By Toby Doebrich · Playbook Perspectives
Marketing has never suffered from a shortage of acronyms. Apparently, we needed three for being found. SEO. AEO. GEO. There are real changes behind the terminology—but before buying another package, I’d want someone to explain what work will actually change.
What the labels are trying to describe
SEO means search engine optimization: helping search engines access, understand and surface useful pages. AEO, or answer engine optimization, generally describes making information useful for answer-based experiences. GEO, or generative engine optimization, generally concerns how a business or its content appears in AI-generated responses.
The last two labels are used inconsistently. A proposal needs to explain which platforms, pages and outcomes it covers rather than assume the acronym settles the scope.
For an owner, the useful distinction is between improving the information you publish, making it accessible and evaluating where it appears. Those activities can overlap.
What Google actually says
Google’s guidance for AI Overviews and AI Mode says established SEO practices remain relevant, with no additional technical requirements or special markup needed for those features. A supporting page must be indexed and eligible for a search snippet. Eligibility does not guarantee inclusion.
That is guidance about Google Search, not a universal specification for every AI product. Treat claims that one file, content format or package guarantees AI recommendations with caution.
Ask for a page-level example
Say you operate a small hotel. Someone comparing stays may want to know whether parking costs extra, how far the property is from a venue and whether late check-in is possible.
You could publish another paragraph calling the hotel exceptional. Or you could make those details clear, accurate and easy to find. The second option gives a person something concrete to assess.
For a manufacturer, the missing detail might be supported materials or production capabilities. For a fitness studio, it could be the difference between an introductory session and a regular class.
Separate deliverables from predictions
Ask for a proposal that names the pages to improve, the problems to resolve and how progress will be reviewed.
“Improve AI visibility” is too broad on its own. Which questions will be monitored? How will changing answers be recorded? Will the reviewer distinguish a brand mention from a cited link, referral visit or actual inquiry?
A screenshot of one favorable answer is a snapshot. Ask how the observation will be repeated and what the provider would conclude if the next answer differs.
Keep the business outcome in view
Being mentioned and being chosen are different things. If visitors arrive but cannot understand the offer or complete the next step, more discovery won’t resolve that problem by itself.
Review relevant visits alongside inquiry quality, bookings or other meaningful actions. Keep gaps in attribution visible. Avoid treating an increase in one visibility metric as proof that revenue improved.
What I would buy first
I would start with a defined question and a scoped piece of work: correct an inaccessible page, clarify an important service, reconcile conflicting business information or establish a repeatable way to observe search performance.
Then I would decide whether another layer of work is justified.
The terminology can be useful. It should make the work easier to understand. When it makes the work harder to question, ask for a clearer explanation.
