Subscribe now

Most SEO failures aren’t caused by bad SEOs. They’re caused by organizations that don’t have the systems to support them.

That’s the argument Ash Nallawalla has been building across five books and over 24 years of enterprise SEO experience in Australia. As a visibility governance consultant based in Melbourne, Ash has worked in-house for some of Australia’s biggest brands, and seen firsthand what happens when no one above the SEO team understands what they do or why it matters.

On IMHO, I spoke with Ash about why he believes visibility needs to be governed at board level, how his maturity model works, and why the rise of AI-mediated discovery makes this more urgent than ever.

“Governance is not a constraint on speed. However, the absence of governance is.”

When No One Owns It, Everything Breaks

Most SEO failures are structural. Which means the team didn’t fail, but the system did. And the damage could be disproportionate to the cause. A governance gap of weeks could create months of recovery. And governance is not a constraint on speed. However, the absence of governance is.

Ash shared an example that illustrates just how catastrophic a governance gap can be.

At one organization, he discovered in Google Search Console 22 million pages as “currently not indexed.” When Australia only has 25 million residents, he knew something has seriously gone wrong.

This was down to someone internally in the past had decided that creating a page for every combination of facet would be a good idea.

“There were 10 quintillion pages. And if you’ve not heard that number before, it is one followed by 18 zeros,” Ash explained. “We calculated that if Googlebot could read a thousand URLs a second, it would take 310 billion years to crawl all of them.”

Despite this, the site was still ranking well and receiving 5 million Googlebot visits per day. The problem was invisible to anyone above the SEO or product manager level.

“That place didn’t have governance because no one above the SEO level or the product manager level realized the problem. They just knew someone was doing SEO and yes, we’re getting lots of traffic.”

This kind of structural failure is what drove Ash to write his first book, Accidental SEO Manager, in 2022. As he put it, “In reality most people come into SEO with no background and that applies to the managers who are looking after enterprise SEO.”

A Maturity Model For Visibility Governance

Ash has since developed what he calls the Visibility Governance Maturity Model (VGMM), borrowing from the Carnegie Mellon capability maturity framework used in software development. It maps governance across seven domains, SEO (including local and international), content, website performance, accessibility, and AI governance, into five levels expressed as a percentage score.

“The C-suite gets to know that our visibility governance is at 80% or it’s at 20% or 30% whatever it is, and that corresponds to five levels.”

“Some of these questions are single points of failure. And if you said ‘not in place’ for any of them, it doesn’t matter what your real score is, you are capped at level two.” Ash explained.

A single point of failure (SPOF) might be something as fundamental as whether anyone is responsible for robots.txt. In some companies, Ash noted, they don’t even know what robots.txt is.

Selling Governance To Skeptics

When boards push back against the need for governance, Ash uses three arguments.

First, the system test: “If things work wonderfully this month, are we guaranteed that next month and the month after that things will work wonderfully? And if not, then there is a problem that we need to investigate.”

Second, the rework cost. Fixing a visibility failure after the fact is far more expensive than preventing it, especially when the failure involves AI systems.

“If suddenly ChatGPT stops recommending your brand, you may not realize it. Your traffic is up. Your rankings are where they were. That’s not effective, but your competitors are doing better than you.”

And third, for the skeptics who worry governance will slow things down: “You will move faster with governance than without it because you might have these big problems and it may take you an unknown amount of time to fix them.”

What To Tell A Board That’s Never Heard Of Visibility Governance

When pitching to a board for the first time, Ash recommends leading with money, then reframing SEO as infrastructure.

“Organic search visibility, which is the traditional SEO, is infrastructure. It’s not just a marketing exercise. It’s a capital asset with a yield.”

He frames AI-mediated discovery as a new category of risk, something boards are already familiar with in other contexts. Brand visibility can erode silently without any alerts firing, and traditional controls aren’t detecting it.

“If their paid costs are slowly creeping up, that’s not always because the search engine is charging more. It’s also because they’re having to advertise more. And that’s one of the early hints that there could be an external system that is brewing and it’s taking customers away and that’s the AI mediated search that their potential customers are beginning to use and they’re being led in other directions.

