eMarketer just published a FAQ on GEO and AEO, walking marketers through where AI search and traditional SEO actually overlap in 2026. It's a useful piece, and the fact that a publication like eMarketer is now treating this as foundational reading tells you everything about where the industry has landed.
I want to break down what the article says, and then give you our take on what it means if you're a local business or a growing brand trying to win visibility in both Google and AI systems.
What eMarketer Published
The piece is structured as a FAQ, aimed at marketers who are still trying to figure out how GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation) and AEO (Answer Engine Optimisation) relate to the SEO work they've been doing for years. eMarketer's piece hits the questions that come up in almost every sales call I take now.
The core points from the article:
- GEO and AEO are not separate disciplines from SEO. They share the same foundations: crawlable content, clear topical authority, structured information, and trustworthy signals.
- AI search engines and traditional search engines rely on overlapping infrastructure. Google's AI Overviews, ChatGPT's search, and Perplexity all draw from web content that's been indexed and assessed for quality.
- The differences sit at the edges. AI systems weight entity clarity, citation patterns, and how directly a page answers a question. Traditional search still weights backlinks, on-page relevance, and click signals.
- Marketers who treat GEO as a separate budget line are often duplicating work. The smart move is to extend SEO programs to cover the new surfaces, not rebuild from scratch.
eMarketer also flags that brands have been overspending on "AI-specific" tactics that don't move the needle, while underinvesting in the fundamentals that drive results in both worlds.
The 66th Take
I've been saying this for 2 years on sales calls, and I'll keep saying it: GEO is 80% really good SEO and 20% entity management, citation building, and structured review signals. eMarketer just put a respected name behind the same idea.
Here's the practical version of what eMarketer is describing. I'll show you what overlaps, what's new, and where the budget actually needs to go.
| Tactic | Helps Traditional SEO? | Helps AI Citations? | Priority for Most Clients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific, deep content on real questions | Yes | Yes | High |
| Clear page structure with H2s and answers near the top | Yes | Yes | High |
| Backlinks from relevant sites | Yes | Indirect | High |
| Structured data and schema | Moderate | Yes | Medium |
| Consistent NAP and citation footprint | Yes (local) | Yes | High for local |
| Review volume and recency | Yes (local) | Yes | High for local |
| Entity clarity (who you are, what you do, where) | Moderate | Yes | Medium |
| "GEO-only" content rewrites for AI tone | No | Marginal | Low |
| AI visibility monitoring tools | No | Reporting only | Low |
Where Brands Keep Wasting Money
The eMarketer piece hints at this, but I'll say it directly. Three things I see almost every week from prospects coming to us after trying "GEO agencies":
1. They paid someone to rewrite their site for AI. The content reads like ChatGPT, ranks worse than what it replaced, and didn't increase citations. AI systems do not reward AI-sounding content. They reward specificity and authority.
2. They bought a monitoring tool and called it a strategy. Knowing you're not cited in Perplexity is not the same as fixing the reason. I wrote about this when DemandSage published their tool roundup. Dashboards are not work.
3. They split their budget into "SEO" and "GEO" line items. Then both got starved. You cannot do GEO well without the SEO foundation, and you cannot do modern SEO without the entity and citation layer. Splitting the budget creates 2 weak programs instead of 1 strong one.
What We Actually Do for Clients
When a client signs a retainer with us, the work order looks like this:
- Audit the foundational SEO: crawlability, indexation, content depth, internal links, and intent matching. Fix what's broken first.
- Map the entity. Make sure Google, ChatGPT, and Perplexity all understand who the business is, what it does, and where it operates. This means structured data, consistent NAP across citations, and a clear About page that reads like a fact sheet.
- Build content that answers real questions with real specificity. Numbers, named processes, client outcomes, locations. Not generic "ultimate guides."
- Build review velocity on Google and the relevant industry platforms. AI systems weight recency and volume of third-party signals.
- Earn links from publications and sites that AI systems already cite. A link from a source that ChatGPT trusts is worth more in 2026 than 10 directory links.
That's it. There's no secret GEO tactic. The work is the same work we've been doing, just with a wider lens on which surfaces we're optimising for.
The Real Takeaway
eMarketer publishing this FAQ is a signal that the conversation has matured. We're past the panic phase where every brand thought they needed a new agency, a new tool, and a new budget for AI search. We're into the boring, profitable phase where the brands that invested in fundamentals are getting cited, and the brands that chased shortcuts are wondering why nothing worked.
If you're evaluating a GEO agency or AI search consultant right now, ask them 2 questions. What percentage of your work is foundational SEO? And can you show me a client who got more AI citations after you fixed their site structure and content depth? If the answer to the first is anything under 70%, they're selling you a story. If they can't answer the second, they haven't done the work.
The brands winning in 2026 are not doing anything mysterious. They're doing the work, on the right surfaces, in the right order. That's what eMarketer is saying, and that's what we've been telling clients since the day AI Overviews launched.
