SEO or GEO: What the debate stirring up the community really reveals
GEO: Simple fashion trend or major issue for marketing teams?
For several months now, a new word has been creeping into almost every marketing meeting: GEO, which stands for Generative Engine Optimization. We are being promised a new territory to conquer within ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI Overviews, complete with its own techniques and dedicated tools.
However, the topic is sparking debate within the SEO community. The catalyst? A viral exchange on the The Edward Show podcast, where consultant David Quaid put a fervent GEO advocate on the spot by asking him to provide concrete proof for his claims. So, is it a real revolution or just a marketing stunt?
The subject has set Reddit ablaze and divided professionals. This debate is worth taking the time to explore because it touches on a fundamental question that our clients are also asking: is GEO a truly new discipline, or simply an evolution of the search engine optimization we already practice?
At the heart of the debate: What are the AI’s sources?
The basic principle is very simple: Where does the AI get its answers? It doesn’t invent anything. To answer you, it simply pulls information from traditional search engines like Google or Bing.
Result: For ChatGPT or Google AI to talk about your company, your site must already rank very well on traditional Google. Being cited by AI is simply proof that your usual SEO is working. This is why many experts are skeptical about “GEO”: ultimately, there is nothing truly new about it.
The tools that measure your presence in AI are still unreliable
The second point of disagreement concerns the new tools claiming to measure your visibility within AIs. Several experienced professionals are calling for caution, without dismissing the entire sector outright. Their concerns are easy to understand. These tools ask AIs a series of questions and then give you a visibility score. The problem is that this score is highly unstable, and the measurement KPIs it relies on can vary from one tool to another.
You only have to change a single word in the question or switch to a different AI, and the result changes completely. We end up with a nice-looking number presented as a serious indicator, even though we cannot really trust it. The right attitude is simple: some tools work seriously while others are just guessing, but in any case, these figures must be read with a healthy dose of skepticism.
SEO and GEO are not enemies; they complement each other
Does this mean we should bury GEO? No, that would be an exaggeration. The two terms look similar and rely on the same technical foundations, but they don’t serve quite the same purpose. SEO is primarily used to attract visitors to your site. GEO, on the other hand, mainly works on building your brand awareness, which can subsequently drive visitors to you. Therefore, we view these two approaches as complementary rather than competing.
The only thing really worth monitoring for now is whether your brand appears in AI responses or not. And the good news is that some of this information is becoming more accessible: Google announced on June 3, 2026, the arrival of dedicated reports for generative AI performance in Search Console. However, this data must still be interpreted with caution, as the rollout is gradual depending on the market and not all accounts have access to it yet. Bing Webmaster Tools can also provide useful signals, but Bing represents a much smaller share of the global search market, around 4 to 5%. Consequently, this data should serve as a supplementary indicator rather than an absolute truth.
Our agency perspective: Prioritize what actually works
More than just an SEO versus GEO duel, this topic questions our practices. Above all, it pits foundational work against grand promises. The reality—somewhat uncomfortable for those selling miracle cures—is that there are ultimately very few truly new techniques outside the fundamentals of good search engine optimization.
What mainly needs adjusting is the strategic approach: prioritizing topics differently, tailoring content to be better understood, better cited, and better reused, and placing greater importance on certain known SEO optimizations. True innovations remain limited, sometimes even in beta or alpha testing, such as certain initiatives around llms.txt.
Here is what makes the difference today:
- Relevant content: Clear texts that answer users’ real questions.
- Flawless technique: A well-constructed site that Google can easily crawl.
- A solid reputation: Long-term brand awareness and credibility.
Rand Fishkin, founder of Moz and a major figure in SEO, puts it very simply:
“The best way to sell something is not to sell anything at all. You have to earn the awareness, respect, and trust of those who might buy.”
In other words, no trendy tool or magic score will ever replace this foundational work. This is precisely where we come in: our role as an agency is to invest client budgets into concrete actions, not useless theoretical reports.
Bad advice is costly, regardless of the label you give it:
-
Case #1: A company wanted to pay for a “GEO audit” even though its website didn’t even show up on Google. The problem: if search engines can’t find you, AIs won’t find you either. Good SEO remains an essential prerequisite.
-
Case #2: A brand was advised to copy dozens of identical pages simply by changing the city name. This is an outdated strategy that brings zero value.
GEO or SEO, the rule doesn’t change: bad advice is still bad advice. And it is always poorly informed companies that pay the price.
What we recommend today
Our advice is simple. As long as the vast majority of searches still take place on Google, it seems more strategic to first consolidate SEO foundations while gradually integrating levers related to mentions on ChatGPT, Perplexity, and other AI engines. Keep an eye on your presence in AI responses—since it’s a useful and easily trackable signal—without becoming obsessed with it.
Ultimately, the real question is what type of investor profile you want to adopt: a protective approach based on proven practices and long-term benefits, or a more offensive approach with higher risk to test newer GEO signals and capture potential quick wins.
The decision also depends on the data you wish to rely on: solid, qualitative historical SEO data, or more dynamic signals related to citability and brand presence in generative responses. Are we looking to generate clicks or impressions? To capture traffic or strengthen brand presence?
In any case, a website optimization mandate remains the safest foundation, because the quality, structure, and clarity of content serve both SEO and GEO. Focus your efforts where they truly pay off: clear content, genuine expertise published on your site, and a good online reputation. AIs will continue to evolve, and measurement tools will improve. In the meantime, the best way to be visible in AI remains quite simply excellent search engine optimization.
Our role is to anticipate these innovations that are redefining visibility, but experience teaches us not to confuse novelty with strategic priority. Being innovative does not mean chasing every single signal, but knowing which ones to test, measure, and accurately explain to our clients. GEO is an exciting evolution in SEO: let's approach it with curiosity and lucidity, without overexcitement, but without standing still.
Roland Mérelle
Want to learn more?
Join our breakfast conference specifically on this topic on September 16, 2026


