So the second thing that I say to them is that the risk profile of visibility has changed in the last two years and your traditional controls are not detecting it.”

Ash shared a real example where his CIO once asked why Bing Chat was recommending competitors but not their own brand. The cause turned out to be a blocked Common Crawl bot (CCBot), which Bing Chat had relied on during its learning phase. “We unblocked CCBot and within a few months it started recommending our brand.”

There’s also a reputational dimension. If customers are leaving bad reviews on platforms the company doesn’t monitor, large language models are learning from that sentiment, and quietly dropping the brand from their recommendations.

“When you share responsibility without ownership, then governance will fail.”

Ash recommends boards ask four questions:

• Who owns accountability for visibility performance at a strategic level?

• Is that person senior enough to influence things?

• Is visibility reporting reaching the board in a way that distinguishes between performing well today and being structurally sound tomorrow?

• Are we treating AI-mediated visibility as a governance matter, or as a technology novelty someone in marketing is keeping an eye on?

The Leadership Test

Ash closed with what he calls the leadership test, a challenge to any organization that relies on individual heroics rather than systems.

“If your SEO depends on individuals pushing uphill against the system, then gradually their capability will vanish when they leave.”

He advocates for internal wikis, documented learnings, and hiring for capability rather than cultural fit. The goal is to reduce dependence on individuals and build structures that survive personnel changes.

“I’m saying to boards, put visibility on the agenda at every meeting, even if it’s a one sentence from the responsible person, “visibility is fine” or whatever they want to report, but it reminds the board at every meeting that SEO and now external visibility are both very important infrastructure matters.”

Visibility Governance Isn’t Just For Enterprise

While governance is most obviously an enterprise concern, the principles apply broadly. Smaller companies are just as vulnerable to silent visibility erosion, perhaps more so, because they have fewer resources to detect or recover from it.

Where AI systems are reshaping how brands get discovered, the organizations that treat visibility as a governance matter rather than a marketing task are the ones most likely to survive the shift.

Watch the full interview with Ash Nallawalla here, or on YouTube.

Thank you to Ash Nallawalla for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

At Google Search Central Live in Zurich last December, Clara Soteras spoke about how brands and ecommerce sites can use Discover as a strategy.

Discover is a dominant source of traffic for news publishers, and currently is a potential channel that has resisted the encroachment of AI. So I was interested to see how Discover might hold opportunities beyond the news room.

However, in Zurich John Mueller repeated his advice that Google Discover traffic is for free and someday it can be zero. Much like the reality of Google traffic diminishing for many brands.

So, I sat down with Clara on IMHO to talk about what’s working, what’s breaking, and where the real opportunity lies in 2026.

Clara is head of innovation and digital strategy at AMIC and a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, where she teaches SEO for news at several business schools.

“Discover adds to you some possibility to catch and to impact and generate this impression to people that don’t know that they need you.”

Discover Is The Primary Channel, but With A Warning

In an article titled Why publishers should worry about growing reliance on Google Discover, the Press gazette reported that for 2,000 global news and media websites 68% of Google traffic now comes from Discover, in comparison to 32% from search.

I asked Clara if she thought Discover could offer any salvation to news publishers impacted by AI?

She confirmed what many publishers are experiencing: Discover has overtaken search as the primary traffic driver.

“Google Discover is the first channel of traffic for the majority of publishers today. And we need to understand that this is a good channel to achieve and to catch different audience, to achieve page views and volume of traffic.”

But Clara was quick to draw a line between Discover and traditional search. The ranking factors are different, and publishers who treat Discover as an extension of their search strategy are making a mistake. “The basic things are the same, but we need to know that the location, the image, or the title, the headline are really important to rank on Google Discover.”

She also noted that not all content categories perform equally in the feed. Politics, for example, rarely appears. Publishers who want Discover visibility need to lean into lifestyle, sports, and culturally relevant content.

It’s For Free. And Someday It Can Be Zero.

