SEO’s Origins: What They Mean for GEO & AIO Today
▼ Summary
– The digital marketing industry is currently debating what to call the practice of optimizing for AI systems, with proposed terms including GEO, AIO, and AEO.
– A central point of the debate is that any new term will likely retain the word “optimization,” continuing a grammatical debate about whether one can “optimize a search engine” or is “optimizing for” it.
– The term “search engine optimization” (SEO) was independently coined by several pioneers, including Bruce Clay, John Audette, and Bob Heyman, around 1995-1997.
– The article suggests that new terms like GEO are problematic because “generative engine” is not a common phrase and the acronym overlooks key AI benefits like automation and agentic workflows.
– The author concludes that reaching a consensus on a single new term may be impossible due to the size of the modern community and suggests the focus should be on the shared intent behind the different names.
The conversation surrounding search engine optimization and its evolution in the age of artificial intelligence is gaining momentum across the digital marketing world. As practitioners debate whether new disciplines should be called GEO, AIO, or something else entirely, a single linguistic constant emerges: the enduring word “optimization.” This echoes a similar naming debate from nearly three decades ago, a period before many of today’s professionals were even part of the industry. Establishing the right terminology is crucial now, just as it was for the pioneers who defined SEO between 1995 and 1996.
Why optimization remains a cornerstone of these discussions is clear. While individuals and companies vie to coin the next big acronym, the core concept persists. In the early days, only a handful of people practiced SEO, allowing for a relatively easy consensus. Today, with millions involved, achieving universal agreement on a new term seems unlikely. High-profile figures are already championing GEO and AIO. For instance, Tim Sanders, a Harvard fellow and SVP of AI evangelism at G2, mentioned his team recently deliberated and changed a category listing from GEO to AEO. Regardless of the final acronym, if it includes any form of “optimization,” credit rightly belongs to the original thinkers who named SEO.
A persistent grammatical challenge accompanies the term. Search marketers understand keyword taxonomies, and the word “optimization” in SEO describes the act of optimizing for a search engine. However, as veteran executive Mike Grehan has pointed out for over 25 years, the phrase “search engine optimization” can be interpreted as optimizing the engine itself, which is not what practitioners do. The intended meaning is “optimizing for” the engine, a nuance that the new terms GEO and AIO risk inheriting.
The origins of the acronym SEO are attributed to a small group of individuals who arrived at the term independently around the mid-1990s. Bruce Clay is widely recognized for inventing the term and famously ranking first for it on Google for more than a decade. Others like John Audette, Bob Heyman, and Leland Harden are also credited, though their contributions are less documented. Danny Sullivan played a vital role in popularizing SEO through his influential publications. In recent discussions, the name Viktor Grant has also emerged as a key figure. Notably, none of these pioneers disputes that the others independently conceived of the phrase. Heyman and Grant highlighted Stephen Mahaney’s previously uncredited work in popularizing the field. Grant himself prefers recognition as an early pioneer of black hat techniques. Clay shared that his background in mainframe optimization naturally led him to the term.
When asked about the new acronyms, Clay humorously referenced the “Old McDonald” song. On a serious note, he suggested that GEO and AIO are best viewed as specialties under the broader SEO umbrella, much like pay-per-click or link-building are practice areas within it. Heyman and Grant are strong proponents of GEO, believing its similarity to the familiar “SEO” will help it gain traction. The term itself was born from a practical need, coined during a project to solve a navigation issue for the band Jefferson Starship, whose official website couldn’t be found by search engines for their own name.
The spread of SEO was not instantaneous, and “optimization” wasn’t the only contender. Frederick Marckini’s influential 1999 book was titled “Search Engine Positioning,” and Mike Grehan also authored significant works using different terminology. For reasons lost to time, “positioning” did not become the standard. One significant issue with the term GEO is that it introduces a phrase, “generative engine,” which is not commonly used. Professionals typically refer to AI, LLMs, or GPTs, but never “generative engines.” Acronyms like LLMO or GPTO lack the same resonance.
Furthermore, GEO overlooks a critical advantage of modern AI: agentic workflow and autonomous delivery. The power of large language models lies not just in content creation but in their ability to automate complex tasks. If a professional is still manually copying and pasting outputs, they are missing a fundamental benefit. The term GEO fails to capture this essential aspect of efficiency and automation. Given the tribal nature of the industry and our individual algorithmic bubbles, it is improbable that a single new term will achieve universal adoption. The key is to understand that different terms share the same fundamental intention, and practitioners should adapt their language accordingly. We may end up using different words, but the underlying goals of visibility and performance remain unchanged.
(Source: Search Engine Land)
