GEO instead of just SEO: Fewer clicks, more AI answers – What companies need to know about GEO now

AI search is changing business: How companies are recommended in search results

The new search economy: Those who are missing from AI answers lose visibility

Search engine optimization (SEO) was long considered the clear path to digital visibility: a website achieves good rankings, users click on the search result and reach the company. But generative AI is changing this logic. Systems like Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and Perplexity are increasingly answering more and more questions directly—by combining information from various sources. For companies, therefore, it's becoming increasingly important not only whether their website is found, but also whether their content appears in an AI-generated answer, is considered credible, and serves as a source or recommendation.

This development is often summarized under the term Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). It's more than just a new label for SEO: Classic search engine optimization remains an important foundation, but it's not always sufficient. This is because response systems access different sources depending on the platform. In addition to the company website, trade publications, comparison portals, videos, associations, databases, and independent mentions can shape a brand's image. Therefore, companies must not only optimize their websites but also reliably make their knowledge, reputation, and information accessible across various channels.

This transformation also has economic implications. If an AI summarizes the requested information directly on the platform, website visits may decrease. At the same time, a mention or recommendation in the response can influence a potential customer's decision – even if they don't click through to the company's website. GEO therefore poses new questions for companies: What content can they offer the answer systems? Where are their brands mentioned? What sources shape the AI ​​responses – and how can it be measured whether this visibility actually translates into qualified leads and business results?

SEO was yesterday? How GEO is redefining the economics of digital visibility

Those who only optimize rankings will be rendered invisible by AI systems

Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO for short, is often described as the next stage in the evolution of search engine optimization. This classification isn't wrong, but it's incomplete. Traditional SEO primarily aims to rank a website as high as possible in search results, thereby driving traffic to the site's domain. GEO shifts the focus: The crucial factor is no longer simply whether a page is found and clicked, but whether its content is retrieved by an AI system, understood, deemed credible, integrated into a response, and ideally cited as a source. Visibility thus increasingly arises within a response, not only after clicking on a search result.

This shift has profound economic implications. For over two decades, companies have learned to organize digital reach as a relatively linear chain: demand generates a search query, the search engine displays results, the user clicks on a website, a measurable interaction occurs, and this potentially leads to a sale. AI-powered search and response systems are disrupting this chain. They answer many questions directly on the platform, combine information from multiple sources, and thereby reduce the number of necessary website visits. At the same time, they can mention, recommend, or hide brands without the companies involved being able to directly observe or control this process.

The pointed thesis is therefore: Good SEO is good GEO as long as it concerns Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode. This formula is insufficient for ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Perplexity, and other answer systems. While a technically and editorially strong website remains important, it is only one component in a larger information marketplace. Trade publications, comparison portals, platform profiles, videos, associations, databases, scientific publications, and editorial mentions can have a greater impact on answer generation than the company's own website. GEO is therefore not merely a new label for SEO. It expands digital visibility from a website-specific task to a company-wide task encompassing information architecture, reputation, and market positioning.

From click market to response market

The traditional search economy relies on distributing attention via links. Search engines organize documents, users select a result, and the provider of the target page monetizes the visit through sales, inquiries, advertising, subscriptions, or brand exposure. In the new response economy, a larger portion of this value creation is absorbed by the platform itself. The AI ​​system reads or indexes numerous sources, condenses them into a personalized response, and keeps the user on its interface for longer. The source provides the raw material, but the platform controls the presentation, order, context, and user access.

Measurements from 2025 and 2026 illustrate the magnitude of this change. For search queries using Google AI Overviews, the click-through rate (CTR) of the top organic result in large datasets dropped by up to 58 percent. Other studies found declines in external clicks of around 38 to 40 percent and a significant increase in so-called zero-click searches. While some studies observed a slight recovery in CTRs at the beginning of 2026, the level remained below that of search results without AI summaries. The trend is therefore clearer than the exact percentage: a good ranking no longer guarantees the same number of visits as before.

For companies, this doesn't mean a complete loss of economic benefits. Rather, the impact shifts from mere visitor numbers to a mix of mentions, recommendations, trust building, and highly qualified residual traffic. Users who navigate to a company page after receiving a detailed AI response have often already compared products or services, refined their requirements, and completed part of their information search. Several analyses indicate that such visits can lead to inquiries or purchases more frequently than average. However, these results are highly dependent on the industry, sample size, and definition of a conversion. Therefore, a universally applicable formula for return on investment should not be derived from a few spectacular case studies.