At Google Search Central Live in Zurich, John Mueller emphasized a key point that publishers cannot rely on getting 90% of their traffic from a single source. I asked Clara whether we might be in danger of swapping one reliance for another, from Google SERP traffic to Discover, and if publishers should be leveraging other channels.

Clara explained “In Zurich, John Mueller repeats the same advice that Google is telling in every session that we have with the publishers. They think that the volume of traffic that Google Discover adds to your website is for free, and someday it can be zero.”

That volatility is real, “We know some publishers that start from scratch and achieve a lot of traffic and six months later they need to close the website because they lose all the traffic.”

When I asked what balance she would recommend, Clara said it depends on the size and niche of the publisher but “You cannot have 90% of Google Discover traffic because if Google Discover decides to not see you tomorrow, you will lose all your audience because it’s not a loyal audience.”

Discover traffic is passive. It’s algorithmically injected into feeds and Clara suggested that publishers need to diversify into social strategy, work with content creators, and consider building community around their topics.

How Brands Can Win In Discover

Clara’s presentation in Zurich was about a strategy most brands haven’t considered, applying newsroom methodology to Discover for e-commerce and brand sites.

Google has expanded the Discover feed to allow users to follow entities, creators, and companies, not just traditional publishers. YouTube, Instagram, and content creator profiles now appear and for brands, this opens a different kind of opportunity.

Search is the first channel probably for commerce because the user knows your brand or knows what they need. Discover adds the possibility to catch and impact and generate impressions to people that don’t know that they need you.”

Her methodology for brands mirrors what high-performing newsrooms do, which is to monitor social conversations and trends, align content to the moment, and move quickly. “If we decide to create a strategy for a brand, we need to talk about the trend of the day. We need to talk about our product and service but really near to the trend.”

Clara is currently working with content teams at multiple companies to train them on Discover-specific execution. Headlines need to be more than 13 words, images must be chosen strategically for the format, and brands need to build entity authority through a sustained cluster strategy, publishing around the same entity on different days.

“For me, some of the best ranking factors are the image, the headline, and working with the entity every day to be a good reference for this entity.”

AI Content Can Rank In Discover, But It Doesn’t Perform

Andy Almeida from Google’s Trust and Safety team for Discover has said that nearly 20% of sites recommended by Discover are AI-generated, coining the memorable phrase “AI slop is taking over the world.” I asked Clara whether AI content is becoming a real threat that could displace legitimate news publisher content, and how publishers can defend against it.

Clara acknowledged the reality that AI content does rank on Discover. But she pointed out that Google’s quality and trust department is actively applying manual penalties when they identify AI content or fake news in the feed. “If they think that you are publishing AI content or fake news, they can apply and ask that you need to raise or correct your content.”

More importantly, she shared a real-world example from her own clients that illustrates the performance gap between AI and human content. “I had a client that worked with different AI tools to create basic content, and journalists adapted a little bit of this content. If you see the performance, you see only 100 views for an article versus 12,000 views for another article created by a human.”

Clara’s position is that AI can assist with ideation and strategic planning, but the content itself needs to be created by humans. Human-created content performs better in Discover, and she believes Google will continue to reward it.

“AI can give us ideas and strategic tips but for me it’s important that the content will be created by a human, by a journalist.”

The Opportunity AI Overviews Can’t Touch

With AI Overviews eating evergreen informational queries, I asked Clara what she thinks are the areas of opportunity in 2026.

Clara is currently working on research reports analyzing the impact of AI Overviews on publishers in Spain and the UK, and her data confirms “ if you work with breaking news, you have an opportunity, because of the top stories module for breaking news.”

Real-time journalism still creates visibility that AI summaries cannot fully replace. For publishers looking ahead to 2026, Clara’s focus is on reinforcing the strengths that machines can’t replicate. Breaking news speed, entity authority, trend alignment, and diversification beyond Discover itself.

Human Expertise Is The Advantage

Google Discover is a powerful channel and in many cases essential, but it’s algorithmically volatile by nature.

