Forbes Analyzes In-House AI SEO Teams vs. Agencies for Generative Engine Optimization
Forbes has zeroed in on one of the biggest marketing questions of 2026: as generative engine optimization begins to reshape traditional SEO priorities, should companies build an in-house AI SEO team or bring in an agency?
That’s the focus of Bar Maimon’s recent Forbes Business Council article, “In-House AI SEO Teams Vs. Agencies: Which Is Best For You?” Published on May 14, 2026, it arrives at the right moment. Search is no longer just about blue links, rankings, and keyword placement. It’s increasingly about whether brands appear inside AI-generated answers, recommendations, summaries, and overviews across platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews.
This goes beyond a staffing question. It’s a strategic decision about how companies want to compete in the next phase of search.
Why This Discussion Matters Now
Over the past year, Forbes contributors have steadily tracked the shift from classic SEO to GEO, AEO, and broader AI search optimization. The message is getting harder to miss: traditional SEO is expanding into something broader and far more dynamic.
Instead of optimizing only for rankings, brands now need to optimize for:
- entity recognition
- trust and authority signals
- content structures AI systems can extract and summarize
- visibility across multiple generative search environments
That shift changes the talent equation. Businesses can’t rely on an old SEO playbook and expect it to carry over neatly into AI-driven discovery.
That’s why the in-house versus agency question feels so urgent now.
The Case for Building In-House
One of the strongest points in the Forbes analysis is that in-house teams offer tighter control. The appeal is obvious. Internal teams live inside the brand every day. They understand company voice, product nuance, regulatory constraints, customer pain points, and internal priorities better than any outside partner can at the start.
An in-house AI SEO function can also create:
- closer collaboration with product, sales, and content teams
- faster feedback loops on brand-sensitive messaging
- stronger alignment with long-term business goals
- better institutional knowledge over time
For companies in highly regulated or technically complex industries, that embedded knowledge can be a major advantage. If AI visibility depends on precision, consistency, and trust, internal operators who know the business deeply may reduce risk.
But Forbes also highlights the hidden cost of this route, and that’s where many companies misjudge the challenge.
Building a real in-house AI SEO capability is not as simple as hiring one person with “SEO” in their title. It often means building a multi-role function: an AI SEO lead, a content strategist, a technical specialist, a digital PR or authority-building expert, plus ongoing investment in tools, testing, and training. That gets expensive fast. It also requires leadership support for constant experimentation, because AI search behavior is changing too quickly for static playbooks.
Why Agencies Still Have an Edge
Maimon’s case for agencies is practical and convincing. Agencies often bring broader exposure, faster execution, and deeper research and development than most single brands can sustain internally.
That matters in a market moving this quickly. Even a strong in-house team usually sees one website, one industry, and one set of data. Agencies see patterns across sectors. They learn what works in SaaS, ecommerce, healthcare, finance, and B2B services at the same time. That cross-market experience can be extremely valuable when AI platforms keep changing how they select sources and assemble answers.
Agencies also tend to offer:
- established GEO frameworks
- access to premium tools and data systems
- specialized technical and content talent
- quicker ramp-up times
- an outside perspective without internal blind spots
That outside view matters. Internal teams can get too close to their own assumptions. Agencies are often better positioned to spot where a brand’s content architecture, authority signals, or entity relationships are weak.
At the same time, Forbes does not frame agencies as an automatic win. A poor agency fit can be just as expensive as a poorly built internal team. If the partner lacks transparency, industry understanding, or a real testing methodology, the relationship can burn budget without delivering meaningful gains in AI visibility.
The Real Tradeoff: Speed Versus Control
If there’s one central takeaway from the Forbes piece, it’s this: the decision is less about which model is universally better and more about which one fits a company’s goals, timing, and resources.
In-house usually wins on:
- brand immersion
- day-to-day collaboration
- internal alignment
- long-term control
Agencies usually win on:
- speed to execution
- specialized expertise
- access to broader experimentation
- lower short-term overhead compared to hiring a full team
That makes the decision highly situational. A large enterprise with budget, internal AI literacy, and patience may benefit from building its own capability. A growth-stage company that needs faster traction in AI search may get better results from a specialized agency. For many organizations, the smartest option may be a hybrid model: agency strategy and systems paired with in-house execution and brand oversight.
What This Signals About the Future of Search
The bigger message behind the Forbes article is not just about hiring structure. It’s that GEO has officially become a serious business function.
Leadership teams need to stop treating AI search visibility as a side experiment. It now affects brand discoverability, market authority, customer acquisition, and competitive positioning. As generative engines play a larger role in how people research and make decisions, brands that fail to adapt may lose visibility even if they still perform well in traditional search.
I expect the market to move toward three outcomes:
- more specialized GEO agencies
- more internal upskilling for existing SEO and content teams
- more hybrid operating models that blend external expertise with internal brand control
That shift feels inevitable. The companies that win won’t simply choose in-house or agency and move on. They’ll choose a structure that supports continuous learning, testing, and adaptation.
FAQ
What is generative engine optimization?
Generative engine optimization, or GEO, focuses on improving a brand’s visibility inside AI-generated answers, summaries, and recommendations rather than only chasing traditional search rankings.
When does an in-house AI SEO team make the most sense?
It makes the most sense for companies that need close brand control, operate in regulated industries, or have the budget and internal support to build a multi-disciplinary capability over time.
When is an agency the better option?
An agency is often the better fit for companies that need speed, specialized expertise, broader market insight, and a faster path to execution without building a full internal team.
Is a hybrid model a practical solution?
Yes. For many businesses, a hybrid approach offers the best balance: external experts provide strategy and systems, while internal teams handle brand alignment, approvals, and ongoing execution.
Conclusion
Forbes gets the central point right: there is no universal winner between in-house AI SEO teams and agencies. The best choice depends on budget, urgency, internal expertise, and how much strategic control a company actually needs. Whichever route a business takes, success in generative engine optimization will depend on the systems, workflows, and AI support behind the work. For teams looking to strengthen that foundation, AIuthority is a smart place to start.