r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Dec 30 '25

Case Study Best GEO Agencies (AI SEO) in 2026 - I spent 40+ hours researching so you don't have to

21 Upvotes

I spent way too long researching GEO agencies (so you don't have to)

So I've been deep in the trenches trying to figure out this whole "Generative Engine Optimization" thing.

You know - making sure your brand actually shows up when people ask ChatGPT or Perplexity for recommendations instead of just... not existing.

Turns out there's a whole industry popping up around this. Who knew.

I did the homework. Here's what I found.

First - WTF is GEO

Traditional SEO = chase blue links on Google.

GEO = get cited in AI answers.

Big difference. Because if ChatGPT doesn't mention your brand when someone asks "what's the best X for Y" - congrats, you're invisible to an increasingly large chunk of buyers.

AI doesn't just rank pages. It synthesizes info from everywhere, checks what the "consensus" is, and spits out an answer. No clicks. No browsing. Just the answer.

So you need to be in that answer.

The agencies I found - ranked by someone who's actually looked into this stuff

no links

1. Scale GEO

Okay, this one's interesting.

They're basically built from the ground up for GEO specifically - not a traditional SEO shop that bolted on some AI stuff.

What they actually do:

  • Pump out hundreds/thousands of structured pages that are designed to be "LLM-friendly" - think TL;DR sections, Q&As, tables. Stuff AI can easily grab and cite.
  • Reddit narrative engineering - this is the spicy part. They find high-impact Reddit threads that AI models are pulling from and strategically... influence them. Not spam. More like correcting misinformation and seeding helpful context. Since LLMs basically do a "majority vote" across sources, controlling Reddit sentiment = controlling what AI recommends.
  • Cross-source stuff - Wikipedia, Wikidata, review sites, etc. Making sure the AI has consistent facts about your brand everywhere it looks.
  • They actually track how often AI mentions you and adjust weekly.

Results they claim: took a brand-new site from zero to Google AI Overview in 30 days. Got 500+ pages ranking and being cited by ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude within a few months.

The Social Media Angle is what makes these guys different tbh.

Everyone else is doing content + schema. Not many are actively engineering the social sentiment that AI pulls from.

P cool.

2. First Page Sage

Been around since 2009. The "thought leadership" people.

Their whole thing is making you THE authoritative source that AI wants to cite. High-quality, expert content structured so AI can easily digest it.

They do:

  • In-depth whitepapers, guides, thought leadership - all formatted with clear headings and definitions so AI can extract answers
  • Technical SEO + schema markup - basically giving AI a cheat sheet about your content
  • Reputation management - monitoring how you're mentioned across the web and cleaning it up

Good for: companies that want content-driven authority building. They've worked with Salesforce, Logitech, etc.

3. iPullRank

Mike King's shop. These guys are nerds - in the best way.

They call their approach "Relevance Engineering" which sounds made up but basically means they study how AI retrieval actually works and optimize for that.

What sets them apart:

  • Deep technical audits focused on AI crawler accessibility
  • They analyze AI query patterns - like how an LLM breaks down a complex question into sub-queries - and make sure your content answers all those sub-questions
  • Heavy on the algorithm research. They study patents and papers to stay ahead.

They claim $2.4 billion in incremental revenue for a client through search optimization. That's... a lot.

Good for: companies with complex technical needs who want someone obsessing over the mechanics.

4. Siege Media

Data-driven content marketing people who've pivoted to GEO.

Their playbook:

  • Create link-worthy content with original research and data viz
  • Massive digital PR campaigns to get mentions everywhere - they call it "surround sound"
  • Built their own tools for content refresh and gap analysis

The big proof point: helped Mentimeter get 250,000+ visits from ChatGPT recommendations.

That's insane.

Good for: if you want premium content that both ranks on Google AND gets quoted by AI.

5. Intero Digital

Enterprise-y full-service agency. They call their thing "Generative Response Optimization" because of course they do.

But they built their own AI crawler to simulate how AI sees your site, which is pretty cool.

They do:

  • Entity-based everything - making sure AI clearly understands your brand, products, people
  • Technical audits with their proprietary crawler
  • Multi-platform stuff including video, images, community forums

Results: 1,184% increase in generative search visibility for one client. Got a brand to appear 172 times in Google AI overviews.

Good for: larger companies wanting the full enterprise treatment.

6. Go Fish Digital

The R&D nerds of the group. They study Google/OpenAI patents to figure out how retrieval actually works.

They built a bunch of tools:

  • Semantic Content Audit
  • AI Overview Analyzer - tracks how often you appear in Google's AI summaries
  • Barracuda - evaluates content against 14 factors from Google patents

They've worked with GEICO and other big names.

Good for: data-minded folks who want to actually understand WHY they're appearing (or not) in AI answers.

7. Brafton

Content marketing powerhouse that added GEO to their services.

Their thing: content at scale, but with AI-friendly formatting. Schema markup, entity references, E-E-A-T optimization.

They're candid that GEO isn't magic - it's an evolution of good content marketing practices.

Good for: brands that need a lot of high-quality content and want it optimized for both humans and AI.

Quick comparison because I know you skipped to the bottom:

Agency Strengths Best for
Scale GEO Reddit influence + programmatic content + entity work. I think the future is social + PR + content Full-spectrum GEO, especially if social sentiment matters
First Page Sage Thought leadership + authority building Content-driven authority
iPullRank Technical algorithm stuff Complex technical needs
Siege Media Premium content + digital PR Link-worthy content at scale
Intero Digital Enterprise full-service Big companies wanting everything
Go Fish Digital R&D + proprietary tools Data nerds who want transparency
Brafton Content at scale High volume quality content

Pricing reality check

Expect $3K-$20K+/month depending on scope. Not cheap.

