Director of SEO | Fame Engineer | Engineering Brand Fame & Measurable Revenue Growth through GEO, SEO, Digital PR & Content Marketing | Helping Ambitious Brands Win in the Age of AI Search
I just read this line from and 'SEO' industry latest report: "The goal is no longer to rank #1 on a list of links. The goal is to be cited in the AI-generated answer." This is wrong. The goal is absolutely NOT to be cited. The goal is to be recommended. For the best part of the last 3 years I've said 'traffic is vanity, profit is sanity'. Well, citation as a goal is stark raving madness. I'll give you an example. I arrived in Amsterdam for the Spotlight event by Semrush on Monday and it was cold, wet and I was hungry. And I had no clue about where I was in relation to anything. I didn't read any blogs. I didn't watch any TikToks. I just went to ChatGPT, and it gave me a list of fantastic restaurants, fantastic locations to visit, and even step-by-step guidance on exactly how to find them from walking right outside my hotel. ChatGPT recommended businesses to me and I purchased from those businesses. The goal of generative engine optimisation is to increase the likelihood that a business is recommended to AI users in buying situations. It 100% is NOT to have your blog content cited. Now, if your goal is to have blog content cited, all you need is SEO. And if you think that's all GEO is, then yes, SEO is GEO. A citation is an acknowledgment of a source you have used in your work. A recommendation is an act of suggesting or endorsing someone or something as worthy or suitable. Now, where a citation is useful if it's going to give you the potential to influence an AI response on a subject or topic. And I've seen AI responses influenced by content of others where that content is false. Because AI doesn't fact-check. So there is a lot of manipulation that can be done using AI on any subject. So, for online reputation management or to influence a worldview, citation could be of use. But it’s not the citation that matters; it’s the synthesised response. Now, did those restaurants do any SEO or GEO to be recommended for me in Amsterdam? Of course not. They did brand marketing, the very thing that most people have forgotten about for the last decade. And largely that is GEO. GEO could defined as supplying the 'network' with relevant information about your business/ brand. In essence, GEO is all about the supply of relevent information in the right volumes, and in the right places online. I know SEOs want to desperately keep hold of their jobs, roles and importance. But that has to start with commerciality. And there is literally zero commerciality to be cited by AI. The goal is to be recommended to people in buying situations. That's where all the value in GEO is. That's why it's different from SEO, and that's why it's going to matter more and more.
George B.
1w
Thing is the exposure was the cost of the meal and the disappointment. Anything that costs more / carries a higher risk will still want to be researched by a human. That process will just take less time..IMO 4 pack of sellotape - sure automate it. Buying the right car? Il do my own due dilligence.
Being recommended is the real metric that matters. It’s like the difference between being quoted in a paper vs. being trusted by a friend. In Google Ads we’re seeing the same shift - less about visibility, more about relevance at the exact decision moment.
Andrew Holland Something I have observed — and would be curious about your take on — is the confluence between YouTube creators connecting with their audiences and AI connecting users with brands. Technically, they work very differently, but I find the results are eerily the same. I watch so many new YouTube creators talk about how they just started doing what they loved (creating genuine content based on real experience, expertise, etc.), recording it consistently, and suddenly being connected with an audience that shared the same desires, interests, needs, and circumstances — and it grows and grows from there. That is exactly what AI is doing for users and brands. We can now express our desires, interests, and needs at a particular moment in time, and AI can connect us with a brand that checks all those boxes, assuming that brand understands itself and its customers such that it can similarly express its ability to meet those desires, interests, and needs at that exact particular moment in time. I know SEO, and that is not SEO.
I've heard a few people say this out of context. I don't think some people understand what cited means. What most people mean when they say cited is being recommended.
You're absolutely right. It is wild to be reading free "AI optimization" guides from agencies where the #1 recommendation is adding an LLMs.txt file to your site and, as you pointed out, SEOs at conferences and online talking about the importance of citation or regurgitating "GEO is just good SEO." I don't claim to be an expert in GEO (brand marketing). I am still learning, reading, experimenting, etc. SEO and GEO are essential and complementary, but it doesn't take an expert to recognize that they are fundamentally different, just by looking at the way people search with AI and the responses it gives to those prompts.
The citation vs recommendation distinction is brutal but accurate.
Tim Hanson
6d
I don't want citations. I want visitors and then to clicks and email signups... Citations are cool and all, but money is better.
Kim Albee
6d
Great points - especially the Amsterdam example showing commercial value. But here’s where I think the citation vs. recommendation framing might be too narrow. You’re right that a citation alone has zero commercial value. But what if being cited signals you’ve built comprehensive expertise - the kind that makes you the obvious recommendation when it matters? Think about it: ChatGPT didn’t recommend random Amsterdam restaurants. It recommended ones with enough signal - reviews, information, presence - that the AI could confidently say “this solves your problem.” That’s not brand marketing. That’s building trust and authority over time by consistently showing up with helpful information when buyers are researching their challenges. The bigger issue isn’t SEO vs. GEO. It’s whether we’re creating content that genuinely serves buyers throughout their 80-90% of research that happens before they talk to us - or whether we’re just chasing the next optimization tactic. Because if we’re only focused on “being recommended in buying situations,” we’ve already missed most of the journey where trust gets built. How do we make sure we’re not just visible at the decision moment, but actually helpful throughout the entire research process?
Joey Gault
1w
Recommended > cited. It’s akin to impressions versus clicks. Being cited is a leading indicator, but not the goal.
SEO Team Lead at Americaneagle.com | Contributing Author at Search Engine Land
1wI would argue ranking #1 on the “list of blue links” is still the most profitable position you can acheive.