The digital publishing world is facing a familiar challenge: just as we’ve mastered one optimization framework, the goalposts are moving again. Generative Engine Optimization, or GEO, has emerged as the supposed successor to traditional SEO in an AI-driven search landscape. But despite the hype, major publishers are taking a cautious approach—and their hesitation reveals important truths about navigating emerging technologies.
Promise and the Problem
GEO is being marketed as the SEO of the AI era—a methodology for ensuring your content gets cited by large language models and answer engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI Overviews. The pitch is compelling: optimize your content so AI systems reference and attribute your work when answering user queries.
The reality is more complicated. Publishers across news, lifestyle, and travel sectors report that the entire GEO conversation isn’t grounded in proven results. The fundamental question remains unanswered: does anyone actually know how to optimize for rapidly evolving AI systems?
Why Publishers Are Holding Back
Several factors are driving publisher skepticism toward GEO investment:
Lack of proven methodology. The industry hasn’t even settled on consistent terminology, let alone established best practices. Experts acknowledge that anyone claiming to be a GEO specialist at this stage is making promises they can’t reliably keep. The technology is evolving too quickly for thorough testing and validation.
No meaningful data or transparency. Unlike traditional search engines that provide analytics, traffic data, and ranking signals, AI systems offer virtually no visibility into what content gets surfaced, why it’s chosen, or how often it’s referenced. Publishers operate in complete darkness regarding their GEO performance.
Minuscule traffic contribution. While agentic search is growing, the actual traffic from AI-powered search tools remains negligible compared to traditional Google search. The return on investment simply doesn’t justify significant resource allocation.
Unclear success metrics. If AI answers questions without driving clicks to publisher sites, what’s the key performance indicator? The industry hasn’t identified what success looks like when the goal isn’t referral traffic.
Constant platform changes. AI models update regularly, potentially invalidating any optimization tactics that might have shown promise. It’s the platform dependency problem publishers have faced for years, now accelerated.
SEO-GEO Overlap
Here’s the encouraging news: there’s substantial overlap between traditional SEO best practices and what works for AI systems. Search engines have confirmed that AI tools source information from sites deemed high-quality by established frameworks like E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness).
Content that ranks well in traditional Google search also tends to surface in AI-generated answers. This means publishers don’t need to abandon proven SEO strategies. Some industry observers suggest that GEO is essentially SEO being repackaged—a rebranding exercise for an industry seeking relevance as overall search traffic declines.
Traditional SEO rules still apply in AI search, but they may not be sufficient on their own as these systems mature and diverge from conventional search algorithms.
Strategic Approach: Cautious Experimentation
Publishers face a dilemma: betting heavily on unproven GEO tactics could waste resources, but ignoring the shift entirely could leave them unprepared for inevitable changes. The emerging consensus is measured experimentation without wholesale strategic pivots.
Forward-thinking publishers are testing GEO approaches in limited capacities—not because they expect immediate returns, but because dismissing the trend entirely would be shortsighted. As AI search tools mature and capture more market share, having early learnings will prove valuable.
What This Means for Content Creators
If major publishers with substantial resources are proceeding cautiously with GEO, what should smaller publishers and content creators do?
Continue SEO fundamentals. High-quality content that follows established SEO principles remains your best foundation. Focus on expertise, authority, and trustworthiness.
Monitor but don’t overcommit. Keep an eye on GEO developments and emerging best practices, but don’t divert significant resources from proven strategies.
Prepare for attribution challenges. AI systems may reference your content without driving traffic. Consider how this impacts your business model and monetization strategy.
Document your experiments. If you test GEO tactics, track what you try and any observable results. This data will become valuable as the field matures.
Focus on direct relationships. With both traditional search and AI systems becoming less reliable traffic sources, building direct audience relationships through newsletters, communities, and owned channels becomes increasingly critical.
Bottom Line
The cautious publisher response to GEO isn’t technophobia—it’s pragmatism. Experimenting with unproven systems while established methods still deliver results isn’t skepticism; it’s survival.
The shift toward AI-mediated search is real and will continue regardless of publisher preferences. When that inflection point arrives, the industry will need to reassess where GEO fits into the content strategy mix. Until then, the smartest approach is maintaining strong SEO fundamentals while conducting measured GEO experiments that don’t risk core traffic and revenue streams.
For content creators and publishers, the message is clear: stay informed, be prepared to react quickly, but don’t abandon what’s working in pursuit of what’s merely trending.
At CRSTBL, we help organizations navigate emerging technologies with pragmatic strategies grounded in data rather than hype. Contact us to discuss how we can optimize your content strategy for both today’s reality and tomorrow’s possibilities.