Somewhere on Reddit right now, someone’s arguing GEO is just SEO with a new coat of paint, sold to confused clients by agencies chasing a trend. Fair question. We do what works, not what’s fashionable — so we put the claim to the test instead of getting defensive about it.
Here’s what actually held up, and what didn’t.
What is GEO, precisely?
GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation) is the practice of structuring content so generative Ai systems — ChatGPT, Google Ai Overviews, Perplexity, Claude — select it as a source when generating an answer. It is measured by citation, not ranking position. That’s a real, distinct outcome from traditional SEO, and it has its own body of research behind it.
The skeptic’s case — and where it’s right
The objection surfacing on marketing forums has a real point buried in it: a lot of agencies are relabeling the same SEO deliverables — keyword reports, backlink audits, content calendars — as “GEO” without changing a single tactic. If the work is identical, the rebrand is just marketing. That criticism is fair, and it should make any buyer ask their agency a direct question: what, specifically, changed in the methodology?
Where the skepticism breaks down
The Princeton GEO study (KDD 2024) tested nine content optimisation methods specifically for their effect on Ai citation likelihood — not search ranking. The results don’t overlap with traditional SEO tactics:
| Method | Ai visibility boost |
|---|---|
| Cite authoritative sources | +40% |
| Include specific statistics | +37% |
| Include expert quotations | +30% |
| Authoritative (not salesy) tone | +25% |
| Improve clarity and readability | +20% |
| Keyword stuffing | −10% |
Notice what’s missing from that list: backlinks, keyword density, domain age — the traditional SEO toolkit. And notice what’s actively penalised: keyword stuffing, one of SEO’s oldest tactics, actively hurts Ai citation likelihood. If GEO were just relabeled SEO, keyword stuffing wouldn’t be on the naughty list.
The honest verdict
GEO is not SEO with a new name. It’s a related discipline that shares infrastructure — a well-indexed, technically healthy site still matters — but rewards a different set of signals for a different outcome. The buzzword accusation is correct when applied to agencies that didn’t change their delivery. It’s wrong when applied to the methodology itself.
What this means in practice: if your current agency’s “GEO offering” looks identical to last year’s SEO package, that’s the tell. If it includes sourced statistics, expert attribution, and structural changes built for extraction — not just ranking — that’s the real thing.
Frequently asked questions
Is there peer-reviewed research behind GEO, or is it agency marketing?
Yes — the Princeton GEO study presented at KDD 2024 is the primary academic research behind current GEO practice, testing nine methods against measured Ai visibility outcomes.
How do I tell if my agency is doing real GEO or relabeled SEO?
Ask what specifically changed in their content structure, sourcing practice, and schema implementation. If the answer is “nothing, we just call it GEO now,” that’s relabeling.
Does GEO replace the need for good SEO?
No. GEO builds on SEO fundamentals — crawlability, indexing, technical health. Removing SEO basics doesn’t help GEO performance.
Why does keyword stuffing hurt Ai citation but used to help ranking?
Ai systems evaluate content for fluency and genuine informativeness, not keyword frequency. Stuffed content reads as lower quality to a language model, which reduces citation likelihood by roughly 10% per the Princeton study.
We do what works. Here’s the Structure/Authority/Presence methodology behind LeadGen — Ai SEO, and how it differs from a relabeled SEO package.
James Martin is Founder and CEO of Optimize, a Malta-based Ai SEO agency. 20 years in content and branding, now applied to getting brands cited by Ai — not just ranked on Google.
