy the embed codeCopied

  <!-- Mktg.Tech – Best AI Visibility Tools of 2026 -->
  <a href="https://mktg.tech/the-best-ai-visibility-tools/" target="_blank">
    <img src="https://mktg.tech/wp-content/uploads/ranked-top-10-in-field.png"
         alt="Mktg.Tech – Best AI Visibility Tools of 2026"
         style="max-width:220px;height:auto;" />
  </a>

• Share to LinkedIn with the report prefilled, for an announcement post.

Places it tends to earn its keep: a homepage or footer trust row, an “as featured in” strip, a pricing or comparison page, the press or newsroom page, a launch announcement, and a sales deck appendix. Keep it at 180 to 240 px wide on the web; below about 140 px the year stops being readable.

The rules, in full

• Every included product may use it, not only the top scorer.
• Link it back to the report. That is what makes the claim checkable, and it is the only thing we ask in return.
• Do not alter it: no recoloring, cropping, stretching, added text, or added claims such as “number one” or “winner” unless the report says so.
• It is dated. A 2026 badge refers to the 2026 report. Retire it when a newer report supersedes it.
• Using it is optional and has no effect on placement in this or any future ranking. It is not a condition of inclusion, and declining costs a vendor nothing.

8. Boilerplate

Copy these rather than paraphrasing, so the claims stay accurate.

One line.

Mktg.Tech publishes independent, scored rankings of marketing software.

Short, about 40 words.

Mktg.Tech is an independent research publication covering marketing software. It scores products against a published seven-point framework and publishes the reasoning and sources behind every ranking. Nothing on the site is for sale, and no vendor has paid for placement or ranking influence.

Longer, about 80 words.

Mktg.Tech is an independent research publication covering marketing software. Since January 2026 it has ranked 20 categories covering 200 products, each scored out of 100 against a published seven-point framework, with named strengths, a stated limitation for every entrant, and a downloadable workbook listing every source consulted. Research is credited to named researchers. Nothing on the site is for sale: no placement, position, inclusion, review, or badge can be bought, sponsored, or negotiated.

Citing a ranking. Reference the specific report URL and its published or revised date, both printed at the top of every ranking. Scores change when evidence changes, so a citation without a date is unverifiable.

9. Contact

Press, research, and correction inquiries all go through the contact form. We do not publish an email address, because a published address is scraped within days; the form reaches the same people.

For a factual error in a published ranking, Corrections & Updates is the faster route and lists what to include.

Name, type, color, the badge, and downloadable assets are in sections 5 to 8. This page is available as Markdown at /media-kit.md, as is every page on this site. Machine-readable endpoints and the full agent contract are documented at Mktg.Tech for Developers and Agents.