Search still sends people to lists of links. Generative engines often answer inside the chat, and sometimes they cite a source. That second path is why teams now ask about generative engine optimisation (GEO) next to classic SEO.
This article defines both, shows how they overlap, and describes a measurement habit you can run without buying a "guarantee." It reflects how Aiotfy Pty Ltd (AIOTFY, Adelaide, founded 2018) explains the work on our public growth page. It is not a ranking promise.
SEO in one paragraph
Search engine optimisation helps search engines crawl, index, and list the right pages for the right queries. Winning usually looks like a clear listing a person can click. Typical work includes crawlability, speed, titles, internal links, and useful pages that deserve to rank.
GEO in one paragraph
Generative engine optimisation helps AI assistants mention and cite you accurately when people ask category, comparison, or how-to questions. Assistants in scope on our service page include examples such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews / AI Mode, and Microsoft Copilot when access allows. Winning looks like a mention and/or a citation (a link or a named source) inside the answer, with a description that is factually right.
Side-by-side
| SEO | GEO | |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Search engine optimisation | Generative engine optimisation |
| Goal | Help search engines crawl, index, and list pages for the right queries | Help AI assistants mention and cite you accurately for category, comparison, or how-to questions |
| What "winning" looks like | A clear listing people can click | A mention and/or citation inside the answer |
| Typical work | Crawlability, speed, titles, internal links, useful pages | Entity clarity (/about, pricing, FAQ), answer-shaped content, structured data that matches visible text, real third-party mentions |
Overlap matters: indexable, trustworthy pages help both. GEO is not a replacement for SEO. It builds on it.
Why SEO alone is no longer enough for discovery questions
People still use Google. They also ask assistants the same buying and research questions. Those systems pull from the open web, brand entity signals, and third-party sources, not only from an ads account.
Across the market, vendors sell "AI visibility" monitoring (prompt tracking, citation dashboards) or full execution (content, outreach). The useful pattern is stable:
- Freeze a prompt set.
- Measure across agreed engines.
- Fix owned-site structure and facts.
- Earn real mentions.
- Re-measure on the same prompts.
What does not have strong public evidence as a silver bullet: treating llms.txt as the whole strategy, buying fake mentions, or promising a number-one slot inside ChatGPT.
What we see in practice (generalised, no client numbers)
These are generalised observations from how we describe the work publicly. They are not a performance claim for any client.
- Brand-name queries often surface something. Category, problem, local, and long-tail queries often surface competitors or lookalike names instead.
- Same-name products get mixed up unless
/about, pricing, and manufacturer facts are clear on pages machines can read. - Monitoring tools can show the gap. Execution (structure, facts, honest community answers, careful outreach) is what moves the needle.
A measurement habit you can copy
On our growth page we describe scoring ideas we track: mentions, citations, accuracy, and share of voice versus named competitors. A practical baseline looks like this:
- Interview stakeholders: product, audience, competitors, constraints.
- Freeze about 25-40 prompts: branded, category, comparison, task/how-to, local or timely.
- Run the set across agreed engines. Note repeat runs because answers are noisy.
- Score mention rate, citation rate, share of voice, description accuracy, and a source-gap list.
- Write a one-page baseline, keep the spreadsheet detail, and draft a 90-day roadmap you can actually staff.
Re-run the same frozen set on a fixed cadence (for example every two weeks). Cross-check with first-party reports when available (Search Console; Bing Webmaster AI Performance where present) and with server or CDN logs that show whether new URLs were fetched by retrieval-class bots the client agreed to allow.
Technical foundation that supports both SEO and GEO
Before writing more posts, check the basics:
- Indexability: crawlable pages, clean canonicals, sitemap, broken-link cleanup.
- Robots / bot access: allow retrieval-class AI crawlers the client agrees to; document training-bot policy in writing.
- CDN/WAF: confirm bot protection is not silently blocking those crawlers.
- JSON-LD that matches visible content: Organization (with
sameAsonly for real profiles), WebSite, Article/FAQ where real. - Entity pages:
/about, FAQ, pricing, methodology, with a short answer block near the top.
Optional extras such as IndexNow or a thin llms.txt can be tidy housekeeping. They are not a KPI on their own.
Content shape that assistants can quote
Answer-shaped pages help: facts first, question-style headings, tables, author or update date, and citations. Comparison pages should be honest and date-stamped. If you appear on your own list, say so. Human review of any AI-assisted draft is non-negotiable. Scaled doorway or spun content burns trust in both search and AI surfaces.
Off-site work without fake signals
Useful earned work looks boring on purpose:
- Real answers in communities, with identity disclosed. No sockpuppets, no vote buying.
- Outreach to authors who already cover the category: facts, screenshots, trial access. Paid listicle placement is a different product and needs clear disclosure; it is not part of AIOTFY's default growth package narrative.
- Directory or review profiles only where they fit, inviting genuine users only.
What we refuse to promise
Hard boundaries, also published on our growth page:
- No promised rankings, "number one in ChatGPT," or guaranteed citations. Nobody controls model outputs.
- No buying links, fake traffic, or non-genuine brand mentions.
- No buying review or listicle placement as part of the default engagement.
- No incentivised fake reviews.
- No scaled AI content without human fact-check.
- No selling
llms.txtor a magic schema snippet as the whole strategy. - No hiding who we are in communities when we mention a client product.
Timelines are planning aids. Some technical fixes show up in crawl logs within days. Non-branded AI mentions often need 60-90+ days of steady work. Appearance is never guaranteed.
How this differs from SEO-only agencies and monitoring SaaS
SEO-only work can stop at classic rankings and skip AI citation measurement. Monitoring SaaS is strong at tracking prompts and citations; execution usually stays with you. AIOTFY combines measurement with technical, content, and earned-media execution for clients who already have (or will ship) a real website. Packages are quote on request; we do not publish rates on the service page.
We are based in Adelaide, Australia, and work remotely with English-first markets. If you want the longer service description, it lives at https://aiotfy.com/services/growth. If you want the company entity facts, see https://aiotfy.com/about.
Closing
SEO helps you appear in a list of links. GEO helps you appear inside the answer when a model has a clear, citable reason to trust you. Measure both with a frozen prompt set, fix entity clarity before you chase tactics, and treat anyone selling a guaranteed AI slot as a vendor to question, not a shortcut to hire.
Disclosure: Written for AIOTFY (Aiotfy Pty Ltd). This article summarises our public SEO/GEO service explanation. It contains no client performance metrics.