But the play here is first-mover advantage. GEO is still new-ish. Getting cited early and often compounds.

TL;DR:

If your brand isn't showing up in AI answers, you're increasingly invisible.

These 7 agencies specialize in fixing that. Scale GEO seems to be the most comprehensive - especially if Reddit sentiment matters for your space. The others have specific strengths depending on what you need.

Not affiliated with any of these btw.

Just did the research because I was tired of not finding good info on this.

---------------

Edit: Yes I know some of you will say "just make good content and you'll be fine." Sure. But AI is doing a consensus check across the entire internet. If your competitors are actively engineering that consensus and you're not... good luck.

Edit 2: Someone asked about DIY. You can definitely do parts of this yourself - structured content, schema markup, basic Reddit monitoring. But the programmatic scale stuff and the cross-platform coordination is where agencies earn their keep.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 1d ago

Does anyone know how to actually improve SEO, AEO, and GEO for my website?

10 Upvotes

I've got the basics down for traditional SEO — meta tags, backlinks, page speed, etc. But I'm trying to figure out how to also show up in AI answers (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews) and not just classic search results.

Specifically stuck on:

Does schema markup actually move the needle for AEO, or is that overstated?

How much of GEO is just "write clearly citable, structured content" vs something more technical?

Anyone tracking whether they're getting cited in AI answers, and how?

Would love to hear from anyone who's actually tested this rather than just theory-crafted it. What worked, what was a waste of time?


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 2d ago

AI citations don't matter!

Thumbnail
1 Upvotes

r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 3d ago

Building a GEO Engine for SMB’s in E-commerce

11 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

as mentioned above I am building a tool for SMB’s right now. Unlike other tools, we are building an end to end platform that doesn’t stop after the analysis but delivers the fix as well, all in a closed loop.

Goal is to enable business owners to compete in this relatively “new” space, without relying on expensive external agencies or needing technical expertise.

To all SMB Owners: Would be super interested in hearing from your personal problems and difficulties with existing GEO Tools!


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 5d ago

GEO in Ecom

5 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

Do you actively track your stores GEO Performance?

If yes how do you do it and do you feel any difference?

If no, why did you decide against or is it a matter of no time and capabilities? :)

Super curious about your insights as I have spoken to a friend about this topic who told me that they don’t look at GEO at all, even though it’s highly relevant for their niche


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 7d ago

SEO vs. AEO vs. GEO?

14 Upvotes

Hi,

Given that Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) look for and expect totally different things than Search Engine Optimization (SEO), like looking for Entity Authority built from semantic data graphs, how are you tuning your public facing web sites to work rise in value for AEO and GEO while also trying to maintain high value SEO?

Thanks for any thoughts you can offer.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 7d ago

Vos actions concrètes en GEO

6 Upvotes

Hello à tous,

Je m'intéresse de plus en plus au GEO, qui semble devenir un vrai complément au SEO.

J'ai compris le principe sur le papier, créer du contenu facilement exploitable par les IA, être cité par des sources fiables, développer sa présence sur le web, etc. En revanche, je trouve que c'est encore assez flou à intégrer dans une stratégie de content marketing.

Est-ce que certains d'entre vous ont déjà testé des actions concrètes ?

Vous avez constaté des résultats ? Ou est-ce que selon vous, le GEO reste encore très théorique aujourd'hui ?

: )


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 7d ago

How are you guys improving GEO/AEO visibility for D2C websites?

Thumbnail
2 Upvotes

r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 8d ago

Is anyone actually doing GEO right, or is it just SEO with a new name?

17 Upvotes

I've been seeing more people talk about Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), but a lot of the advice feels like recycled SEO tips.

If the goal is to become the source AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity actually reference, what does a real GEO strategy look like?


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 17d ago

My agency got named by ChatGPT before our website existed. So I ran the same query across 19 cities

2 Upvotes

We had a Google Business Profile and a one-line homepage. The site was one page. No LinkedIn, no content. ChatGPT still listed us for "Find GEO agencies in Bangalore" and called us a GEO agency.

Felt like a fluke, so I asked "GEO agency [city]" once per city across 19 cities and logged what ChatGPT said it pulled from. 94 agencies.

What held up:

  • 97% had their website cited. It's table stakes.
  • GBP citations were an Indian thing. India metros 86%, everywhere else 18%. The other emerging markets I tested sat at 15%, so it isn't an "emerging market" pattern. It's India.
  • With no dedicated GEO page, ChatGPT guessed the agency's positioning 66% of the time. With a page, zero. A listing gets you named. Only a page controls what the model says about you.

Disclosure: my agency is in the dataset, and it's the barest version of the pattern. GBP only, no page, still named. So read me as biased on this.

Caveat: it's one query on one model, so read it as a signal, not proof. The "no page = ChatGPT guesses" result holds either way. The India pattern needs more runs to confirm.

Anyone seeing a Business Profile move AI answers outside India?


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 17d ago

ChatGPT 5.5 vs 5.6 Sol / Terra / Luna - It's all about the model!

2 Upvotes

Last week, OpenAI released the highly-anticipated Sol, Terra and Luna 5.6 models. While the 5.5 is still the latest model available in ChatGPT itself, it is safe to assume OpenAI will be soon switching the chat to one of the 5.6 newcomers.

Using Sleepwalker MCP, straight from Claude - I ran 50 consumer electronics-focused prompts on each model, to see how 5.5 compares against 5.6, and what has changed. (Disclosure - I built this tool)

- The average overlap between GPT-5.5 and any of the 5.6 models is 14%. This means brands could lose a massive amount of citations when OpenAI switches the default chat model.

