ChatGPT answers put distributors in 12 of 15 slots

By Daniel Okafor

Distributors occupied 12 of the 15 supplier recommendations generated across three ChatGPT answers in a UK cosmetic-ingredient sourcing test. Azelis, Brenntag and Harke appeared in every top-five list. Croda, the only manufacturer named, also appeared each time.

What did the AI search test show?

The Pitman Comms Visibility Index Report, “GEO in the Beauty Ingredients Supply Chain,” examined how generative AI changes supplier discovery for beauty businesses. Its headline identified Croda, Azelis and Brenntag as the top three suppliers, although Harke also appeared in all three detailed lists.

The report used a Generative Engine Optimisation lens to measure how consistently suppliers surfaced in AI-generated answers to one focused UK formulation-sourcing question across three conversations.

Four distributors occupied four of the five recommendation places in every response. That gave distributors 80% of all 15 slots across the test. Croda held the remaining three positions.

The findings concern discoverability, not product efficacy, market share or sales performance. Croda stood out as the only beauty ingredient supplier to appear in each of the three top-five answers.

The practical result is simple: AI put distributors first and kept one manufacturer visible.

How was supplier visibility measured?

The registered question was: “Identify five suppliers of functional cosmetic ingredients serving the United Kingdom. State the principal ingredient functions associated with each supplier.”

The method ran that same question through three conversations via OpenAI’s generative AI chatbot, ChatGPT, while requesting five supplier places in every answer for comparison.

In the report’s UK sourcing context, Croda was classified as a manufacturer. Azelis, Brenntag, Harke, Surfachem and Infinity Ingredients were distributors.

The test offers a narrow but repeatable view of one discovery channel. It does not show which suppliers procurement teams ultimately choose or which recommendations convert into business.

The method measures repeat visibility in one AI channel, not broad supplier performance.

Which suppliers appeared in each answer?\n

Four names persisted across all 15 recommendations, yet their order shifted with each conversation and two additional distributors appeared at different points across the lists.

• Answer 1: Azelis; Brenntag; Croda; Harke; Surfachem.
• Answer 2: Croda; Brenntag; Azelis; Harke; Infinity Ingredients.
• Answer 3: Croda; Brenntag; Azelis; Surfachem; Harke.

Azelis ranked first, second and second. Brenntag stayed second. Croda rose from third to first in the second and third answers. Harke placed fourth, fourth and fifth. Surfachem appeared twice, and Infinity Ingredients appeared once.

The order changed. The core names did not.

The repeated names show consistency, while the shifting positions show how unsettled AI-generated shortlists can remain.

Why did distributors dominate the shortlists?

The report was designed to spotlight suppliers, extending a conversation often focused on consumer brands. Its concern is reach: a supplier may have strong science and long-standing customer relationships without appearing in a new customer’s first formulation query.

Simon Pitman, founder of Pitman Comms, framed the concern this way:

“A beauty ingredient supplier can have excellent science and long-standing customer relationships, but the next customer may not know its name. If that customer asks AI for a formulation solution, which suppliers enter the conversation?”

Pitman also separated visibility from commercial value:

“Distributors play an important role in helping customers discover and access ingredients. This finding is not about questioning the value of distribution. It is about helping manufacturers understand how their ingredients and expertise are presented across the routes customers use to discover them.”

That distinction matters because the report focuses on discovery and access to formulation ingredients, rather than the relative technical merit of ingredient manufacturers and their distribution partners.

Distribution looks important for discovery, but the report does not make it a verdict on manufacturers.

What should suppliers make of the results?

Pitman said researchers remain at an early stage in understanding how AI search will influence supplier discovery. He described the results as a snapshot of varied answers and a starting point for better questions, not a judgment on the companies featured.

Because the test covered three conversations with one UK question, its strongest signal is repeated visibility, not a broad measure of market leadership, purchasing behavior or supplier performance.

For manufacturers, the immediate issue is direct visibility: can their formulation expertise and customer relationships surface when an AI system receives a sourcing request? Distributors, meanwhile, retain an important role in helping customers discover and access ingredients.

AI-mediated sourcing remains at an early stage, so suppliers must track visibility across direct and distributor-led routes rather than treat this ranking as a verdict.