Do you know what GEO is? You’re part of an elite minority!
No? Then it’s not what you think it is. It is but also isn’t.
In the realm of SEO, GEO is meant to replace it.
It won’t work. Here’s why!
Let me explain why GEO sucks before I confuse you further though!
Rebranding SEO doesn’t happen
Over the years there have been many attempts to replace the acronym or even discipline of SEO.
Each time a major new Google feature or Web technology appears the stale “SEO is dead” meme is revived.
With AI summaries being the “next big thing” since 2024 a new cryptic acronym aims to replace SEO.
It’s GEO as in “Generative Engine (?) Optimization”.
Will it happen?
Is this attempt any better than the countless before it?
Spoiler alert: It’s no good.
It’s not just that the acronym itself sucks.
All the attempts to
- rebrand
- replace
- retire
SEO didn’t really materialize and were limited in scope.
SEO is around since at least 1997 when it was officially coined by John Audette.
Who I am to talk about SEO being replaced?
You may wonder who I am.
“Why is this guy even talking about GEO?”
He’s no influencer in the SEO industry. I’ve never even seen him at conferences.
Yes, you are right. Back in 2007 I was pretty famous for declaring “SEO is dead” and “X is the new SEO”.
X was not Twitter back then. The variable stood for “SEO 2.0”.
The Web was all new and participatory back then.
I was connecting the dots within the SEO realm declaring a new kind of SEO to appear.
This new kind of SEO is rather known as social SEO these days or even just “SEO”.
My ideas are mainstream now – some of them at least. The moniker is not.
That’s OK. Social SEO is to some extent yet even that combination rather is the the shadow of more common or obnoxious ones like:
- technical SEO
- “negative SEO”
- “parasite SEO”.
So you see, adding or subtracting something to the SEO acronym is not easy.
I was a popular blogger for a few years, mostly blogging for other publications.
Yet I never forgot about this blog here – it’s called seo2.blog by now.
Over the years I covered (and ignored) numerous – often half-hearted – attempts at replacing the SEO moniker.
Many people “retired” their SEO titles and followed more business-like avenues.
All kinds of marketing and now even PR terms have been suggested and adopted ever since:
- inbound marketing
- content marketing
- digital marketing
- digital PR
Does analogue marketing or PR still exist? Does it use snail mail and vinyl records? Or is it about smoke signals?
Nonetheless dozens of usually three character acronyms have been coined to replace SEO.
Yet almost 20 years later the regularly reappearing “SEO is dead” wave still comes and goes every year.
Despite this SEO is the most popular term and even in 2025 the SEO industry is thriving.
SEO is cryptic enough, why make it even more difficult?
SEO was always cryptic enough by itself so coming up with a new even less known and adopted acronym was never a good idea.
Non-industry experts often say
- online visibility
- findability
- or even popularization.
I tried to popularize the latter haha – to no avail either.
These self-explanatory terms did not catch on either – the industry loves its lingo and the aura of the “dark arts” and “secret knowledge”.
With AI going prime time and even Google providing summaries in its AI Overviews or full-fledged AI Mode many SEO experts want to rebrand again.
How do they do it? By coming up with a new similar acronym or some less familiar sounding ones.
All of these are merely
- cryptic
- confusing
- hard to memorize
Yet these downsides are not the main reasons why they won’t get adopted by the public.
The most ambiguous term is most widely used for some reason.
Yes, it’s GEO. The other acronyms like AEO or LLMO at least were more exclusive.
Why GEO is not a good idea
Here are the reasons why GEO can’t replace SEO, neither the acronym nor the discipline.
The short answer is: it’s not a good idea!
Here is the explanation.
GEO is highly ambiguous
Its ambiguity is among the main reasons why GEO sucks as a term. That’s why I want to recapitulate it upfront.
GEO is a German Magazine:
The German GEO is a household brand in German-speaking countries.
It publishes geography and science articles in print and digital format for decades.
It’s similar to National Geographic in the US.
GEO has dozens of different meanings.
Yes, GEO is not just a German magazine.
There are numerous other meanings even for that three character acronym by now.
In the UK it stands for “Gene Expression Omnibus” e.g. I get that on top of Google.com results for [geo].
Geo means Earth as in geography.
Geo is not a made up acronym like SEO. It has an established meaning for ages already.
In short it means Earth as in geography, geology, geothermal energy etc.
When you search for [geo] on Google you won’t find any mention of marketing disciplines in the regular results.
Just one “People also ask” question refer to “GEO SEO” then.
Even in the SEO context it means something else already!
When you look for GEO SEO Google will also suggest “People also ask” questions.
One of those – the third one is “what is geo targeting in SEO?” currently (June, 25).
GEO is incorrect
One of the main reasons not to use GEO is that it is wrong.
GEO is not factually correct.
As Dan Petrovic – a highly respected SEO expert with decades of experience formulated on LinkedIn:
The very first version of Google AI search was called “Search Generative Experience”.
I jokingly dubbed it the Slow Google Engine as it was a bit cumbersome.
It was soon renamed to AI Overviews and later AI Mode when the features went live.
It was simply too clunky.
That’s where the GE of GEO apparently comes from originally.
AI (LLM) traffic is barely existent
Despite all the hype and even Google joining the AI answers band wagon traffic from AI tools or LLMs is negligible at best as of now.
A study by Ahrefs has shown that AI tools are sending merely 0.1% of all website visitors:
True, the study is just based on Ahrefs data which
- may be biased (as it’s an SEO tool)
- is just counting traffic from 35k sites
- and many traffic sources might not be measured correctly yet.
Yet overall this is along the lines of other numbers.
Usually LLMs do not have a market share above 1%.
The projections that say it will overtake other traffic sources are quite courageous as of now.
AI tools may as well stay geek-only forever.
GEO, AEO, LLMO – WTF?
Of course GEO is not the only
- difficult to explain
- hard to memorize
- and cumbersome to spell
acronym industry figures have suggested.
Among the more popular are AEO and LLMO. I’m too tired to explain those as well.
Just say no to even more cryptic acronyms and insider lingo.
Or if you are into acronyms – at least use some more funny and thus easy to remember ones:
WTF could stand for Web Technology Findability e.g. haha!
On LinkedIn I suggested some new ones on top of that:
OVO (Online Visibility Optimization) is the clear favorite LOL.
Let’s be glad that Google explains what SEO is nowadays and most people begrudgingly adopted it – both the acronym and the practice.
Whether search tools and chat bots use AI below the hood or not – who cares?
Just because a Tesla has an electric engine the EV acronym has not caught on really. We still say “car”, don’t we?