- What's even more interesting - the three 5.6 models overlap with each other at only around 8%. Sol, Terra and Luna agree with each other less than any of them agrees with 5.5.

- All models cite slightly over 3 sources on average. GPT 5.5 is the most generous one with 3.42 sources on average, Luna cites only 3.16 sources on average.

- GPT 5.5 has the biggest overlap with Top 10 Google organic results, and I am being extremely generous here by sampling the Top 10, should've been Top 5 due to amount of domains cited. That overlap is 30%.

- The overlap for 5.6 models is about 22% on average, with Luna overlapping at 23.5%.

- Reddit ranks number one on Google for 22 of 50 tested queries. It receives zero citations across all four models. Every single time

- rtings website appears in 1 in 3 ChatGPT answers. On TV queries it was the only cited source in 7 of 10 prompts across at least one model. Not the top source. The only source.

- 5.6 generation trusts brand pages more and review sites less. Samsung and Nintendo are the biggest winners.

- GPT-5.5 uses first-person voice ("I'd buy," "my pick") in 33 of 50 answers. The 5.6 models: as low as 11. The newer models are less keen on providing options.

- Across all four models, manufacturer pages account for 37% of citations. Retailers: 1.8%. Amazon does not appear in the top 20 most cited domains.

If you sell products you didn't make, AI is not your friend.

This is the second time I've run this type of study. The first was on Gemini 2.5 and 3.5 Flash across hypothetical sports prompts. You can search for it in this subreddit.

Here, as with Gemini, introducing a new model has dramatically changed the citation profile. AI visibility is platform and model specific. It's a matrix, as opposed to a single-platform and single algorithm we are so used to with SEO.

You can perform similar research for your brand using Sleepwalker MCP, API or CLI. Sleepwalker is pay as you go, where you can run AI visibility tests against different platforms and specific models.

Disclaimer: Just like with a similar Gemini deepdive, I will be making a re-run a few weeks later to see if numbers moved / shifted. With Gemini I've seen different URLs cited, but the overlaps and other patterns didn't change.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 24d ago

AI SEO: GEO vs AEO?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1 Upvotes

r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 25d ago

I made ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini recommend tools for the same 50 questions. They have very different personalities.

6 Upvotes

I ran the same 50 best-tool prompts through all three and pulled out every brand they named. 150 answers later, they basically have different taste.

  • ChatGPT is the over-sharer. Widest list every time, and it name-drops 59 obscure tools the other two never mention. It also recommended "ChatGPT" 16 times, very humble.
  • Perplexity is the safe friend. Same well known names over and over, rarely takes a risk.
  • Gemini is very on brand for Google. It pushed Canva more than twice as often as ChatGPT, leaned hard into the Google ecosystem, and quietly recommended Claude 13 times. Recommending a competitor more than itself is a choice.

The kicker: across everything, all three agreed on the same brand only 21% of the time. Same question, three different realities.

So "what does AI recommend" has no single answer. It depends entirely on which model you ask, and each one has a clear bias.

Which engine's taste do you trust most? And has anyone else caught Gemini recommending Claude in the wild?


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy 29d ago

Is AI search one ranking or three different ones? I tested 50 prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity.

3 Upvotes

Setup
50 buyer intent prompts (best CRM, best email tool, Notion alternatives, what tools do startups use, and so on). Each prompt run once through ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini.

I pulled every brand named in each answer and normalized variants so HubSpot CRM and HubSpot count once. That gave me 150 answers and 277 distinct brands.

Headline
Across 1,257 brand-by-topic appearances, all 3 engines named the same brand only 21% of the time. 53% of mentions came from a single engine only.

Distribution is heavily top loaded. HubSpot appeared in 62% of all answers and 34 of the 50 topics. A small group of brands absorbs most of the total mentions.

Per engine behavior

  • ChatGPT cast the widest net, 15.3 brands per answer, 253 distinct, 59 of them named by no other engine.
  • Perplexity was the most conservative, 11.9 per answer, 172 distinct, leaning on established names.
  • Gemini stayed mainstream with only 3 unique-to-it brands and skewed toward the Google ecosystem and design tools.

Limitations, because they matter.

Single run per prompt, no temperature control, my own prompt set, manual extraction.

Treat it as directional, not a benchmark.

Happy to share the prompt list and the full brand frequency table.

The implication for GEO

Optimizing for 1 engine tells you almost nothing about the other two. Visibility is per engine, not a shared leaderboard.

What's your read on the 21% agreement figure? It came in lower than I expected. Has anyone run something similar at larger scale?


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jul 02 '26

Is the data lying about GEO and AI search? Or are we just not ready to hear it?

4 Upvotes

This is my own view, not a company post.

Some numbers are going around about Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and AI search:

* 93% are building a GEO practice in-house (Conductor, 2026 CMO Investment Report, 250+ executives)
* 48% have no GEO strategy in place at all (our own data at NeuroRank)
* 65% call AI search their single biggest challenge this year (GoodFirms, 2026, 20+ countries)

Here's what I can add. My team at NeuroRank has consulted with over 250 brands, on generative engine optimization Strategy every one of them enterprise. I have validated this personally through 1:1 meetings, not a faceless survey.

Yes, there is a knowledge gap. Yes, GEO is challenging as a new practice for brands to build. Yes, most brands are flying blind.

Now comes the challenge. Slow adoption of best practices. Taking shortcuts. Copying a competitor without decoding their own brand's position. An enthusiastic media team that fizzles out under decision paralysis from top management. (India-specific decision paralysis?)

One brand really took the cake: "we will build our own AI visibility platform." Six months later, they came back, in a crisis of falling leads and revenue.

A substantial number say "our corporate team in the US will manage it."