However, it is an opportunity for brands and e-commerce sites. The Discover feed is no longer a news-only space, and Clara’s work applying newsroom methodology to commercial content is an approach that most brands haven’t explored yet.

Where AI is reshaping both search results and the content that feeds them, the competitive advantage is ultimately down to human expertise, editorial judgment, and the ability to move fast on what matters right now.

Watch the full interview with Clara Soteras here:

Thank you to Clara Soteras for offering her insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Clara is the author of SEO Playbook for News Publishers, available at clarasoteras.com

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

As SEOs, we are used to being adaptable to changing algorithms, so LLM optimization should be a simple extension of that process.

To discuss the industry debates surrounding the differences between SEO and GEO and clarify whether they are the same or different, I spoke with SEO veteran Grant Simmons.

Grant has over 30 years of experience helping brands grow and has spent decades focused on meaning, intent, and topical authority long before LLMs entered the conversation.

I spoke with Grant about signal alignment, how Google’s latest continuation patents reveal the mechanics of LLM citations, and what SEOs are getting wrong about topical focus.

“We talk about writing for the machines, but we’re really writing for human need because it’s all driven by the prompt or the query.” – Grant Simmons

You can watch the full interview with Grant on IMHO below, or continue reading the article summary.

Great SEO Is Good GEO

At Google Search Live in December 2025, John Mueller said, “Good SEO is good GEO.”

I asked Grant what he thought were the differences between optimizing for search engines and for machines, and if he thought there were any overlaps.

Grant’s approach echoes what John Mueller said, but “Not everyone has been doing great SEO,” he explained. “Great SEO was always about building topical authority.”

He continued to say, “Essentially, machines (whether it’s Google or whether it’s an LLM) have to understand the underlying meaning of the content so they can present the best answer.

They have to understand the query or the prompt, then they have to send the best answer. So in that way, it’s very similar.”

Where Grant sees divergence is in how the systems evaluate content. Google has historically ranked pages, and even with passage ranking, it still considers the page and the site as a whole. LLMs operate differently.

“LLMs are looking more at that passage side, you know, something that’s easily extractable, something that has value semantically related to the query or the prompt. And so there’s that fundamental difference.”

Grant also stressed that great SEO has always been holistic, touching social media, PR, content, and brand messaging. Having brand awareness, brand visibility, and brand consistency across all channels is a significant factor in LLM representation. And this is exactly the kind of work that the best SEOs do.

“We’re marketers. We should make sure, not just from a standpoint of what we do in SEO and GEO for our clients, which is connecting a need and intent to the product or service that satisfies that intent, we’re also doing the same in our own marketing. We have to understand what our clients are looking for.

“[GEO] is the same [as SEO] if you’re doing it well. It’s not the same if you weren’t. And of course, there’s nuance.”

My thoughts are that SEOs who have been in the industry the longest are experiencing less disruption because they have seen it all before. They learned to be adaptable in the early years when there was so much flux as we progressed from multiple search engines to just one. Whereas for anyone new to the industry, they don’t have the same background points of reference.

Why Consensus Matters To Be Surfaced By LLMs

I went on to ask Grant about Google’s latest continuation patents, which describe two distinct systems that work together.

The first is what Grant describes as a response confidence engine. This system evaluates whether a passage can be corroborated, whether the information has consensus across the web.

“If they return a passage and they can corroborated that it is true, and when we say true, it’s true in the sense of more than one person is saying it, that doesn’t mean it’s true, but it means the consensus is there,” Grant explained. “The consensus generally wins out.”

The second system is what Grant calls a linkifying engine. Once a passage has been confirmed through consensus, this engine determines whether a specific sentence or sub-element within that passage, what Grant calls a “chunklet,” can be matched and linked to a source.

“Consensus decides whether it’s surfaced in the first place. The linkify engine actually decides whether it’s linkable, whether a citation is actually going to happen,” Grant said.

Getting mentioned by an LLM is one thing. Getting an actual link back to your content requires that the specific passage is both verifiable through consensus and uniquely attributable to your source.

Golden Knowledge Content Wins

So, what kind of content earns this kind of AI visibility? Grant described it as “golden knowledge,” content that is unique in some meaningful way.