Economically, this creates a trade-off with unclear terms. Companies lose some easily measurable traffic but can be present at an earlier and more influential stage in the decision-making process. Those mentioned in an AI-generated response as suitable providers, technical specialists, or reliable sources may receive fewer visits but have a greater influence on the initial decision. Conversely, those who remain visible only in the traditional search results list may lose real market impact despite stable rankings.

Google remains a search engine, AI assistants do not

Google has closely integrated its generative search functions with its existing search index and established quality and ranking systems. Therefore, the familiar principles still apply: content must be crawlable, indexable, technically accessible, and eligible as a search result. Clear internal linking, a good user experience, visible text, accurate structured data, and helpful images and videos remain relevant. Google does not require a special GEO file or schema for inclusion in AI Overviews or AI Mode. This is the core principle behind the statement that good SEO is also good GEO.

However, this statement becomes misleading when applied to the entire market of generative answers. ChatGPT, Claude, and Copilot, depending on their function, operate with their own search indexes, partner indexes, user-initiated queries, pre-trained model knowledge, and external sources. The specific mix can vary depending on the product, region, account type, recency of the question, and whether the search function is activated. Therefore, there is no single, unified GEO algorithm, but rather a portfolio of different information systems, each with its own editorial logic.

Source preferences also differ. Analyses over several months show that large AI services repeatedly favor certain source types depending on the search intent. Google may heavily weight the company domain for navigation-related queries, but more frequently includes videos and external publications for informational or purchase queries. Copilot is closely tied to the Bing ecosystem. ChatGPT and Claude partially separate crawlers for training, search, and user-initiated page views. Therefore, an optimization that works for one system may not generate the same visibility or the same number of links for another.

GEO therefore demands a platform strategy. Companies must decide which answer systems are economically relevant for their target groups, for which questions they want to appear, and which type of source is actually used there. A one-size-fits-all checklist for all systems fails to recognize the market structure. It would be comparable to a media strategy that treats trade journals, television, social networks, and trade fair appearances according to identical rules.

The website itself loses its information monopoly

The company website remains the most important controllable source. Product data, service descriptions, contact persons, documentation, case studies, and legal information can be published there in a legally binding manner. However, control is not the same as influence. AI systems often seek the most reliable answer possible and therefore combine internal information with external confirmations. Especially when it comes to evaluation, selection, and comparison questions, an independent source appears more plausible than a provider's self-presentation.

This is particularly evident in search queries for brand names. A comprehensive US analysis from autumn 2026 found that AI overviews appeared in a very large proportion of brand-related desktop searches. Among the external sources, Wikipedia, YouTube, and LinkedIn dominated. In one brand panel examined, Wikipedia was used in approximately 72 percent of the AI ​​overviews with external references, YouTube in almost 39 percent, and LinkedIn in almost 23 percent. These figures cannot be readily extrapolated to Germany, smaller brands, or every industry. However, they demonstrate that even the public presentation of a brand is increasingly composed of information from external or semi-controllable sources.

This poses a challenge for corporate communications. An organization can maintain its website perfectly and still appear outdated, abbreviated, or contradictory in AI responses if external profiles, videos, directories, and editorial content contain different information. Brand management thus becomes a task of distributed data consistency. Company name, services, locations, management, product names, industry classification, and key performance indicators must be presented correctly and with as few contradictions as possible across all relevant sources.

This does not imply a call for control of the entire internet. That would be neither possible nor credible. It is about the systematic maintenance of those information hubs from which machines and people construct a brand image. This includes high-quality company profiles, verifiable author identities, consistent product data, publicly accessible documentation, informative videos, expert articles, association information, and independent mentions. The website is transformed from the sole center to the origin of an information network whose impact extends beyond its own domain.

Separate brand issues and market issues

Traditional keyword research remains useful, but it's insufficient for GEO. Search volume and ranking positions describe a world of short, relatively standardized search terms. Generative systems, on the other hand, are frequently used with complete questions, complex situations, and sequential dialogues. A decision-maker doesn't just ask about warehouse automation, but potentially which automation concept is suitable for a medium-sized spare parts warehouse with a high product variety and limited ceiling height. The economically relevant unit is therefore no longer just the keyword, but the combination of problem, context, decision criterion, and expected answer format.