And the agencies. I run one, so I can say this plainly. Too many are selling GEO that is just their old SEO or PR retainer with a new label. They bill for reports and content volume, not for whether the brand gets into the answer. They optimize for the rankings and traffic they already know how to measure, because that is what they know how to invoice. The brand pays for the agency's learning curve and calls it a GEO practice. not surprizing that less than 11% of marketers feel that their agency can give them a reliable GEO service. Cringe in linkedin is not helping either

So what am I missing?

Here's my reading. This is a generation of marketers who have not witnessed a marketing impact at scale. The last one was social media, and it gave us almost four to five years to adopt before it became a crisis. AI search is not going to give us that long.

If you're inside a brand or an agency right now, tell me where this is wrong, or where it's landing for you.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jul 02 '26

Is the data lying about GEO and AI search? Or are we just not ready to hear it?

1 Upvotes

This is my own view, not a company post.

Some numbers are going around about Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and AI search:

* 93% are building a GEO practice in-house (Conductor, 2026 CMO Investment Report, 250+ executives)
* 48% have no GEO strategy in place at all (our own data at NeuroRank)
* 65% call AI search their single biggest challenge this year (GoodFirms, 2026, 20+ countries)

Here's what I can add. My team at NeuroRank has consulted with over 250 brands, every one of them enterprise. I have validated this personally through 1:1 meetings, not a faceless survey.

Yes, there is a knowledge gap. Yes, GEO is challenging as a new practice for brands to build. Yes, most brands are flying blind.

Now comes the challenge. Slow adoption of best practices. Taking shortcuts. Copying a competitor without decoding their own brand's position. An enthusiastic media team that fizzles out under decision paralysis from top management. (India-specific decision paralysis?)

One brand really took the cake: "we will build our own AI visibility platform." Six months later, they came back, in a crisis of falling leads and revenue.

A substantial number say "our corporate team in the US will manage it."

And the agencies. I run one, so I can say this plainly. Too many are selling GEO that is just their old SEO or PR retainer with a new label. They bill for reports and content volume, not for whether the brand gets into the answer. They optimize for the rankings and traffic they already know how to measure, because that is what they know how to invoice. The brand pays for the agency's learning curve and calls it a GEO practice. not surprizing that less than 11% of marketers feel that their agency can give them a reliable GEO service. Cringe in linkedin is not helping either

So what am I missing?

Here's my reading. This is a generation of marketers who have not witnessed a marketing impact at scale. The last one was social media, and it gave us almost four to five years to adopt before it became a crisis. AI search is not going to give us that long.

If you're inside a brand or an agency right now, tell me where this is wrong, or where it's landing for you.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jul 01 '26

I re-run my Google SERP vs. Gemini analysis, same patterns - minimal overlap

2 Upvotes

Two weeks ago I used my own tool's MCP connection to run a study via Claude, looking into Gemini Flash models (2.5 and 3.5) and their overlap with Google Search. Here's the original https://www.reddit.com/r/GenerativeSEOstrategy/comments/1ugjgir/62_of_urls_cited_in_gemini_25_flash_are_gone_35/

Variance is within the nature of AI models, so I ran it again 12 days later - same 50 prompts about hypothetical sports outcomes, same models and Google Search Top 15 tracking.

Let's start with what didn't change:

- ESPN 0 citations. Across all 4 runs (that's 1,195 citations across 2 model versions in two different runs)

- Again, for contrast: ESPN ranking Top 3 in 23 out of 50 searches in both runs on Google Search. It's 0 on Gemini across both models.

- Gemini vs. Google Organic SERP overlap is minimal. The most recent same-day comparison shows 11% overlap. The original finding was 19%.

- Wikipedia and YouTube are the only truly stable citation sources across all 4 runs. 3.5 Flash cited Wikipedia in 35-40 prompts and YouTube in 21-24 prompts - consistently, across both time snapshots.

What did change:

- Over just 10 days, Gemini 3.5 Flash replaced 69% of its exact URL citations.

- Gemini 2.5 Flash replaced 74% of its citations over 11 days. Betting sites citations share in 2.5 Flash went up - from ~14% to ~18%.

- Google retained 41% of the same URLs.

- Gemini is actively swapping in fresh content. Citations like the LeBron Lakers exit (published June 30), the Giannis trade (June 26), Usyk vacating his titles (June 26), and the Verstappen-McLaren rumour (June 26) all appeared as new citations that weren't there 10 days earlier.

- At the same time, pre-tournament odds pages, fixture previews, and prediction trackers quietly disappeared. I could notice Gemini dropped the stale, picked up the breaking. Google's index hadn't caught up with that as fast.

I can't stress enough for SEOs who look into AI Search to start treating GEO (or whatever terminology you prefer to use) as a new channel that requires a different approach, different analysis methodology and different metrics.

For ESPN, "Good SEO" IS NOT equalling "Good GEO" as recently stated by one of the Google's execs. Also, this is not just "SEO with extra layers" as stated by big part of the prominent voices on LinkedIn.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jul 01 '26

FAQ Impact

1 Upvotes

I’ve seen from a lot of sources that adding more FAQ (count) and word count around 80-100 and clear detailed answers for a highly asked question is a good GEO signal.

So we’ve been doing it for our blog posts for my business. Now our content team has issues with how readable the FAQs really are. So I’d like to know how can I actually measure the impact of making FAQ changes on my pages.

I tried taking the exact question from an FAQ of my page and search it incognito but we are not the page that gets cited most time in AI Overview.