“Generally, data-driven, your own data, your own opinion that’s proof-backed, evidence-backed. Taking a different view of things,” Grant said. “But in the same way of taking a different view, there still has to be some kind of consensus. If other people are agreeing with you, that is really important. Your content needs the uniqueness and the data-driven aspect, but it still has to align with the overall consensus on the web.”

Grant was also clear that while we often talk about writing for machines, the orientation should remain human-centered: “We talk about writing for the machines, but we’re really writing for human need because it’s all driven by the prompt or the query.”

This balance between uniqueness and consensus is perhaps the most actionable takeaway. Content that simply restates what everyone else is saying won’t stand out. But content that takes a position without corroboration elsewhere won’t pass the confidence threshold to be surfaced. The sweet spot is original, data-driven insight that others can and do validate.

The Biggest Mistakes SEOs Make With Topical Focus

When I asked Grant about the most common mistakes he sees with topical diversification on pages, his answer was clear: trying to be everything to everyone.

“When you think about intent, suddenly you understand that pages have a right to exist,” Grant said. “I call it path to satisfaction. Understanding who the audience is and what they need to find, you have to provide a path to that satisfaction.”

Grant pointed out that most SEOs inherit existing sites rather than building from scratch. The temptation is to focus on the surface-level optimizations, such as title tags, meta descriptions, and headers, without reviewing whether a page is actually focused on a specific intent or whether it has what he calls “drift.”

“What they won’t do is fundamentally review the page and understand whether that page is focused on a specific intent or whether it has this drift,” Grant explained. “Cleaning out those outliers, topics that you’re covering when you don’t really mean to, is essentially diffusing what the page means. Those are the things that I think SEOs miss out on.”

This ties directly back to LLM citability. If a page lacks clear topical focus, it becomes harder for AI systems to extract a self-contained passage that answers a specific query. Tightening that focus isn’t just good SEO; it’s the foundation of being visible in AI-generated responses.

Grant’s Strategy Recommendation For 2026

I finished by asking Grant what he’s recommending to his clients right now.

“Let’s double down on what’s working,” Grant said. “LLM traffic is so small today that optimizing for LLMs is important for the future but not for today’s metrics. Let’s improve our SEO. Let’s get to that great SEO level. And as we’re doing that, we are incorporating the elements that will help you show up for GEO, that will help show up on these other surfaces.”

His focus is on great content, topical authority, uniqueness, data-driven approaches, citations, and digital PR. In Grant’s words: “Getting content so good that LLMs can’t ignore you, Google can’t ignore you, and publications can’t ignore you.”

It’s the Steve Martin philosophy applied to SEO: “Be so good they can’t ignore you,” and, coincidence or not, the rule I have applied for the last 15 years in SEO.

Watch the full interview with Grant Simmons here:

Thank you to Grant Simmons for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Web Almanac is an annual report that translates the HTTP Archive dataset into practical insight, combining large-scale measurement with expert interpretation from industry experts.

To get insights into what the 2025 report can tell us about what is actually happening in SEO, I spoke with one of the authors of the SEO chapter update, Chris Green, a well-known industry expert with over 15 years of experience.

Chris shared with me some surprises about the adoption of llms.txt files and how CMS systems are shaping SEO far more than we realize. Little-known facts that the data surfaced in the research, and surprising insights that usually would go unnoticed.

You can watch the full interview with Chris on the IMHO recording at the end, or continue reading the article summary.

“I think the data [in the Web Almanac] helped to show me that there’s still a lot broken. The web is really messy. Really messy.”

Bot Management Is No Longer ‘Google, Or Not Google?’

Although bot management has been binary for some time – allow/disallow Google – it’s becoming a new challenge. Something that Eoghan Henn had picked up previously, and Chris found in his research.

We began our conversation by talking about how robots files are now being used to express intent about AI crawler access.

Chris responded to say that, firstly, there is a need to be conscious of the different crawlers, what their intention is, and fundamentally what blocking them might do, i.e., blocking some bots has bigger implications than others.