A robust GEO program therefore begins with a prompt map. This map must separately capture questions that mention a brand and those that do not. Brand-related prompts reveal the image a system has of a company. These include questions about services, locations, ownership, customers, strengths, weaknesses, alternatives, and experiences. Non-brand-related prompts depict the actual competitive landscape: Which providers are suitable for a given problem, which technologies are recommended, which criteria are important in the selection process, and which companies are considered credible?

The distinction is crucial because the two groups serve different economic functions. Brand issues are about protecting reputation, ensuring information quality, and avoiding false statements. Generic market issues, on the other hand, are about generating demand and the chance of even being included in the relevant pool of suppliers. A company can be correctly represented by its name and still be missing from all important category queries. Conversely, it might frequently receive recommendations but elicit contradictory responses when asked detailed questions about its own brand.

For B2B companies, the prompt roadmap should also be structured along the buying process. Early questions address problem understanding and solution alternatives. In the middle phase, criteria, supplier groups, technical differences, and risks dominate. Later, integration capabilities, pricing logic, references, implementation time, service, standards, and contract models follow. This structure is more economically valuable than a long list of isolated terms because it shows where the brand is lacking in the decision-making process and what content or third-party sources could fill this gap.

Crawlability is the entry ticket

Before a company considers semantic optimization, brand authority, or external mentions, it must verify whether the relevant systems are technically permitted to access its content. Many organizations have blocked AI crawlers across the board to prevent their use for model training. Often, they fail to differentiate between training crawlers, search crawlers, and user-initiated requests. This can lead to a situation where a website protects its content from certain training purposes but simultaneously reduces its chances of appearing in current AI search results.

OpenAI, for example, distinguishes between GPTBot for potential training purposes and OAI-SearchBot for ChatGPT's search functions. Anthropic also differentiates between crawlers for training, search, and user-initiated queries. At Microsoft, Bingbot is central because Copilot relies on information from the Bing ecosystem. This technical differentiation allows for a more granular strategy: A company can grant search access and restrict training access, provided the respective providers and functions support this.

The robots.txt file is only one part of the check. Content delivery networks, web application firewalls, bot management systems, login barriers, JavaScript dependencies, geographic restrictions, and faulty status codes can also prevent access. Explicitly allowing access in the robots.txt file is of little use if the server subsequently rejects the crawler with a security check, a blank page, or an error message. Equally problematic are critical pieces of information that are only found in hard-to-access PDFs, interactive configurators, or dynamically loaded interfaces.

Crawlability, however, is only the entry ticket. Readability, clarity, and up-to-dateness determine whether a system can meaningfully utilize the content. Important information should be presented as visible, logically structured text. Product names, units, versions, validity periods, and responsibilities must be clearly defined. Contradictions between datasheets, product pages, press releases, and sales materials increase the likelihood of inaccurate answers. Technical accessibility without editorial discipline therefore only produces ambiguity that is more easily discovered.

Xpert.Digital is a data-driven B2B industry hub led by Konrad Wolfenstein . The company acts as an external, quasi-in-house solution for industrial partners, closing operational gaps in marketing, content, and sales – without requiring additional resources on the client side.

More information here:

• The quasi-in-house solution: How Xpert.Digital closes operational gaps in B2B marketing and sales – Smart Content-Driven Business

Personal knowledge becomes a scarce production factor

GEO's greatest opportunity lies not in a new formulation technique, but in the economic enhancement of its own knowledge. Generative systems can generate general texts in large quantities. This reduces the production costs of interchangeable guides, definitions, and summaries. What remains scarce are original data, historical documents, practical experience, proprietary methods, reliable measurement series, and expert explanations that are not available elsewhere.

A striking example comes from a ship propeller manufacturer who digitized a 1955 technical book and transformed it into a modern, searchable knowledge resource. Visibility subsequently increased many times over; in one particularly dramatic way, impressions were said to have increased a hundredfold. The crucial point is not so much the exact transferability of this figure, but rather the underlying mechanism. The company didn't publish yet another generic text on a generally known topic, but instead unlocked rare, specialized knowledge that search and answer systems could use to answer specific questions.

