Where the findability / citability case is strongest vs weakest — informational / B2B research queries vs purely transactional / local intent

Claim: The findability / citability argument is strongest for businesses whose customers research questions (services, considered purchases, B2B), because AI Overviews and informational-query visibility concentrate there. It is weakest for purely transactional / local intent — AI Overviews appear on only a small share of e-commerce / shopping queries and local-pack-style searches, where Google still routes clicks to complete transactions.

Source: Synthesis of Pew Research Center — 18% of Google searches in March 2025 produced an AI summary (68,879 searches across 900 US adults; independent anchor) + industry analysis of AIO query mix (BrightEdge, Conductor 2025–2026).

Confidence: Industry-consensus.

Why this matters for Candid: Tells the SMB which lever applies. Trades / restaurants / local retail benefit most from the interactive and live-data capabilities (booking, availability, status). Service businesses and B2B benefit most from the structured / fresh capabilities (findability + citation). The four capabilities together cover the spectrum; no business type is left without at least one relevant lever, but the specific lever differs. Anchors R7 — Match the working-surface capability to the business type: booking + live availability for trades, calculator / assessment for consulting, queryable products + account for retail.