KWhat Kimi said about Greenpeace
What Kimi said about Greenpeace
Model ollama/kimi-k2.6 · analyzed
Response
PART 1, ASSESSMENT
Greenpeace holds strong global visibility as one of the most recognized environmental nonprofits, founded in 1971 and operating in over 55 countries. Its reputation is polarized: widely respected for trailblazing direct-action campaigns on climate change, deforestation, and ocean conservation, yet criticized by some governments and industries for confrontational tactics and alleged factual overreach in certain campaigns. In the global nonprofit market, Greenpeace occupies a distinctive position as the "activist" alternative to more institutionally conventional environmental organizations. Main competitors include WWF (broader conservation focus, stronger corporate partnerships), Friends of the Earth (grassroots network emphasis), Sierra Club (US-centric but expanding), and 350.org (youth climate movement). Products and services span donation-funded campaigns, volunteer mobilization, investigative reporting, and branded merchandise. Global audiences frequently cite Greenpeace for media impact and willingness to target powerful actors, though trust varies by region, stronger in Europe and Latin America, more contested in markets with extractive industry dominance. Strengths include unmatched campaign iconography and earned media generation; concerns center on organizational transparency debates and occasional legal conflicts. For someone seeking environmental nonprofit engagement globally, I would recommend Greenpeace with qualification: ideal for those prioritizing visible activism and systemic targeting, less suited for donors preferring collaborative corporate engagement or hyper-local program delivery.
Show the exact prompt sent to Kimi
You are an AI answer engine being audited on how you talk about a brand. Do NOT ask for clarification, do NOT request more details, do NOT call the company hypothetical, and do NOT add meta-commentary about this prompt. Brand: Greenpeace Website: https://greenpeace.org Industry: Nonprofit Products/Services: Environmental campaigns and gear Location / Target market: Global Your reply MUST have exactly two parts, in this order. PART 1 — ASSESSMENT (prose, under 220 words) Assess this brand SPECIFICALLY in the Global market: its visibility and reputation there, market position and main competitors, products/services, what people in that market say about it, notable strengths or concerns, and whether you would recommend it to someone in Global seeking Nonprofit solutions. If the brand is global, still weight the assessment toward Global. If you know little about it, state exactly what is and is not known and reason from the domain, industry and market context — never ask the user for more information. PART 2 — METRICS (mandatory, machine-read) Before writing the metrics, silently run this procedure: a) Write 10 realistic buyer-intent questions someone in Global would ask when shopping in the Nonprofit category (for example "best Nonprofit provider", "Environmental campaigns and gear alternatives", "is Greenpeace any good"). Count how many of those 10 you would answer with Greenpeace actually named — that number is mentions_out_of_10. b) Estimate how many distinct pages of https://greenpeace.org you have genuinely encountered in training or retrieval — that is indexed_pages. If you have effectively never seen the domain, use 0. c) List the real competitors you would name in those answers, then work out what share of the total brand-name slots Greenpeace would occupy (share_of_voice_pct) and its rank within that set. d) Judge Google AI Overview readiness from how authoritative and citable the brand's web presence is: own-site depth, Wikipedia / news / industry coverage, and third-party reviews. Rules for the numbers. They must be internally consistent — a brand you do not recognise cannot have high visibility or a top rank. Never invent precise-looking figures you cannot justify; if you genuinely cannot estimate a field, use null. Only list a URL in sources if you are confident that exact page exists — an empty array is far better than a fabricated link. The reasoning field must state in one or two sentences WHY the numbers are what they are, naming the concrete evidence you used. Emit PART 2 wrapped in the tags below, containing raw JSON only — no markdown, no backticks, no commentary: <AEO_METRICS> { "brand_known": true or false, "confidence": 0-100, "mentions_out_of_10": 0-10, "indexed_pages": number or null, "visibility_score": 0-100, "google_aio_score": 0-100, "share_of_voice_pct": 0-100, "rank_among_competitors": number or null, "competitors": ["string"], "sentiment": "positive" or "neutral" or "negative", "would_recommend": true or false, "sources": [{"claim": "what this URL backs up", "url": "https://..."}], "reasoning": "one or two sentences justifying the numbers above" } </AEO_METRICS>