Second to that, requires the platform providers to actually listen to those rules and treat those files as appropriate. That isn’t always happening, and the ethics around robots and AI crawlers is an area that SEOs need to know about and understand more.

Chris explained that although the Almanac report showed the symptom of robots.txt usage, SEOs need to get ahead and understand how to control the bots.

“It’s not only understanding what the impact of each [bot/crawler] is, but also how to communicate that with the business. If you’ve got a team who want to cut as much bot crawling as possible because they want to save money, that might desperately impact your AI visibility.”

Equally, you might have an editorial team that doesn’t want to get all of their work scraped and regurgitated. So, we, as SEOs, need to understand that dynamic, how to control it technically, but how to put that argument forward in the business as well.” Chris explained.

As more platforms and crawlers are introduced, SEO teams will have to consider all implications, and collaborate with other teams to ensure the right balance of access is applied to the site.

Llms.txt Is Being Applied Despite No Official Platform Adoption

The first surprising finding of the report was that adoption for the proposed llms.txt standard is around 2% of sites in the dataset.

Llms.txt has been a heated topic in the industry, with many SEOs dismissing the value of the file. Some tools, such as Yoast, have included the standard, but as yet, there has been no demonstration of actual uptake by AI providers.

Chris admitted that 2% was a higher adoption than he expected. But much of that growth appears to be driven by SEO tools that have added llms.txt as a default or optional feature.

Chris is skeptical of its long-term impact. As he explained, Google has repeatedly stated it does not plan to use llms.txt, and without clear commitment from the major AI providers, especially OpenAI, it risks remaining a niche, symbolic gesture rather than a functional standard.

That said, Chris has experienced log-file data suggesting some AI crawlers are already fetching these files, and in limited cases, they may even be referenced as sources. Green views this less as a competitive advantage and more as a potential parity mechanism, something that may help certain sites be understood, but not dramatically elevate them.

“Google has time and again said they don’t plan to use llms.txt which they reiterated in Zurich at Search Central last year. I think, fundamentally, Google doesn’t need it as they do have crawling and rendering nailed. So, I think it hinges on whether OpenAI say they will or won’t use it and I think they have other problems than trying to set up a new standard.”

Different, But Reassuringly The Same Where It Matters

I went on to ask Chris about how SEOs can balance the difference between search engine visibility and machine visibility.

He thinks there is “a significant overlap between what SEO was before we started worrying about this and where we are at the start of 2026.”

Despite this overlap, Chris was clear that if anyone thinks optimizing for search and machines is the same, then they are not aware of the two different systems, the different weightings, the fact that interpretation, retrieval, and generation are completely different.

Although there are different systems and different capabilities in play, he doesn’t think SEO has fundamentally changed. His belief is that SEO and AI optimization are “kind of the same, reassuringly the same in the places that matter, but you will need to approach it differently” because it diverges in how outputs are delivered and consumed.

Chris did say that SEOs will move more towards feeds, feed management, feed optimization.

“Google’s universal commerce protocol where you could potentially transact directly from search results or from a Gemini window obviously changes a lot. It’s just another move to push the website out of the loop. But the information, what we’re actually optimizing still needs to be optimized. It’s just in a different place.”

CMS Platforms Shape The Web More Than SEOs Realize

Perhaps the biggest surprise from Web Almanac 2025 was the scale of influence exerted by CMS platforms and tooling providers.

Chris said that he hadn’t realized just how big that impact is. “Platforms like Shopify, Wix, etc. are shaping the actual state of tech SEO probably more profoundly than I think a lot of people truly give it credit for.”

Chris went on to explain that “as well-intentioned as individual SEOs are, I think our overall impact on the web is minimal outside of CMS platforms providers. I would say if you are really determined to have an impact outside of your specific clients, you need to be nudging WordPress or Wix or Shopify or some of the big software providers within those ecosystems.”

This creates opportunity: Websites that do implement technical standards correctly could achieve significant differentiation when most sites lag behind best practices.

One of the more interesting insights from this conversation was that so much on the web is broken and how little impact we [SEOs] really have.

