GEO vs SEO: what Google itself says
“Is GEO the new SEO, and do I need a special framework for it?” Two agency camps answer differently, and both profit from the confusion. Before picking a side, read what Google wrote. It settles most of the argument.
What Google actually says
Google’s guide on optimizing for generative AI search, updated in July 2026, opens with the line this whole market keeps skipping: optimizing for generative AI search is still SEO (https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide). The fundamentals that work for search are the same ones that work for AI answers: technically sound pages, content people find useful, a site that can be crawled.
The same guide names the myths, and the list reads like a menu of GEO services being sold right now:
- llms.txt. A text file for AI models. Google: it does nothing, because crawlers do not claim to use it.
- Chunking strategies. Content chopped into machine-friendly fragments. A myth, says the same page.
- Structured-data overfocus. There is no special schema that makes AI features pick you up. The requirements are the ones search always had (https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/ai-features).
- Inauthentic mentions. Sprinkling a brand name across the web hoping the models repeat it. Also named, also useless.
That is the document written by the company that runs the search engine. Not an agency deck. Not a framework with a trademarked acronym.
Where both camps are wrong
Camp one sells GEO as a new discipline with secret frameworks and special files. Google’s myth list covers most of what they sell. You do not need the framework; you need good SEO and presence in sources the models trust.
Camp two says “GEO is hype, it is just SEO”, and stops there. They are right about optimization and wrong to stop. Because if optimization is settled, a harder question remains unanswered, and no SEO tool answers it:
- Does ChatGPT recommend you when someone asks for your category?
- Which competitors does it name instead of you?
- Which sources do the answers come from?
- Is any of that changing month over month?
Classic reporting cannot answer those questions, because assistants produce answers, not rankings. There is no position to track, and the same question returns different brands on different runs. What the debate calls GEO splits cleanly in two: optimization, which is SEO, and measurement, which is genuinely new.
The part that is actually new
Measurement means running a real instrument: a bank of category questions, asked the way buyers ask them, sent to several AI models, repeated, with every response read and counted. Rates with denominators, not vibes or one lucky screenshot.
It also means knowing your sources: the domains the assistants cite for your category, ordered by who can influence them. Usually that list is uncomfortable. For a consumer brand it is retailers, regulators and review platforms. For a B2B it is comparison sites, business media and forums. The brand’s own site is one voice among many, and rarely the loudest.
None of that appears in a Search Console report. All of it is measurable, with a method you can inspect and repeat.
What to do with this
If an agency offers you llms.txt, special schema or a guaranteed position, the Google guide above is your answer. If an agency says “it is all just SEO”, ask them how they know whether the assistants recommend you this month, and against whom. Watch what happens to the conversation.
Optimization you probably already do, or should. Measurement is the missing half, and it is the part worth arguing about. We wrote a page about what measuring looks like when the buyer is acronym-aware: /agencia-geo-mexico/.
Next step: GEO agency Mexico