SEO is the broad practice of improving visibility in search engines. AEO usually focuses on being selected for direct answers, while GEO usually focuses on visibility and citations inside generative AI answers. In reality, the overlap is large: crawlable pages, useful content, authority and clear information architecture support all three.
If you have recently looked at search marketing, you may feel as though the industry discovered a new acronym every Tuesday.
SEO.
AEO.
GEO.
LLMO.
AI SEO.
Some describe genuine changes.
Some are useful labels.
Some are old work wearing a new badge.
The sensible approach is to understand the difference without assuming every term requires a separate strategy.
SEO: Search Engine Optimisation
SEO is the established umbrella.
The goal is to improve a website's ability to be discovered through search engines.
That includes:
technical accessibility;
content;
site architecture;
internal links;
authority;
local signals;
page experience;
search intent.
Traditional results may include:
blue links;
local results;
images;
featured snippets;
shopping;
other search features.
SEO was never only about "ten blue links".
Search has always evolved.
AEO: Answer Engine Optimisation
AEO generally means making content suitable for systems that provide direct answers.
That can include:
featured snippets;
voice assistants;
FAQ-like answer interfaces;
AI answer systems.
The emphasis is often on:
clear questions;
concise answers;
structured information;
entities;
helpful context.
That sounds reasonable.
The problem begins when AEO is reduced to a formatting trick.
You do not become authoritative because every heading is a question and every paragraph starts "The answer is..."
Content still needs substance.
GEO: Generative Engine Optimisation
GEO usually means Generative Engine Optimisation.
The idea is to improve the chance that content is retrieved, referenced or cited inside generated answers from systems such as AI-powered search experiences.
The focus may include:
source visibility;
citations;
clear factual content;
authority;
corroboration;
crawlability.
Again, those ideas are real.
But they overlap heavily with good SEO and good publishing.
Google itself is sceptical of artificial separation
This is one of the most useful pieces of current guidance.
Google's latest documentation on generative Search says SEO remains relevant because AI features are rooted in core Search ranking and quality systems.
Google also explicitly addresses AEO/GEO misconceptions.
That does not mean the terms are meaningless.
It means you should not assume Google AI Search runs on an entirely separate optimisation universe.
The foundations remain connected.
ChatGPT Search has its own crawler detail
OpenAI adds one genuinely platform-specific technical point.
If you want public content to be discoverable in ChatGPT Search, OpenAI says not to block OAI-SearchBot.
That is specific.
It is useful.
It does not require rewriting the entire site into "GEO format".
The platform-specific layer sits on top of general web quality.
The customer does not care which acronym brought them
Imagine a business owner asks:
How much should I pay for a website?
They may find a page through:
Google;
Google AI Overview;
ChatGPT Search;
an AI assistant;
a shared link.
The page still needs to answer the same question well.
That is why I would rather optimise the underlying information than create separate versions for every interface.
What actually changes in AI-generated answers?
The biggest change is that the search system may synthesise information from multiple sources before the user visits any page.
That creates a new visibility goal:
being useful as a source.
A page may contribute to the answer.
The brand may be cited.
The user may click for detail.
That is different from simply ranking position three.
So GEO/AEO can help us describe a new outcome.
The underlying source still needs to deserve selection.
Clear answers matter more, but not because of a secret template
Generated systems work with information.
Clarity helps.
A good page should establish:
what the subject is;
the direct answer;
supporting evidence;
exceptions;
related concepts.
That is excellent editorial structure anyway.
Do not confuse clarity with robotic writing.
The article should still sound like a person who understands the subject.
Authority matters across every version
A source is stronger when it has reasons to be trusted.
Experience.
Evidence.
References.
Real-world reputation.
Useful original material.
A consistent body of work.
The details vary by subject.
But there is no version of search where making up expertise becomes a durable strategy.
Structured data is supportive, not magical
Structured data can help search engines understand content.
That belongs to SEO.
It may also make information easier for broader machine systems to interpret.
But Google says no special AI schema is required for its AI features.
So "GEO schema implementation" should not automatically impress you.
Ask which actual standard is being added and what documented feature it supports.
Gavin's take
I would not pay three separate retainers because three acronyms now exist. If the work is genuinely different, the provider should be able to show what changes. If the recommendation is still better crawlability, clearer answers, useful content, stronger authority and good structured data, I would want that presented as one coherent search strategy.
Should I pay separately for SEO, GEO and AEO?
Not automatically.
A specialist may genuinely offer distinct AI-search monitoring, research or technical work.
But a small business should be wary of paying three retainers for overlapping tasks.
If the work is:
fix crawling;
improve services pages;
publish better guides;
strengthen internal links;
improve local information;
earn relevant mentions;
that is fundamentally one connected search strategy.
The invoice should not become more complicated than the work.
What I'd do
For most small businesses I would keep the hierarchy simple: get ordinary SEO right first, then make sure the same content is easy for modern answer and generative systems to understand and cite. I would only add genuinely new work where a platform has a documented technical requirement or a clear opportunity.
A practical way to think about the terms
I think of them like this:
SEO = make the website discoverable and competitive in search.
AEO = make answers clear enough to be selected or presented directly.
GEO = make useful, credible material available to generative systems that synthesise and cite sources.
Those are different emphases.
They are not three isolated disciplines.
Gavin’s perspective
Built by Gavin's approach
I am not creating:
an SEO version;
a GEO version;
and an AEO version
of the same guide.
That would be absurd.
I want one excellent public page.
It should:
answer the customer's question;
be crawlable;
use clear structure;
show real judgement;
connect to related pages;
and make the business understandable.
That page can then participate in whatever search experiences are appropriate.
The bottom line
SEO, GEO and AEO are useful labels for different search outcomes.
But they overlap heavily.
Do not let new terminology convince you that everything learned about web quality has suddenly expired.
Search systems still need good sources.
Build the source.
Then handle platform-specific requirements where they genuinely exist.
Want a search strategy without paying for three versions of the same work?
See how I approach website foundations or tell me where you want the business to become more visible.
The terminology can change faster than the underlying principles.
---