GEO vs SEO: Is GEO Really Different from SEO?

If you’ve been in SEO for more than five minutes, you’ve probably seen the term “GEO” popping up everywhere lately. Generative Engine Optimization. The supposed next evolution of what we do. 🤔 And I get it, the industry loves a shiny new acronym.

But I stumbled upon this Search Engine Land article titled “Yes, GEO is happening” and my immediate reaction was basically: is it though? 👋

So I want to talk about the whole GEO vs SEO debate, because I think a lot of us are feeling the same way and nobody’s really saying it out loud.

What Even Is GEO? (If We Have to Talk About It)

Alright, let’s get the definition out of the way so we’re all on the same page: what GEO claims to be.

Generative engine optimization is supposedly the practice of making your content visible and citable within AI-generated answers. Think Google’s AI Overviews, ChatGPT responses, Perplexity results, that kind of thing. The concept was explored in a research paper from researchers at Princeton, Georgia Tech, The Allen Institute for AI, and IIT Delhi, and proponents argue it deserves its own name because the goal has shifted from “ranking on a results page” to “being cited in an AI-generated answer.”

And okay, fine, I can see the logic there. The output format is different. But the work? The actual work you’re doing day-to-day? Same stuff. Build authority. Create well–structured content. Answer real questions. Make sure your technical foundation is solid.

That’s SEO. That’s always been SEO.

The Arguments For GEO (And Why They Don’t Hold Up)

Danny Goodwin over at Search Engine Land laid out a few arguments for why we should all just accept GEO as the new reality. I want to walk through the main ones because they sound convincing on the surface but fall apart pretty quickly when you actually sit with them.

“Language Evolves”

Sure it does. Nobody’s arguing that. But language evolves when a new term fills a genuine gap, when there’s something that needs a new word because the old one doesn’t cover it anymore. The argument from the article is that GEO has every right to exist just like the phrase SEO came to be when search engines became a thing. That comparison doesn’t hold.

But here’s the difference: when SEO was coined, there was literally no existing term for what people were doing. We needed a word. With GEO, we already have a perfectly good one. We’re just… adding a letter to it? And making it worse in the process?

“GEO Is a Chance to Reframe SEO’s Reputation”

This one’s interesting and I actually partially get it. The article argues that SEO has always been undervalued and misunderstood, reduced to “gaming Google” or keyword stuffing by people outside the industry. And that’s true. Every time someone asks me what I do for a living and I tell them, they’re like “oh, so you work for Google?” It’s kind of a little confusing.

But slapping a new acronym on the discipline doesn’t fix a perception problem. If people don’t understand what SEO is after 25+ years, they’re not going to suddenly get it because you called it GEO. You’ve just given them a new term to misunderstand. The reputation issue isn’t about the name. It’s about education.

“Pronunciation Isn’t a Deal Breaker”

Hard disagree. And this is where I get a little personal about it: it matters in practice.

I cannot find myself saying GEO because the G and the E are so close that they make me not want to say it. SEO has more of a break into it, S-E-O. You can hear each letter. It’s clean. But GEO? It just flows way too quickly, it mushes together, and honestly?

“Hey, do you do GEO?” Try saying that out loud. It sounds ridiculous.

“I can’t find myself saying GEO, GEO, cause is GEO. Hey, do you do GEO? …It’s just not — doesn’t say tech to me. I don’t want to say GEO.”

And also GEO is like earth and ground. Like geology, geography, National Geographic. It doesn’t say tech to me. It doesn’t say search. The word already has strong existing associations and none of them have anything to do with AI or the internet.

The Data Tells a Different Story Than the Hype

So here’s what’s really telling. A study of SEO thought leaders found that a significant majority still include “SEO” in their LinkedIn headline. How many use “GEO”? Only a tiny percentage.

That’s not adoption. That’s a rounding error.

And the same research showed that these thought leaders’ framing of AI-era search shifts frequently, in response to news, platform announcements, whatever’s trending that week. The discourse itself is volatile. Which means even the people pushing GEO aren’t consistent about it.

Meanwhile, yes, a notable majority of marketing practitioners recognized the term GEO in a survey. But recognition isn’t the same as adoption. I recognize the term “synergy” too. Doesn’t mean I’m going to use it with a straight face.

GEO Is Just SEO. No Change, No Difference.

Here’s my take and I’m going to be blunt about it: GEO is just SEO.

Searching for something on the internet doesn’t mean you’re using Google. I mean, you could be using TikTok, you could be using ChatGPT, you could be using Perplexity, but you’re still searching for something. Searching on an engine of some sort, a bar that you type something in, and you’re optimizing for that. That’s the job.

And even while I understand the generative part of it, it’s still SEO because you still have to do so many SEO tactics in order to get into the generative experience in the first place. The AI models are pulling from content that ranks, content that has authority, content that’s well-structured and trustworthy.

If your SEO fundamentals are garbage, no amount of “GEO strategy” is saving you.

See the problem? The two columns are identical. That’s not a new discipline. That’s a rebrand.

The Real Shift Is Happening (Just Not the Way They’re Selling It)

Now, I’m not saying nothing has changed. Obviously things are changing. Google AI Overviews are appearing in a growing share of searches. ChatGPT has surpassed 800 million weekly active users as of 2025. The form-builder tool Tally found that ChatGPT became a significant source of user referrals. That’s notable.

And the volatility of AI citations is real; a substantial percentage of cited sources in AI answers can change month to month. That’s a new challenge worth paying attention to.

But adapting to new platforms and new output formats is what SEO has always been. We adapted when Google introduced featured snippets. We adapted for mobile-first indexing. We adapted for voice search. We adapted for video carousels.

None of those got their own three-letter acronym. We just called it what it was: doing SEO in a changing environment.

Stop Trying to Make GEO Happen

I know that’s basically what Carolyn Shelby said and it’s basically what I’m saying too. The article I reacted to was literally Danny Goodwin writing a response to her piece arguing that GEO isn’t going to be a thing. And after reading his counterarguments… I’m still on her side. I’m not convinced.

I really believe that right now GEO is more of a buzzword than anything else. I don’t know if it’s going to stick. And like I mentioned, the rolling off the tongue thing is just kind of a deal breaker for me. It sounds like a nature documentary, not a marketing discipline.

The industry doesn’t need a new acronym. It needs to keep doing what works and adapt, like it always has, without pretending every evolution requires a complete rebrand. That’s the point.

Final Thoughts

So are you going to start saying GEO? Because I’m surely not. I’m still saying SEO. The underlying work hasn’t changed enough to justify a whole new acronym, and the one they picked sounds like you’re about to study plate tectonics, not optimize a website.

If the SEO community genuinely adopts it in five years, fine, I’ll eat my words. But right now? It’s a buzzword chasing a problem that doesn’t exist.

My advice: ignore the rebranding hype and focus on the work. Adapt your strategy for AI-driven search results, absolutely, that’s smart and necessary. But don’t let anyone convince you that you need a whole new title on your business card to do it. The fundamentals win. They always have. And they don’t need a new name to keep winning.