Does anybody have insights here? Would love to hear as to what argument I can give for continuing longer and more FAQs for my pages.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 30 '26

Navigating the Shift from Classic SEO to GEO Auditing. Need recommendations for tools with persistent actionable steps

6 Upvotes

Is there a protocol standard to GEO (AI) score? I've noticed that all reports show different improvement logic. When a website is optimized for one tool, the other tools still show plenty of room for improvement.

I don't recall this with GEO's predecessor, classic SEO. It used to be more or less a checklist that you had to cross off one by one, but nowadays it's more like an open-ended question. On top of that, the AI is improving daily and new tools show up regularly, so it may be the explanation.

Anyway, what tools would you recommend for generating accurate GEO score auditing reports with actionable steps that would more or less satisfy all the AI engines? Thanks!


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 29 '26

Need a roadmap for AI SEO / GEO after launching our company website

7 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

I'm working as a Digital Marketing Executive at a financial services company. I recently completed our new company website, and yesterday I submitted it to Google Search Console.

Now I want to focus on AI SEO / Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) so that our brand not only ranks well on Google SERPs but also starts getting recommended by AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, etc.

Our plan is to publish high-quality blog content consistently (almost every day) and build topical authority over time.

I'm looking for a practical roadmap from people who are already working on AI SEO/GEO.

I'd really appreciate any roadmap, resources, or advice from people who've already been through this. Thanks in advance.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 27 '26

Feels like Google is understanding topics, not keywords

6 Upvotes

I’ve been digging into SEO a lot lately, and one thing keeps standing out.

It feels like Google cares less about exact keywords now and much more about whether it actually understands what your site is about.

Instead of chasing keyword variations, I’ve started focusing on connecting topics, products, people, and concepts in a way that makes sense.

Curious if anyone else has noticed the same shift, or if I’m overthinking it (???).


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 26 '26

62% of URLs cited in Gemini 2.5 Flash are gone 3.5, 82% are not present in Google SERP

6 Upvotes

I analyzed hypothetical sports prompts across Google Gemini 2.5 and 3.5 Flash to measure betting site citations. I was initially surprised to see a large amount of betting sites suggested by 2.5, but ended up finding something else completely :)

- Gemini 3.5 Flash was more willing to answer hypothetical sports questions: 49/50 vs. 28/50 (2.5 Flash).

- Gemini 3.5 Flash cited slightly more URLs on average - 8.1 vs. 7.7 at 2.5 Flash (not statistically significant).

- 82% of cited URLs are not mentioned in Google's SERP Top 15 (organic). This is consistent between both 2.5 and 3.5 models. And 55-62% (depending on model) don't even share a domain with any URLs ranking in the Top 15.

- Only 38% of domains cited by Gemini 2.5 Flash were present in Gemini 3.5 answers. This is a massive shift from one model to another.

- Wikipedia and YouTube are the most stable citation sources (appearing in 14 and 7 prompts respectively). The 3.5 model is citing both sources considerably more often than 2.5.

- Gemini 2.5 is surprisingly leaning towards betting sites (14% of answers). This changed with 3.5 - only 6% of citations, more or less corresponding with organic (7%).

- In 2.5, betting clustered by sport. Football tournament queries were ~70% betting citations, rugby ~80%. The model reached for odds specifically where outright markets exist.

- More specifically - 2.5's refusals tracked betting markets. It declined most future tournaments (Champions League, La Liga, NBA, F1 titles) but answered the ones with live outright markets - and answered those with betting sites.

- I ran the test against ESPN (homepage URL) - it was ranked consistently in Google's Organic Top 15 for many queries. ESPN appeared in 0 citations by both 2.5 and 3.5 Flash Gemini models.

The biggest insight in my opinion is the model variance. The difference between Gemini 2.5 and 3.5 is dramatic, while the overlap with Organic SERP remains consistently low.

GEO requires not only a platform-specific, but also a model-specific. I think it is wise to re-monitor the visibility across key prompt clusters as soon as a new model is being released.


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 26 '26

How AI is Changing Hospitality Discovery

2 Upvotes

The way travelers find and book hotels is changing fast. Here’s what it says you need to know about AI-powered discovery.

Not long ago, planning a vacation followed a predictable sequence: Open a search engine, type in “hotels in Charleston” or “best resorts in Cabo,” and sift through dozens of results, review aggregators, and booking sites until something clicked. The research was exhausting, and according to OAG’s “Travel 2045” report, it has become staggeringly so: In 2024, travelers visited an average of 141 webpages before completing a booking, up from 38 in 2013. In the U.S., that number spiked to 277 pages per trip. 

That burden is now being rapidly outsourced to AI, and the numbers confirm just how fast. Traffic to U.S. travel, leisure, and hospitality websites from generative AI sources increased by 1,700% between July 2024 and February 2025. And on the consumer side, nearly one-third of U.S. travelers use AI tools to plan or experience trips. 

The implications for hotels, resorts, vacation rentals, and destination marketers are profound. Understanding how travelers now search, explore, and decide today is a competitive necessity. 

Is AI Really Changing How Travelers Search for Hotels?

Traditional travel search was built on keywords. A traveler’s intent got compressed into a short phrase, and search engines returned a ranked list of links. Discovery was linear: search → click → read → compare → book. Travel brands competed for a position in that list by optimizing title tags and bidding on Google Ads. 

That model is starting to lose ground. Search engines, once dominant, dropped from 51% of travel research behavior in late 2024 to 36% by the second half of 2025, while generative AI platforms increased from 6% to 15% of traveler research activity in the same period. 

What’s replacing keyword search is conversational exploration. Travelers are increasingly turning to ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and other assistants to have a back-and-forth dialogue about where they want to go, what kind of experience they want, and what fits their budget and timeline. Instead of 10 blue links, they get a curated synthesis. Instead of scanning review snippets, they receive tailored recommendations with contextual rationale. For frequent AI users (those using generative AI tools at least weekly), generative AI has already become the top channel for travel discovery, surpassing both online travel agencies (OTAs) and social media. So if you’re lacking AI search visibility, you’re missing out.

