GEO, LLMO, and the SEO Hype: Are we rebranding the basics? Or is there something more?

After two months of digging into AI search and running my first GEO experiments, I’m ready to share my study notes. As someone who has spent years in SEO, I’m opening up my thinking space as I grapple with what comes next. Feel free to follow along.

First off, I look forward to the notion that AI is shaking up the SEO landscape. I started my career in direct response copywriting which is about providing value to humans by focusing on  what they need, rather than gaming a system for traffic. Traffic has not been my interest with SEO, though it feels like that is a popular KPI.

Only last year I wrote about struggling with my digital identity because of search engines. How I’m struggling with the concept of splitting my wide interests into 2dimensional categories and hosting them on multiple websites just to feed into the way search engines categorise and understand topics and authority.

So if AI can allow content and marketing teams to focus more on the human again, then that excites me. 

Is GEO vastly different from SEO?

My LinkedIN seems to be on fire with this topic. For clarity, here are what the acronyms stand for

1. GEO stands for Generative Engine Optimisation 
2. LLMO stands for Large Language Model Optimisation
3. SEO stands for Search Engine Optimisation

The first two mean the same thing, just two different names. And SEO is the existing term.

I’m seeing people become obsessed with GEO, pushing so hard for it to be a thing that they’re evangelists for the term. These prophets insist that it is such a new revelation from how things have been done in the past. 

GEO is the new miracle and we must build a denomination around it.

The thing is, when I read the steps and strategies being suggested, I agree with them. At least 95% is spot on and good practice for traditional SEO. 

Category Entry Points

The big strategy shift being preached is the worship of Category Entry Points (CEPs). 

And it’s a good strategy, one I’m taking on board. But it’s very similar to the Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) framework. 

In content design JTBD has long been used as a way to understand user needs. I’ve used it in my SEO work (case in point, my Core Principle of SEO is focuses on it) and I know great SEO agencies such as Grow and Convert have it as part of their process and philosophy.  

So is it such a radical strategy shift?

CEPs are used to understand user needs but usually by brand marketers. They’re important in brand marketing because CEPs represent the specific moments or situations when consumers consider a product or service category.

And we understand from top SEO researchers that branding is becoming more and more important in SEO. Viper Chill has talked for years about the importance of brand signals, Google’s own guidelines on E-A-A-T (Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) have shown us that being a recognisable, trusted brand is a powerful SEO signal. 

I’m reading that brand authority will be even more critical for AI-driven search, which needs to rely on deeply trusted sources.

So I’m not convinced this is a massive shift in strategy for any decent SEO already focused on people. CEP are another tool to use alongside JTBD. I’m going to think on this more and try to understand it deeper.

Death of the keyword

Alongside Category Entry Points is the announcement that keywords are no more. But that makes sense because there has been an argument that keywords have been dead for a long time. 

In the context of AI search and GEO, we’re moving away from targeting rigid phrases and towards understanding the underlying intent and context of a query – something language models are built to do

However, even when we moved to topical relevancy and clusters, keywords have still been a key way to measure interest. The AI brand mention tools from places like Ahrefs cost a lot of money (Ahrefs currently charges £5,600/year) so for now, I’ll still be using keyword volume as a core data point. Not as a rigid target, but as a simple, effective way to gauge human interest in a topic until better, more accessible tools come along.

So why the hard sell on GEO as a term?

The skeptic in me understands there is a lot of value in building a personal brand. Additionally there is even more value in building a brand that is a first mover in a new category. 

By preaching that GEO is the new way and SEO is dead. It means those personal brands could place themselves at the centre of this new category and in turn reap the rewards that comes with it.

Then the optimist in me thinks that’s too skeptical and it is kind of these people to stand in the gap and convert the unbelievers away from their sinful SEO ways. After all, SEO can have a reputation for being shady, I’ve even had people refer to it as magic when I’ve made simple changes to their website that means they now rank. 

What is being described as GEO has truth and good strategy behind it. Plus, the direction of travel seems clear. While AI search is still just a drop in the ocean compared to Google’s billions of daily searches, its growth and user adoption suggest a fundamental shift is underway.

For context, a leading AI-native search engine like Perplexity announced they processed 780M searches in May 2025 and are aiming to process 1 billion queries a week by the end of 2025. But it’s estimated Google serves 16 Billion searches a day (according to ExplodingTopics). The scale isn’t comparable yet, but the momentum is undeniable.

The realist in me then pipes up and suggests the reason to push GEO is most likely somewhere in between the skeptic and the optimist.

GEO Evangelists will reap rewards by positioning their brand at the centre of a new category. But by doing do they also help other people come along for the ride and shift their mindset in a turbulent market shift. 

And so in my mind the evangelists should reap the rewards, because they are performing a service. The SEO industry is stuck in it’s ways and I can see how a new term would help the laggards catch on and shift their thinking.

But the central question still lingers…

Is GEO vastly different from SEO?

For agencies and SEOs focused on gaming search engines, then yes it will feel like a big strategic shift.

I can imagine agencies used to being on retainer picking a few keywords each month and writing generic, blah informational content will feel the shock. 

They don’t fully understand SEO but know clients will pay each month for optimisations and blog content. I spent a short while at an agency like this, so I know these organisations are out there and how much it will rattle those type of ‘SEOs’.

But if you’ve always focused on the needs of humans, such as Jobs To Be Done and solving real problems, then this isn’t the revolution the evangelists preach. It’s a shift in focus, not a change in direction. The fundamentals remain the same. At least, for now.

What are you seeing out there? Let me know your take in the comments below. Also, you can join my email newsletter.