AIuthority

MarTech: GEO Writing Resembles Early Days of SEO

By Charles Ryder

I’ve been following the GEO conversation with a real sense of déjà vu. When MarTech pointed out that writing for generative engine optimization feels a lot like the early days of SEO, the comparison landed immediately. Marketers are once again trying to understand a new machine, shape content around it, and avoid making every article stiff, repetitive, and overbuilt.

That tension is exactly why GEO matters right now.

Illustration comparing early SEO keyword stuffing with modern GEO content extraction for AI, highlighting the evolution of search optimization. Why GEO Feels So Familiar

GEO feels like old-school SEO for one simple reason: we’re writing with a system in mind again. In the early 2000s, that often led to awkward keyword placement, rigid formatting, and content that served search engines better than readers. The system has changed, but the temptation hasn’t.

Instead of keyword density, we’re focused on extractable paragraphs, direct-answer sections, question-based subheads, and citation-friendly language. The goal is no longer just to rank on a search results page. It’s to be pulled into an AI-generated response.

That shift matters. SEO asked how to earn the click. GEO asks whether content can hold up when an AI lifts a few lines and uses them to answer a question.

The Rise of GEO as a Discipline

Marketers may have started using the term widely only recently, but GEO has a clear starting point. In late 2023, the academic paper GEO: Generative Engine Optimization formalized the concept and gave the industry its first real framework. It drew attention for a reason: relatively simple changes, such as adding quotations, statistics, and more fluent, authoritative phrasing, appeared to improve visibility in generative systems.

From there, GEO moved quickly from research to practice. By 2025, major marketing voices were calling it the next phase of search. Venture firms, consultants, and media outlets pushed the same message: search behavior was changing, AI interfaces were becoming a discovery layer, and brands that wanted visibility needed content that large language models could easily synthesize.

That doesn’t mean SEO disappeared. It means the target got bigger.

From Ranking to Extraction

This is the core of the MarTech argument, and it’s the most useful way to frame the shift: GEO is less about ranking and more about extraction.

A search engine can send traffic because a page ranks well. A generative engine can mention a brand without sending much traffic at all. That changes how content performance should be measured. Visibility now includes citations, references, paraphrases, and inclusion in AI summaries.

In practice, that means content has to work in smaller units. A single paragraph may need to carry context, authority, and clarity without leaning on the rest of the page. If an AI quotes three lines, those lines need to make sense on their own.

This is why GEO-friendly writing often includes:

  • clear question-and-answer structures
  • concise explanatory paragraphs
  • statistics and attributed claims
  • strong topical signals
  • language that is easy to parse and summarize

These tactics are sensible. But they also come with risk.

The Real Danger: Formula Over Substance

Early SEO offers a useful warning. Once marketers see that a structure seems to work, they tend to scale the structure before they fully understand the principle behind it. Then the web fills up with content that looks optimized but says very little.

That’s the risk GEO faces now.

If every article becomes a stack of robotic subheads, thin answers, and generic authority cues, we’ll get a new wave of bland content built for machines first and people second. Jeanne Jennings’ point, as covered by MarTech, is especially sharp here: structure helps, but formula is a trap.

I agree completely.

A paragraph that’s easy for AI to extract is not automatically insightful. A perfectly formatted page is not automatically trustworthy. And a direct answer is not always the best answer. If marketers focus on citation mechanics without investing in real expertise, GEO will replay the worst habits of early SEO.

Diagram showing how generative AI models extract concise answers and citations from well-structured content, demonstrating GEO's impact on visibility. What Smart GEO Writing Should Actually Look Like

The best GEO writing doesn’t feel mechanical. It feels deliberate.

It should be easy to quote, but still worth quoting. Structured, but not lifeless. Clear for both humans and machines, without sanding away the nuance that gives content real value.

Strong GEO content should combine a few things:

1. Clear structure

Generative engines need content they can parse. Clean headings, focused sections, and self-contained explanations make that easier.

2. Real expertise

Authority signals only matter when the insight behind them is real. Original thinking, credible examples, and informed perspective are what make a source worth citing.

3. Supporting evidence

Research around GEO already suggests that quotes and statistics can improve visibility. That tracks because models tend to favor content that appears grounded and attributable.

4. Human readability

The old SEO mistake was making content awkward in pursuit of performance. GEO writers should avoid doing the same. If it sounds unnatural, it probably won’t hold up.

5. Multi-platform credibility

AI systems don’t evaluate a single blog post in isolation. They absorb signals from websites, reviews, forums, social platforms, and broader brand presence. GEO is increasingly about ecosystem authority, not just page-level optimization.

Why This Moment Matters

This isn’t a fad, even if many of today’s tactics are temporary.

That’s what makes this moment feel so much like early SEO. We’re in the experimentation phase. Some methods will stick, others will disappear, and the market is still sorting out which is which. As AI search grows, marketers will likely move past simplistic templates and lean into more durable signals: expertise, trust, consistency, and well-structured information.

In other words, the surface tactics may change, but the underlying principle probably won’t. Brands that become the most useful, credible, and quotable sources will have the best chance of showing up in AI-generated answers.

So yes, GEO writing does resemble the early days of SEO. That doesn’t mean we need to repeat the same mistakes. If anything, it gives us a chance to learn faster this time.

FAQ

What is GEO writing?

GEO writing is content created to improve visibility in AI-generated responses. It focuses on clarity, extractability, authority, and structure so generative engines can easily interpret and cite the material.

How is GEO different from SEO?

SEO is largely about ranking in search results and earning clicks. GEO is about being included in AI-generated answers, summaries, and citations, even when no click happens.

Does GEO replace SEO?

No. GEO builds on SEO rather than replacing it. Search visibility still matters, but the definition of visibility now includes how content is surfaced and cited by AI systems.

What makes content GEO-friendly?

Clear structure, concise explanations, credible evidence, strong topical relevance, and language that is easy to quote or summarize all make content more GEO-friendly.

Conclusion

I see GEO as an evolution, not a replacement. The opportunity isn’t to game AI systems with formulaic content, but to create material that is genuinely useful, clearly structured, and authoritative enough to cite. The brands that win will balance extraction-friendly writing with real expertise. If you’re looking for a smarter way to build content for this next phase of search, AIuthority is a strong place to start.