Small and medium-sized industrial companies, in particular, possess vast amounts of untapped knowledge. Old manuals, training manuals, technical drawings, test results, maintenance experience, design rules, application reports, and internal glossaries are often stored in archives or held by individual specialists. Until now, these resources have primarily been used internally. Through structured digitization, they can be transformed into external assets with high visibility. This not only increases reach but also signals expertise and provides machines with clear connections between problems, processes, and solutions.

Digitization should not be confused with simply uploading data without verification. Outdated security information, historical standards, or obsolete technical recommendations must be contextualized. Copyrights, trade secrets, customer confidentiality, and export controls must be considered. A good knowledge project supplements historical content with current context, explains the limits of validity, and makes technical terms machine-readable. Its economic value arises from the combination of exclusivity, reliability, and practical usability.

This logic changes content strategy. The crucial question is no longer how many articles are produced per month, but rather what knowledge a company possesses that cannot be replicated from a hundred similar websites. Quantity loses its marginal utility, while unique information gains value. At its best, GEO rewards those organizations that translate their real-world expertise into verifiable digital artifacts.

Authority arises outside the domain

When AI systems combine answers from multiple sources, external validation becomes a strategic asset. Trade publications, universities, associations, customer testimonials, standards bodies, conferences, and credible industry portals can shape a brand's perception more effectively than self-published advertising. GEO combines this development with public relations, analyst work, thought leadership, and traditional marketing communications.

The key difference lies in the function of the mention. In traditional link building, an external link primarily served as a ranking signal and traffic source. In the response economy, the contextual relevance can be crucial: Which brand is mentioned in connection with which problem, product, location, or value proposition? Is it categorized as a manufacturer, integrator, specialist, market leader, niche provider, or simply as an example? A mention without a link can be relevant for a system's brand understanding, while a poorly contextualized link contributes little.

Companies should therefore not collect publications indiscriminately. Valuable sources are those that possess authority in their respective subject area, are actually used by response systems, and accurately place the brand in a relevant context. For a provider of intralogistics solutions, a detailed technical article on retrofit strategies can be more useful than a widely disseminated but superficial news item. For a consulting firm, a comprehensible methodology presented in an industry association can be more effective than a general company profile.

This logic reinforces the importance of editorial quality. External references cannot be permanently replaced by mere self-promotion. Anyone wishing to serve as a source must provide statements that others can accept with a clear conscience: clear figures, verifiable methods, named experts, comprehensible examples, and a recognizable distinction between analysis and advertising. GEO does not automatically make communication more honest, but it does increase the economic value of credible third-party endorsements.

Listicles: Between Impact and Manipulation

List articles with headings such as "best providers," "leading tools," or "most important solutions" are used remarkably often by AI systems. There are structural reasons for this. They bundle multiple alternatives, organize a market, specify selection criteria, and provide a format that can easily be translated into a concise answer. This creates a clear incentive for providers to buy their way into such articles or publish their own "best of" lists.

Experiments from 2026 show that external list placements can generate significant visibility in the short term. In a 30-day test, the vast majority of observed source references came from third-party sites, while the company's own list contributed considerably less. In another experiment, the number of AI citations for a post increased sharply after not only the company's own brand but also key competitors were included in the discussion. These results suggest that comparative content is particularly valuable for response systems.

However, they do not demonstrate a reliable business model. The studies were limited in time and scope, the systems' responses varied, and citing a source is not the same as a recommendation. An AI system might cite a list article but select a different provider. Similarly, a purchased placement might appear briefly and disappear again after a change in the model, index, or ranking. Therefore, those who pay high fees for listicles are not buying guaranteed demand, but rather a probabilistic chance of visibility.

Furthermore, there is a risk to credibility. Self-proclaimed "best of" lists, in which the publisher places themselves in first place, are commercially attractive but editorially questionable. If users, competitors, or platforms recognize the manipulation, the short-term effect can turn into reputational damage. Search and AI systems also have a strong incentive to detect manipulative patterns because their own product quality depends on credible recommendations.