Chris explained that “a lot of SEOs believe that Google owes us because we maintain the internet for them. We do the dirty work, but I also don’t think we have as much impact perhaps at an industry level as maybe some like to believe. I think the data in the Web Almanac kind of helped show me that there’s still a lot broken. The web is really messy. Really messy.”

AI Agents Won’t Replace SEOs, But They Will Replace Bad Processes

Our conversation concluded with AI agents and automation. Chris started by saying, “Agents are easily misunderstood because we use the term differently.”

He emphasized that agents are not replacements for expertise, but accelerators of process. Most SEO workflows involve repetitive data gathering and pattern recognition, areas well-suited to automation. The value of human expertise lies in designing processes, applying judgment, and contextualizing outputs.

Early-stage agents could automate 60-80% of the work, similar to a highly capable intern. “It’s going to take your knowledge and your expertise to make that applicable to your given context. And I don’t just mean the context of web marketing or the context of ecommerce. I mean the context of the business that you’re specifically working for,” he said.

Chris would argue that a lot of SEOs don’t spend enough time customizing what they do to the client specifically. He thinks there’s an opportunity to build an 80% automated process and then add your real value when your human intervention optimizes the last 20% business logic.

SEOs who engage with agents, refine workflows, and evolve alongside automation are far more likely to remain indispensable than those who resist change altogether.

However, when experimenting with automation, Chris warned we should avoid automating broken processes.

“You need to understand the process that you’re trying to optimize. If the process isn’t very good, you’ve just created a machine to produce mediocrity at scale, which frankly doesn’t help anyone.”

Chris thinks that this will give SEOs an edge as AI is more widely adopted. “I suggest the people that engage with it and make those processes better and show how they can be continually evolved, they’ll be the ones that have greater longevity.”

SEOs Can Succeed By Engaging With The Complexity

The Web Almanac 2025 doesn’t suggest that SEO is being replaced, but it does show that its role is expanding in ways many teams haven’t fully adapted to yet. Core principles like crawlability and technical hygiene still matter, but they now exist within a more complex ecosystem shaped by AI crawlers, feeds, closed systems, and platform-level decisions.

Where technical standards are poorly implemented at scale, those who understand the systems that shape them can still gain a meaningful advantage.

Automation works best when it accelerates well-designed processes and fails when it simply scales inefficiency. SEOs who focus on process design, judgment, and business context will remain essential as automation becomes more common.

In an increasingly messy and machine-driven web, the SEOs who succeed will be those willing to engage with that complexity rather than ignore it.

SEO in 2026 isn’t about choosing between search and AI; it’s about understanding how multiple systems consume content and where optimization now happens.

Watch the full video interview with Chris Green here:

Thank you to Chris Green for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I’m carefully watching the development of agentic SEO, as I believe over the next few years, as capabilities improve, agents will have a significant impact on the industry. I’m not suggesting this will be a seamless replacement of talent with a highly capable machine intelligence. There is going to be a lot of trial and error, but I do think we are going to see radical shifts in how the online space operates. Not unlike how automation transformed manufacturing.

Marie Haynes has long been a well-known expert in the industry who shared her learnings on E-E-A-T and Google’s algorithm through her popular Search News You Can Use newsletter.

A few years ago, Marie made the decision to retire her SEO agency and went all in on learning AI systems, as she believes we’re at the beginning of a profound transformation.

Marie wrote a recent article, “Hype or not, should you be investing in AI agents?” about what SEOs need to understand about this rapidly developing space. So, I invited her to IMHO to dive more into this topic.

Marie believes AI will radically change our world for the better, and she believes every business will have AI agents.

You can watch the full interview with Marie on the IMHO recording at the end, or continue reading the article summary.

“The idea that we optimize for appearing as one of the 10 blue links on Google is already gone.”

Experimenting With Gemini Gems

Marie’s practical advice for anyone wanting to understand agents is to start with Gems:

“If you take one thing from this conversation, it’s to try to create some Gemini Gems,” Marie emphasized. “Eventually I’m fairly certain that these gems will morph into agentic workflows.”