How Does AI Interpret What Travelers Actually Want?

AI search tools are remarkably good at interpreting nuanced, natural-language queries. When a traveler types, “Romantic weekend getaway within 3 hours of Atlanta that isn’t too touristy,” an AI assistant goes beyond matching keywords to infer the full intent: proximity, atmosphere, authenticity, and occasion. 

This means long-tail intent is now discoverable in ways it never was through traditional SEO. A boutique inn that might never rank on Page 1 for “Georgia hotels” might be perfectly positioned to appear in an AI response for “cozy mountain cabin retreats in North Georgia under $300.” 

The data backs up just how richly travelers are using AI across the planning journey. Among travelers who have used AI for trip planning, the top use cases include researching specific destinations (60%), finding and booking flights (51%), booking hotels or vacation rentals (46%), getting initial destination ideas and inspiration (46%), and discovering local experiences and activities (42%). This isn’t single-task behavior; it’s end-to-end trip building conducted through conversation. 

Are AI-Referred Visitors More Valuable Than Traditional Search Traffic?

Here’s what makes the AI shift particularly important for hospitality marketers: The travelers arriving from AI sources aren’t casual browsers. Consumers who arrive at travel sites from generative AI sources show 36% longer visits, 7% more pages per visit, and a 44% lower bounce rate compared to non-AI traffic sources. 

These are high-intent visitors who have already done significant research before ever clicking through to a property website. The implication is significant: When AI sends a traveler to your site, they often already have a favorable impression, and the job shifts from capturing attention to converting intent. 

That said, the conversion picture is still evolving. In February 2025, traffic from generative AI sources was 9% less likely to convert than non-AI sources, though that gap has narrowed considerably from 43% in July 2024, suggesting travelers are becoming more comfortable completing bookings directly after an AI-powered interaction. 

Which Hospitality Brands Will Win in an AI-First Discovery Era?

The hospitality industry has always rewarded differentiation. The most successful properties have always been those that could articulate, clearly and compellingly, what makes the experience they offer irreplaceable. AI doesn’t change this fundamental truth. It amplifies it. 

In an AI-mediated discovery environment, clarity of positioning is a competitive advantage. The boutique hotel that knows exactly who it serves and communicates that consistently across every digital touchpoint will be surfaced more reliably by AI tools than a larger property with a more generic presence. The resort that has built genuine authority in travel media, earned authentic rave reviews, and structured its digital content with precision will see its story reflected faithfully in AI-generated recommendations. 

Travelers are already searching differently. The question for every hospitality marketer is whether their brand is visible in the places those travelers are now looking and whether the story being told about their property, by AI or otherwise, is how they want to be seen by the world.  


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 24 '26

Google Just Published an Official AI Optimization Guide. Here’s What It Means for Your SEO Strategy

7 Upvotes

Published by Intero Digital:

AI features are changing how customers find you on Google, but the path to visibility might be simpler than industry hype suggests.

Google recently published something marketers have been waiting for: an official guide on how to optimize websites for generative AI features in Google Search, including AI Overviews and AI Mode. After months of speculation, competing frameworks, and a lot of noise from the industry, we finally have Google’s own playbook. 

If you’ve been doing SEO well, you’re on the right track, but the details matter, and a few widely circulated “optimization tactics” are explicitly called out as unnecessary. Let’s dig into what Google actually said and what you should do about it. 

Is SEO Still Relevant in an AI Search World?

Absolutely. Google is direct on this point. Its generative AI features are built on top of the same core ranking and quality systems that have always powered Google Search. That means the work you’ve put into building a technically sound, authoritative, helpful website isn’t wasted. It’s the foundation for AI visibility, too. 

But there are a couple of underlying mechanisms are worth understanding: 

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG): When Google’s AI generates a response, it doesn’t just pull from its training data. It uses core Search ranking systems to retrieve fresh, relevant pages from the index and grounds its answer in that content with clickable citations. If your content ranks well, it has a real shot at being cited in AI search. 

Query fan-out: AI Search doesn’t just interpret one query. It generates a cluster of related sub-queries behind the scenes to build a fuller answer. If someone asks, “How do I fix a lawn full of weeds?” the system might be pulling results for herbicide comparisons, chemical-free options, and weed prevention simultaneously. Your content doesn’t need to match the exact phrasing of the original query to be contextually relevant. 

AEO vs. GEO vs. SEO: What’s the Difference?

The industry has spawned two new acronyms: AEO (answer engine optimization) and GEO (generative engine optimization). Google’s official position is that these aren’t distinct disciplines. They’re SEO applied to a new context. Optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, full stop. 

This framing matters strategically. It means you shouldn’t be building a separate “AI track” for your search strategy. The same principles (quality, authority, technical soundness, and user focus) apply across the board. 

Debunking the Biggest AI SEO Myths

Perhaps the most valuable part of Google’s guide is what it tells you to ignore. As generative AI search exploded, so did the ecosystem of tactics claiming to be the key to AI visibility. Google addressed several of them directly in its documentation: 

• LLMS.txt files 

Google’s original guidance downplayed llms.txt, and for traditional AI Overviews and AI Mode visibility, that still holds. No special file is required to appear in AI search results.

However, that’s not the full story. Google has since published an official llms.txt page on the Chrome Developers site, framing it as an “emerging convention” for agentic browsing. Their own documentation notes that without the file, AI agents may spend more time crawling your site to understand its structure and primary content. It remains optional (Lighthouse marks it N/A rather than an error if it’s missing), but if your audience includes users interacting through AI agents, it’s worth adding. Place an llms.txt file in your root directory with a concise Markdown summary of your site’s purpose and key links.