Purchased listicles are therefore more suitable as a limited experiment than as a core strategy. Before investing, it should be checked whether the specific page already appears as a source in relevant prompts, whether it is maintained and updated, whether the placement contains factual information, and whether the company's landing page actually answers the buyer's questions. Without these prerequisites, it is essentially just classic link buying with a new label.

GEO is a measurement problem

Traditional SEO metrics are relatively stable and standardized. Rankings, impressions, clicks, sessions, and conversions can be monitored using established tools. GEO does not yet have a similarly reliable measurement system. Responses can differ between two runs, even with identical prompts. Location, language, user history, model version, search mode, and time of day all influence which brands and sources appear. A single query, therefore, does not provide reliable performance data.

Research on measuring AI visibility recommends repeated testing and rolling evaluations over several weeks. For reliable results, one study suggested at least seven repetitions per prompt per day for brand mentions and eight repetitions for source analysis. While such values ​​are not a universal standard, they illustrate the statistical challenge. Visibility should be understood as probability: How often does a brand appear under defined conditions, in what position, with what tone, and with which sources?

A meaningful key performance indicator (KPI) system separates several stages. First comes discoverability: Can a system technically access relevant content? This is followed by its inclusion in the retrieved context. Only then do mentions, citations, prominent placement, and actual recommendations occur. The final stage results in website visits, inquiries, sales, or other economic impacts. A measure can improve an early stage but be ineffective at a later one. More crawler visits don't necessarily mean mentions, more citations don't necessarily mean recommendations, and more recommendations don't necessarily mean sales.

This separation prevents false successes. A dashboard that only counts the number of mentions might celebrate a brand that is regularly described as unsuitable or expensive. Similarly, a source might be frequently cited while a competitor receives the recommendation. Measurement must therefore capture not only quantity but also context and tone. For B2B markets, it's also important to remember that a single qualified lead can be more economically valuable than thousands of inquiries without purchase intent.

The new budget problem

Initially, GEO generates additional costs because companies cannot simply switch off traditional search. Technical SEO, editorial maintenance, and link building remain necessary, while new expenses arise for prompt monitoring, external placements, knowledge digitization, data maintenance, and cross-platform communication. Thus, the transition phase does not result in a replacement, but rather an expansion of the marketing apparatus.

The budget question shouldn't be decided based on trendy buzzwords. A more sensible approach is to allocate resources according to their economic function. Technical accessibility ensures discoverability. Internal expertise creates differentiated information assets. External expert communication generates validation. Prompt monitoring reveals market position and errors. Conversion optimization transforms the remaining, often qualified, traffic into sales. Each of these functions requires different skills and different success metrics.

The temptation to prematurely allocate large budgets to specialized GEO tools or purchased mentions is particularly critical. The market is young, measurement methods vary, and many performance claims are based on small sample sizes. Companies should therefore work with clearly defined pilot projects. A single topic, a single product group, and a defined set of purchase-relevant prompts are sufficient to identify initial correlations. Scaling is only justified once technical, editorial, and economic effects become consistently visible over several weeks.

For smaller B2B providers, GEO can still offer a disproportionately high opportunity. In traditional search markets, large domains with substantial budgets and long-standing authority often dominate. However, generative search systems require precise, in-depth, and up-to-date sources for specialized queries. A niche provider with unique data and a clear professional positioning can therefore appear more prominently in individual answer fields than its general brand awareness would suggest. This advantage doesn't materialize automatically, but the barrier to entry can be lower for specific problems than in the battle for broad search terms.

SEO is finally getting strategic topics addressed

The irony of this development is that SEO managers, under the new name GEO, can now implement tasks that have long been important but received too little internal priority. These include clean product data, clear page structures, expert profiles, publicly accessible documentation, robust case studies, consistent brand information, and the digitization of existing expertise. What was previously considered an editorial side project can now be justified as a prerequisite for AI visibility.

This is more than just a rhetorical trick. The new response economy makes the costs of poor information organization visible. When sales, product management, communications, and the website publish conflicting information, it not only creates internal friction. AI systems can reproduce these contradictions and pass them on to potential customers. GEO thus creates a financial incentive to treat information quality as a core business infrastructure.

