AI Search Risks SEO Losing Control Over GEO Outcomes

The SEO industry is facing a critical identity shift as artificial intelligence reshapes search, and veteran search marketer Tom Critchlow argues that the discipline’s traditional strengths may no longer be enough. In his recent analysis, Critchlow warns that AI Search is exposing fundamental weaknesses in how SEO professionals approach their work, forcing a reexamination of what services actually matter in a world of generative search experiences and GEO (Generative Engine Optimization).

Brand marketing has quietly become the hidden pillar of SEO. Google’s algorithms have always relied on user behavior signals. The company’s founders famously stated that PageRank could “be thought of as a model of user behavior,” underscoring that user engagement with content was central from the very beginning. What drives that engagement more than anything else is brand recognition. People are naturally drawn to products and services they already know, a cognitive shortcut called Familiarity Bias. Making audiences familiar with a brand isn’t just good marketing; it aligns perfectly with how Google’s systems, including Navboost and branded search signals, evaluate relevance.

The SEO fundamentals remain a necessary starting point. In an interview with Ross Hudgens, Critchlow acknowledged that the core technical foundations of SEO crawling and indexing are unchanged. Google itself consistently says the basics stay the same. But Critchlow pushes further, arguing that SEO is better understood as a foundation rather than the whole building. He explained, “It points to something very important, which is I think that GEO, AI Search, is much more like brand marketing than it is SEO. There is an underpinning of technical foundations and crawling and indexing that is kind of the same discipline. That is equally important before and after.” The real change is what gets built on top of that foundation, and failing to adapt could become a serious career risk.

The most provocative part of Critchlow’s argument is that the people who actually drive SEO outcomes are not SEO professionals. He acknowledges this sounds contrarian but grounds it in practical reality. Consider a typical AI Search prompt: the engine recommends a competitor over your brand. What do you do? Critchlow says this was true in classical SEO and is even more true in the GEO world. “The people that drive SEO outcomes are the brand, product, PR and editorial teams, not the SEO teams,” he said. “If I’m a CEO looking at my organization and asking who will do this GEO thing for me, is it the SEO team? Or is it the brand team? Or the product team?” The answer depends on the business, but there is a real risk for the SEO industry. SEO has done a great job advocating for great content, strong brands, and positive reputation, but in most organizations, SEO teams do not own any of those activities. Other departments do.

This raises several urgent questions for SEO professionals today. Who actually drives outcomes in AI Search? Is there a genuine career risk as GEO becomes more important? What does SEO say organizations should do, and does SEO actually control those activities? Who owns the outcomes that matter in most companies, and how should SEO fit into that picture? If SEO does not drive the results that count, the industry faces a choice: transform to encompass more, or accept a diminishing role.

Perhaps we are simply in a liminal state, neither fully here nor there, where what was once called SEO is evolving into something else entirely.