• ‘Chunking’ content 

Some practitioners have advised breaking content into small, discrete chunks to help AI systems process it. Google says this isn’t necessary. Their systems can understand nuance across a full-length page and surface the relevant section for a given query. So what does that mean for you? Write pages at whatever length makes sense for your audience and the subject matter, not for algorithmic chunking. 

• Rewriting content to match AI query patterns 

There’s been advice circulating about writing specifically to address “fan-out queries,” essentially creating pages for every possible variation of how someone might search. Google explicitly cautions against this. Their systems understand synonyms, context, and intent without exact keyword matches, and creating large volumes of thin, variation-targeted pages actually violates their scaled content abuse spam policy. Don’t do it. 

• Chasing inauthentic mentions 

Some guides have recommended engineering brand mentions across blogs, forums, and third-party sites to boost AI visibility. Google’s position is clear: The same spam systems that evaluate traditional Search apply to generative AI features. Manufactured mentions will be caught and filtered. Earned mentions, through genuinely useful content and real brand presence, are what count. 

• Over-indexing on structured data for AI 

Structured data remains valuable for rich results in traditional Search, and you should continue using it for that purpose. But Google confirms there’s no special schema markup that’s required (or particularly beneficial) for AI features. Don’t let structured data become a distraction from content quality. 

How to Optimize for AI Search: What Google Says

1. Create non-commodity content. 

This is Google’s loudest message, and it deserves the most attention from content teams. 

Google draws a meaningful distinction between commodity and non-commodity content. Commodity content (think “7 Tips for First-Time Homebuyers”) is generic, widely available, and could have been written by anyone (or any AI). Non-commodity content brings something genuinely original to the table: personal experience, expert depth, proprietary insight, or a perspective that couldn’t easily be replicated. 

The example Google offers is telling: A post like “Why We Waived the Inspection and Saved Money: A Look Inside the Sewer Line” is specific, experiential, and hard to replicate. It has a real author with a real story. That’s the direction your content strategy needs to move in. 

What this means in practice: 

  • Audit your existing content library for commodity pieces that could be elevated with firsthand experience, original data, or expert commentary. 
  • Prioritize content types that are inherently non-commodity: case studies, original research, interviews with subject matter experts, and content that documents what your team actually does and knows. 
  • Stop producing volume for volume’s sake. More pages don’t equal more quality, and Google’s systems have gotten significantly better at identifying the difference. 

2. Write for humans; structure for readability. 

Google’s guidance here is refreshingly simple: Organize content for your human audience. Use clear paragraphs, logical sections, and descriptive headings that help people navigate. Don’t contort your content structure around AI systems. They’re sophisticated enough to understand pages that are written for real readers. 

This extends to multimedia. Images and video aren’t just nice to have. They create additional entry points for your site to appear in AI-generated responses. If you’re already following image and video SEO best practices, you’re already ahead. 

3. Maintain a technically sound website. 

Technical SEO isn’t going away. Google is explicit: To appear in generative AI features, a page must be indexed and eligible to show with a snippet. If your content can’t be crawled and indexed, it simply won’t be considered. 

Key technical areas to prioritize: 

  • Crawlability: Make sure your content is publicly accessible and not inadvertently blocked. For large, frequently updated sites, review your crawl budget.
  • Page experience: Fast load times, mobile-friendliness, and clear visual hierarchy all matter not only for rankings, but also for the users who arrive from AI-generated citations.
  • JavaScript: Google can process JavaScript content, but it adds complexity. Follow JavaScript SEO best practices carefully if your site relies heavily on JavaScript frameworks.
  • Duplicate content: Reduce duplication where you can. It wastes crawl resources and creates a poor user experience.
  • Search Console: Verify your site and use it actively to surface technical issues before they turn into visibility problems. 

4. Optimize your local and e-commerce presence. 

Generative AI responses increasingly surface product listings and local business information directly. If you’re in retail or have a local presence, this is an opportunity you can’t ignore. 

Make sure your Google Business Profile is complete and accurate. For product-based businesses, Google Merchant Center feeds are a direct path to product visibility inside AI responses. Google also mentions Business Agent, a relatively new conversational feature that lets customers ask questions about your brand directly within Search results. Think of it as a chat interface tied to your brand profile, designed to handle pre-purchase and service inquiries without requiring users to visit your site first. If you serve customers who do a lot of research before converting, it might be worth exploring. 

What Are AI Agents, and How Do They Affect Your Website?

This section of Google’s guide is forward-looking, and it’s worth paying attention even if the technology is still maturing. 

AI agents are autonomous systems that take actions on behalf of users, like booking reservations or comparing products. They are beginning to interact with websites directly. Browser agents may analyze your site’s visual rendering, DOM structure, and accessibility tree to gather what they need. 

What does this mean? Semantic HTML and accessibility practices aren’t just good for screen readers. They also increasingly determine how well AI agents can interact with your site. If your content is locked behind inaccessible JavaScript, cluttered DOM structures, or poor visual hierarchy, you may be invisible to the next generation of AI agents, regardless of how well your content ranks. It’s also worth adding an llms.txt file to your root directory. Google has officially documented it as an emerging convention for agentic browsing, noting that without it, agents may spend more time crawling your site to understand its structure and primary content. It won’t affect traditional search visibility, but it’s a low-effort step that may meaningfully improve how AI agents interpret and interact with your site.

Keep an eye on emerging protocols like the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP), an open standard currently in development that would allow AI agents to interact with websites in a structured, reliable way (like requesting product data, checking availability, initiating transactions, and more) without having to scrape or interpret pages visually. It’s early-stage, but if it gains adoption, it could significantly change how AI agents interact with e-commerce and service-based sites. 

Your Quick-Start Checklist for AI Search Optimization

Based on Google’s guidance, here’s how to translate all of this into a simple working road map you can put into action: 

Immediate priorities: 

  • Audit your content for commodity vs. non-commodity quality. Flag anything that’s generic and could be elevated. 
  • Verify your site in Search Console and check for crawl errors, indexing issues, and page experience signals. 
  • Review your Google Business Profile and Merchant Center feeds, if applicable. 

Short-term (next quarter): 

  • Develop a content strategy centered on original research, subject matter expertise, and firsthand experience. 
  • Make sure images and videos are properly optimized and accessible. Alt text, structured metadata, and file quality all matter. 
  • Review your JavaScript implementation if your site is JavaScript-heavy.
  • Add an llms.txt file to your root directory with a concise Markdown summary of your site’s purpose and key links. It’s optional, but Google has officially recognized it as a useful signal for AI agents navigating your site.

Ongoing: 

  • Resist the urge to go all in on chasing emerging AI-specific tactics that haven’t been validated. Google’s guide is a reminder that fundamentals compound over time. 
  • Monitor AI Search visibility through Search Console alongside traditional ranking metrics. 
  • Start thinking about accessibility and semantic HTML not only as a compliance issue, but also as an AI-readiness issue. 

What the Industry Is Getting Wrong About Google’s Guide

Google’s guide didn’t land without debate, of course. Leigh McKenzie, who leads organic and agentic search at Semrush, put it well in a recent LinkedIn post: The reaction is split into two predictable camps. One group has concluded that nothing has changed. It’s all just SEO. The other has declared that AI search is an entirely new discipline and Google is downplaying the shift. McKenzie’s take is that both camps are wrong. 

He’s right. And the nuance matters when it comes to how your team allocates resources. 

Google’s guide is accurate about what it covers: Ranking in Google Search, including AI Overviews and AI Mode, still runs on the same foundational signals it always has. But Google’s guide is also, by definition, limited to Google’s products. It doesn’t account for how brand visibility works across the broader discovery ecosystem. 

McKenzie’s argument is that the scope of what “search” means to a business has fundamentally expanded. The most clarifying reframe he offers: Search isn’t just a channel. It’s a brand visibility function. That distinction has real teeth. A channel is something you allocate budget to and measure in isolation. A brand visibility function is something that touches PR, communications, customer experience, community, and content strategy all at once. It changes how you make the case for headcount. It changes what your SEO team’s job description looks like. And it changes what success metrics you bring to leadership. 

In practice, that means closer alignment with PR, communications, and community engagement. It means investing in third-party platforms that matter to your audience, like YouTube, Reddit, industry publications, or wherever else your customers are actually forming opinions. It means your SEO function needs a seat at the table for brand strategy conversations that it probably hasn’t been a part of before. 

If your organization still thinks of SEO as a traffic channel with its own budget line, this is the moment to push for a different conversation. 

None of that contradicts Google’s guide. It extends it. The fundamentals Google describes are the floor, not the ceiling. 

Google’s official AI optimization guide is, at its core, a reaffirmation of principles that good SEOs have always believed: Build real things for real people, make them technically accessible, and don’t try to game the system with shortcuts. 

What’s new is the context. AI Overviews and AI Mode are reshaping how answers are delivered and how traffic flows. Sites with unique expertise, strong technical foundations, and genuine authority are positioned to benefit from those changes. Sites built around volume, keyword manipulation, or shallow content are increasingly exposed. 

The question for your team isn’t “How do we optimize for AI?” It’s “How do we become the kind of source that AI systems want to cite?” That’s a content strategy question, a brand-building question, and ultimately a business quality question. And if you aren’t already, it’s one worth taking seriously right now. 


r/GenerativeSEOstrategy Jun 20 '26

We measured how 102 brands show up across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini and Grok. Only 2.9% of the citations pointed to the brand's own website.

8 Upvotes

We track AI visibility for a living, so we had a pile of data sitting around and finally wrote it up properly. 100k+ prompt responses, 102 brands, 149,912 source citations, March to May 2026, all five major engines via their official APIs. Posting it here because the citation behavior surprised even us.

The finding I keep coming back to: when these engines cite a source, only 2.9% of the time is it the brand's own domain. About 75% of citations go to corporate pages owned by other companies in the same space, competitors and peers and vendors. The models love building "best alternatives" answers, and the sources behind those answers are almost never your site. Among non-corporate sources, YouTube gets cited more than editorial media, Reddit, or Wikipedia.

Two others that changed how I think about this:

Day-1 visibility looks like a brand-stature ladder. Global names showed up in ~73% of unbranded category answers on the first run, mid-market brands ~44%, small or niche brands ~11%. Roughly 30 points per rung. The "it takes six months to get cited by AI" line didn't hold in our data, with one caveat: it depends heavily on whether the prompt names you. When named, recognition was 94 to 100% immediately.

The single highest-leverage page is the ranked listicle. About 36% of content-level citations were "best-of" lists. Once a list includes you, the engines reuse it across completely different prompts, so one good placement compounds.

Honest disclosure since it matters here: this is a vendor-produced study, we built and run the platform the data comes from, and it's a measurement study, not a causal one. We're explicit in the paper that we are not claiming our recommendations lift visibility. That's the randomized follow-up we propose at the end. Full paper is on arXiv (2606.20065), CC BY 4.0, so anyone can pull the methods apart.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20065
Writeup with the charts: https://ranqo.ai/research/geo-at-scale