SEO, AI Optimization, or Something Else? What Leaders Are Really Trying to Figure Out

Lately, the questions I hear most aren’t about rankings, traffic, or even performance.

They sound more like this:

• How is AI optimization different from SEO?
• Is GEO or AEO actually something new, or is it the same work with a new name?
• Do we need to be doing something different now?
• Do you “do” AI optimization?
• Should we even keep investing in SEO?

They’re fair questions. In many cases, they’re good questions.

New terms can spark curiosity. They can re-open conversations that may have gone stale. They can create interest and investment in being found online, regardless of what we ultimately call the work. In that sense, the emergence of new language around AI, search, being visible, and how we show up (or don’t) to our target audience isn’t inherently a bad thing.

But after having these conversations repeatedly with peers, clients, and in podcast interviews, I’ve become less convinced that the naming itself is the real issue.

I think we may be asking the wrong question.

Why the Naming Conversation Keeps Coming Back

It’s not hard to see why this debate has continued and not resolved.

Search visibility is changing. AI systems are increasingly shaping how information is surfaced, summarized, and discovered. That naturally leads to new terminology as people try to describe what’s happening and where things are headed.

Last year, Zach wrote a strong piece on the VOLTAGE blog that cut through much of the noise by reframing the conversation around strategy rather than labels. More recently, Search Engine Journal published a thoughtful article by Roger Montti aimed at bringing clarity to how SEO, GEO, and AEO relate to one another.

There’s no shortage of smart perspectives in the industry on this topic. It typically is hammered on within the first 3 posts in my LinkedIn feed every single day.

That’s part of the reason I haven’t written about it until now. I didn’t feel compelled to add another explainer or acronym comparison. Between existing articles, ongoing conversations, and a documented unpublished internal SEO + AI point of view we use with clients and partners, the definitions weren’t the missing piece.

What felt missing was a conversation about what these naming debates are doing inside organizations.

When Language Starts to Replace Ownership

Where I see teams struggle isn’t in understanding the acronyms. It’s in what happens after those acronyms enter the conversation.

New language can quietly shift responsibility.

Suddenly, SEO feels like something separate from AI visibility. Or, AI optimization becomes “someone else’s job” (internal, or even a different agency). Or, teams pause execution because they’re unsure whether their current strategy still applies.

In some cases, the conversation becomes an excuse to wait. In others, it becomes a reason to reorganize prematurely, chase tools, or hand strategy over to vendors or platforms without clear accountability.

None of that happens because the terminology exists. It happens because ownership isn’t clearly defined.

When language changes faster than strategy, decision-making slows down. Teams spend more time debating what to call the work than deciding what outcomes they’re responsible for delivering. The massive amount of information (a lot or probably most being solid) out in the search and digital marketing world right now can be overwhelming and disruptive, so this isn’t finger pointing and more of a reality we’re faced with.

What Hasn’t Actually Changed

Despite all the new terminology, some fundamentals remain remarkably consistent.

Businesses still need to be visible where their audiences are looking for answers. Content still needs to align with real intent and real questions. Websites are still the primary destination where interest turns into action. Performance still needs to be measured in business terms, not just surface-level metrics.

AI changes how visibility happens. It does not remove the need for strategy, prioritization, or accountability.

Whether traffic comes from a traditional search result, an AI-generated answer, or a summarized recommendation, someone still has to own the outcome. Someone still has to decide what matters, what gets measured, and what gets improved.

Renaming the work doesn’t remove those responsibilities.

The Risk of Asking the Wrong Question

When the primary question becomes “Is this still SEO or is this AI optimization?” a few things tend to follow.

Teams delay decisions while waiting for clarity that may never arrive. New tools emerge with big promises of helping with the next big thing for an acronym or platform. Agencies and consultants emerge or iterate on messaging around new topics. Budgets shift without a clear understanding of expected outcomes. Success and failure become harder to diagnose because ownership is blurred.

Ironically, this often happens at the same time leadership is asking for more confidence in results, not less.

The real risk isn’t that organizations will pick the wrong acronym. It’s that they’ll stop actively owning visibility as a strategic function and treat it as something that simply evolves on its own. Or, sits in a separate department or with a different vendor.

That’s where momentum stalls.

A Better Question to Be Asking Right Now

Instead of asking what to call the work, a more productive set of questions looks like this:

• What outcomes are we accountable for when it comes to visibility?
• Where does search and AI-driven discovery fit into our broader strategy?
• Who owns the decisions, prioritization, and measurement, regardless of platform?

Those questions don’t depend on terminology. They force clarity.

They also scale. As the concept of being present and able to be found where your target audience is seeking you (visibility, discoverability, search, AI, answers, etc) continues to evolve, the answers can adapt without requiring a full reset every time a new acronym appears and we can have a decision-making level above all of the noise and confusion.

Why I’m Adding My Voice Now

I’ve talked about this topic often in conversations, interviews, and with clients. I’ve also seen strong articles in the industry that address the naming side of the debate well.

What I haven’t seen as much of is a focus on how these conversations affect leadership decisions, accountability, and execution inside organizations.

That’s why this angle felt worth writing.

New terms can be useful. They can spark curiosity and open doors. But they shouldn’t become a substitute for strategy or a reason to step back from ownership.

If anything, the changes happening right now demand more clarity, not less. This isn’t about stopping doing one thing and starting to do another. It also isn’t about chasing a shiny new object separate from what has been working. There’s a lot of important consideration and integration that needs to happen with solid leadership and oversight.

Final Thought

SEO, AI optimization, GEO, AEO, or whatever term wins out, plus what comes next are all attempts to describe how people find information in a changing environment.

The work itself still needs to be owned.

The teams that navigate this transition best won’t be the ones that adopt the newest language fastest or adopt the “right” acronym. They’ll be the ones that stay focused on outcomes, keep strategy at the center, and make clear decisions even when the terminology is unsettled.

If you can do that, the name matters a lot less than the results.