Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)

Generative engine optimization is the practice of structuring a site so AI assistants cite it when a buyer asks who to hire. SEO targets rankings in Google’s traditional results; GEO targets citations inside AI-generated answers on ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews. According to BrightEdge (2026), 48% of Google searches already show an AI-generated result. The practical difference is what gets measured. In SEO the unit is a page’s position; in GEO it is whether you appear as a source inside the answer itself. A results page shows ten options and the user chooses. An AI answer names two or three, and most people stop reading there. We optimise for both surfaces at the same time, because one technical foundation serves each. In practice one technical foundation serves both, which is why we never sell them as separate projects.

Technical and structural changes start having an effect within a few weeks. Consistent citations develop over 3 to 6 months, depending on how competitive your niche is and what authority the domain already has. The gap exists because engines do not cite by ranking, they cite by confidence in an entity. Part of the work is fast: opening AI crawler access in robots.txt, adding llms.txt, fixing schema, and rewriting passages so they stand alone. The rest is slow: brand mentions in outside sources, reviews, and consistent presence. According to Ahrefs research published in December 2025 across 75,000 brands, brand mentions correlate with AI visibility roughly 3 times more strongly than backlinks. In practice the technical half closes quickly and the authority half takes patience. For example, opening crawler access and fixing schema can be done in a week, while earning mentions on outside sources cannot be rushed at any price.

Yes, and the answer is measurable rather than promotional. Google AI Overviews has been live in multiple languages since 2025, and adoption of AI assistants among professional buyers is high enough that the first named source in an answer often ends the search. The reason it matters now is competitive timing. Most sites in this category have done nothing structural, so the bar is low. For example, when we audited a large recruitment site in 2026 we measured its GEO readiness at 28% and its brand mention presence at 20%, and the causes were ordinary: content locked inside builder widgets, no llms.txt, and robots.txt drawing no distinction between AI search crawlers and AI training crawlers. In practice the bar is low precisely because most competitors have done nothing structural yet, and that window will not stay open indefinitely.

The audit checks whether ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity currently cite your business, identifies the main technical blockers, and returns a prioritised list of the highest-impact fixes, with no commitment to anything afterwards. What we measure is concrete. Which AI crawlers are blocked in robots.txt, whether an llms.txt file exists, how many schema nodes are present and whether they are linked into one graph, and how long the passages on your pages actually run. For example, a page whose text is cut into fragments of 30 words cannot be quoted whole, so it is never cited regardless of quality. We measured our own copy the same way before publishing it, including this answer. For example, we measure how long the passages on your pages actually run, because text cut into 30-word fragments cannot be quoted whole by anything.

Not necessarily. The audit shows exactly which pages and technical elements block citations, and we typically start with targeted changes that produce the highest impact before touching anything else. In practice three things explain most of the gap. The first is access: if AI crawlers are blocked, no amount of content helps. The second is structure: text cut into short fragments inside design components cannot be lifted as a whole passage, so it goes uncited even when it is excellent. The third is linked schema that lets an engine resolve your business as a single entity. Our own site carries 11 linked nodes across 45 pages, and you can inspect all of it before hiring us. We measured our own copy with a citability scorer before publishing it, including this answer, rather than judging the result by eye.

No. The service runs month to month with no minimum commitment, starting at $350 a month, and you can pause, increase scope or stop at any point. There is no annual contract and no exit penalty. We choose this model because GEO is a young field that changes quickly, and locking you in for a year commits you to a method that may not be relevant in six months. In practice it also forces us to show measurable progress every month: which engines cite you, which pages appear as sources, and how that changes. If the report shows no movement, you leave, and we do not hold you with a signature. In practice the monthly report shows which engines cite you and which pages appear as sources, so the decision to continue stays yours.