At the same time, SEO teams cannot claim sole control over GEO. Optimizing search engine results touches on legal issues, brand management, product data, IT security, public relations, sales, and knowledge management. Those who enable crawlers must respect data protection and privacy interests. Those who publish technical archives require expert approval. Those seeking external comparison articles must consider advertising disclosure and editorial credibility. An isolated marketing project, therefore, falls short.

The appropriate organizational structure is a small, cross-functional management model. SEO provides technical and demand-related data, communications is responsible for external authority, specialist departments provide substance, IT ensures access and measurement, and sales evaluates the quality of the resulting leads. In this way, GEO doesn't become just another campaign, but a discipline that makes existing knowledge marketable.

A reliable path into practice

The process should begin with a technical inventory. Relevant search, training, and user crawlers must be considered separately. The organization consciously decides which access it allows, instead of simply perpetuating blanket blocks from previous debates. Simultaneously, server logs, firewall rules, JavaScript dependencies, and the textual accessibility of important content are examined. The goal is not maximum openness, but controlled discoverability.

This is followed by prompt and source analysis. For each key business area, a manageable set of realistic questions is developed, separated by brand, problem, category, comparison, and purchase stage. The questions are repeatedly tested on relevant platforms. Mentioned brands, sources used, response positions, errors, and identifiable gaps are documented. This results in a map of the actual information competition.

The third step involves inventorying the company's own knowledge capital. What data, documents, experiences, and expert opinions does the company possess exclusively? What content solves specific customer problems? Which historical resources can be reinterpreted within a current context? This review should yield a few high-quality knowledge objects: a fundamental technical work, a robust market study, a calculator, a structured case study, a current comparative methodology, or a documented series of measurements.

The next step is to expand the external presence. This isn't about maximizing mentions, but rather about establishing the right connections on credible platforms. Articles, interviews, association work, video explanations, and joint publications with partners can strengthen the information network surrounding the brand. Paid placements remain an option, but should be transparent, measurable, and reversible.

Finally, the program requires economic monitoring. In addition to traditional traffic, visibility probability, referral rate, source coverage, error rate, qualified visits, and sales conversions are tracked. Evaluation is conducted over time periods rather than based on individual screenshots. Measures that only generate mentions but do not improve response quality or business value are discontinued.

The winners do not own the most texts

The key economic shift is that digital visibility no longer takes place entirely on a company's own website. Businesses compete for a place in synthesized responses whose selection criteria are only partially transparent and constantly changing. This increases dependence on platforms, weakens the click as a universal measure of success, and makes reputation in external information spaces more important.

Good SEO remains the technical and editorial foundation, especially within the Google ecosystem. However, outside of that, a broader system of accessibility, in-house expertise, external validation, consistent content, and realistic prompts is crucial. Reducing SEO to headings, FAQs, or additional keywords optimizes the surface but overlooks the underlying production logic.

The winners will therefore not be those companies that publish the most AI-generated texts the fastest. Organizations that succeed will be those that possess concise, credible information and structure it in a way that humans, search engines, and answer systems can reliably use. A digitized textbook, a well-documented series of measurements, or an independent expert mention can generate more value than a hundred interchangeable how-to articles.

GEO is therefore neither a complete break with SEO nor simply a rebranding. It's an adaptation to a market where answers themselves become a distribution channel. The strategic challenge is no longer just to be found. It's to remain relevant and trustworthy information within an answer, even if the user never visits the website. This is precisely where the greatest risk and the greatest opportunity of the new search economy lie.

In industrial B2B, sustainable business relationships rarely emerge overnight. They develop step by step – through visibility, professional relevance, recurring touchpoints, and growing trust. Xpert.Digital's 4-stage model addresses precisely this: It offers a structured path that begins with a manageable entry point and can evolve into deeper collaboration in business development if needed.

Instead of relying on loud marketing promises, this model puts the relationship at the forefront. Companies start with clearly defined, easily calculable measures and then decide, based on their own experience, how far they want to expand the collaboration. A key factor for this undisturbed trust-building process: The platform completely avoids annoying advertising ads, so the editorial focus remains solely on the companies' expertise.

More information here:

• From visibility to trust: Your scalable path with Xpert.Digital

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your native language!

 

I and my team are happy to be available to you as your personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form here wolfenstein@xpert.digital:or simply call me at +49 7348 4088 965. My email address is

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

 

 

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs