Cited finds where planner advocacy and programme proof fail to reach AI — and what that gap costs in enquiries.
The Cited thesis applies to DMCs, but the evidence environment is fundamentally different from consumer travel. Incentive and MICE buyers make decisions based on programme case studies, client references, destination expertise, planner advocacy and repeat engagement records not guest reviews on public platforms.
For DMCs, the gap most commonly found is not a shortage of client proof. It is a shortage of that proof in public, indexed, AI-accessible forms. Decades of earned trade reputation can sit entirely within private relationships while a competitor with weaker delivery but better-documented public proof appears in buyer shortlists.
Cited helps DMCs document genuine programme outcomes, client references and destination expertise in public, attributable forms that can support future buyer discovery without manufacturing claims the underlying delivery does not support.
AI Revenue Gap analysis for DMCs measures how a destination management company appears across defined AI supported buyer research journeys and investigates the client, programme and market evidence associated with those patterns.
Five steps applied to your specific buyer type, destination and programme category. Client references, programme case studies and destination authority are the primary evidence categories Cited investigates.
Tell us the destination, programme type and buyer market. We identify the evidence gap.
Book a Strategy Call