Is GEO Just Snake Oil Rebranding of Good SEO?
The short answer is YES. Here's why…
Ever since I first heard someone drop "GEO" (Generative Engine Optimization) like it was the next big thing, I was perplexed. Then after the explanation, I just rolled my eyes.
Here was yet another person — maybe innocently, maybe out of ignorance, maybe with full intent — trotting out new marketing jargon to "explain" what good old-fashioned SEO (Search Engine Optimization) already covers. Suddenly we're supposed to buy into this fresh acronym as if it's a revolutionary new theory, separate from SEO or even AEO (Answer Engine Optimization).
In my view, GEO is nothing more than solid SEO repackaged. And yes, plenty of agencies are using it to upsell "AI-specific" services to confused clients. It's clever marketing, but it doesn't make it groundbreaking.
Google Weighs In — Loud and Clear
Google executives have been consistent: optimizing for AI experiences isn't a whole new game.
Google spills: It's all just SEO in disguise
Nick Fox (Google's SVP of Knowledge and Information) addressed this head-on in a late-2025 "AI Inside" podcast interview. When asked if there's a real difference in optimizing for Google's AI features (like AI Overviews) vs. traditional search, he said:
“The short answer is no. [...] What you would have built and the way to optimize to do well in Google’s AI experiences is very similar, I would say the same, as how to perform well in traditional search. [...] Build great sites with great content. Build what you would want to read, what you would want to access.”
This lines up perfectly with Danny Sullivan (Google Search director and longtime voice on these topics). At WordCamp US in August 2025, he famously quipped:
“Good SEO is good GEO, or AEO, AIO, LLM SEO, or LMNOPO. So, they’re all fine.”
He jokingly rattled off the endless acronyms (even inventing "LMNOPO" to poke fun at the trend) to drive home that the fundamentals haven't changed. In later Search Off the Record podcast episodes (with John Mueller), Sullivan doubled down: GEO/AEO/AIO are basically subsets of SEO, not separate disciplines. He emphasized writing for humans first — not for algorithms, LLMs, or whatever new acronym pops up next. Chasing "GEO hacks" (like forcing bite-sized chunks) risks hurting real value.
Why This View Resonates (and Fuels the Rebranding Critique)
Critics (including Fox and Sullivan) point out that AI systems — whether Google's Gemini, Perplexity, ChatGPT, or others — still pull from the same web signals traditional search does:
SEO and GEO: Twins separated at birth?
Content quality and usefulness — Well-researched, accurate, original material that's genuinely helpful to people.
Authority and trust — Backlinks, brand mentions, expert authorship, real-world credibility (reviews, citations).
Technical clarity — Schema markup, readable formatting (headings, lists, concise answers), semantic richness for easy parsing by crawlers and LLMs alike.
User intent focus — Conversational writing and direct answers have always been smart SEO; now they just match AI prompts perfectly.
Here's a quick side-by-side to show how little has actually changed:
Aspect | Traditional SEO Focus | GEO/AI "Optimization" Focus | Google's Take (Sullivan/Fox) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Goal | High rankings → clicks | Citations/summaries in AI answers | Same core work delivers both |
Key Content Traits | Helpful, unique, E-E-A-T strong | Helpful, unique, clear, cite-worthy | "Good SEO is good GEO" — write for humans |
Tactics Sold as "New" | Keywords, backlinks, speed | Stats, authority phrasing, fluency | Mostly long-standing best practices |
Risk of Over-Optimizing | Keyword stuffing → penalties | Chunking/bite-sizing → loses depth | Don't do it; focus on real value |
Bottom Line | Build authority & quality | Build authority & quality | No need for separate "GEO" strategy |
A Slight Nuance: Where AEO Shows Real (But Evolutionary) Differences
That said, I've seen tangible differences in practice when shifting from pure traditional SEO to getting AI engines to recommend or cite your content. AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) isn't a total reinvention, but it does reward tweaks that make your content more "answer-ready":
Shield up against acronym overload
Leading with the question (or clear question-based headings) instead of burying answers deep in the page.
Ditching keyword stuffing for natural, conversational language that reads like you're speaking directly to someone.
Adding Speakable Schema markup (especially useful for voice search and audio playback on Google Assistant) to flag sections ideal for text-to-speech.
Keeping info fresh and updated — AI loves recency and accuracy, so stale content gets sidelined faster.
These work across tools like Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Grok (xAI's truth-seeking AI that pulls real-time X data and favors straightforward, no-BS answers), and others. Good SEO already sets the foundation—layering AEO just sharpens the edge for zero-click wins and direct recommendations in conversational AI responses.
The Karma Angle
If you're an agency that truly knows how to deliver good SEO, don't confuse clients by slapping a GEO (or even heavy AEO) label on it and charging extra. It erodes trust.
Writing for humans, winning with AI
If you're a business owner shopping for SEO/AEO help, be wary of anyone pushing "GEO services" as revolutionary or must-have. Stick to pros who focus on timeless fundamentals: great content, real authority, and user-first experiences (with smart AEO tweaks where they make sense). You'll get the AI wins without the hype tax.
What do you think — is GEO mostly noise, or are there niches where it genuinely requires different tactics?