To illustrate, she shared a process she called her “originality Gem,” which contains a 500+ word prompt that captures how she evaluates content, along with examples of truly original content in its knowledge base.

“We’re not far from the day where all of my processes that I do for SEO can be handled by agentic workflows that occasionally pull on me for some advice,” Marie said.

The Power Of Chaining Agents

The next progression and real potential come from chaining agents together to create agentic workflows.

The power that this gives opportunity to is that we can use our knowledge and experience to teach AI like a team of assistants to do the work that can be automated.

We would then orchestrate the process and, like a conductor, sit and guide the agents to perform the work as we become the human-in-the-loop to review the output.

Once we have downloaded our knowledge to the agents, and the systems work, we can scale ourselves to handle exponential clients.

“Instead of me handling just a small handful of clients, all of a sudden I could have a hundred clients and do the same work because it’s all going through my workflow,” Marie said.

The challenge here is the skill in prompting the agents and constructing them to achieve the desired output.

“The future of our industry is not about optimizing for an engine, but about acting as the interface between businesses and technology, and we will be the human experts who teach, guide, and implement AI agents.”

Why Gemini Over ChatGPT

I asked Marie why she focuses on Gemini over ChatGPT, and her response was based on futureproofing: “The main reason why I use Gemini is not to accomplish things today, but to grow my skills in what’s coming tomorrow.”

Marie went on to explain that “Google’s got a whole ecosystem that you can see it coming together like right now,” and she believes that Google will be the winner in the AI race.

“I think that Google is going to win the game. I think it’s always been their game to win. So I make it a point to use Gemini as much as I can.”

Transformations Will Follow The Money

Marie’s prediction for the next few years is for workflows to become embedded. “Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said this way back in March, that, in two to four years, every agentic workflow will be deeply embedded into our day-to-day work.”

However, she thinks the real transformations will come when businesses start making money from agentic workflows.

“It’s wild how many trillions of dollars are being spent on developing AI, yet there’s not a whole lot of financial output at this point,” Marie noted, referencing a McKinsey study showing 95% of businesses using AI aren’t making money from it yet [Editor’s note: McKinsey was 80%; MIT said 95%].

“It’s very similar to SEO. There was a day where there were just a small handful of people who figured out how to improve on Google. Once people started making good money from understanding SEO, there was a lot of attention. Tools were created and a whole industry popped up. I think that’s going to happen again. Will it be within the next 12 months? I don’t know. I feel like it might be a little bit longer.”

What SEOs Should Do Now

Overwhelm is a real issue to be aware of, and with developments moving so quickly, there is a huge learning curve to essentially retrain. Even for those working on this full-time.

Marie made a commitment when she went all in on AI research. “I made it my full-time job to stay on top of what’s happening, and even I get overwhelmed with all the stuff that’s happening with AI,” she explained.

Marie’s advice is to keep learning, keep trying things, and experiment with writing prompts.

“The next time you go to do a task, try to create an agent that would do this for you,” she suggested. Even if you don’t finish, you’ll learn skills for the next attempt.

Also, persevere instead of taking the first failure. “Try to figure out what they can do, instead of just telling everybody, ‘Oh, it can’t do this.’ Find ways you can use it.”

For development teams, she recommends vibe coding with tools like Google’s Anti Gravity or AI Studio. “You can deploy a whole website without even knowing any HTML,” Marie said.

She also advocates for deep research reports using either Gemini or ChatGPT to analyze how competitors are using AI, providing immediate value to clients while building skills.

The Future Of SEO

Marie referenced Sundar Pichai calling AI technology more profound than fire or electricity in its impact on society. Despite acknowledging her bias after investing significant time in understanding AI, she maintains there’s going to be societal disruption.

“Being able to understand what’s happening in the world and distill it down to what’s important to your clients will be a superpower,” she said. Although, she does admit, there is still a lot of learning and grey areas to move through as we navigate the edge of technology.

“If you’re feeling lost, you’re not alone because imagine right now we’re sort of at the forefront of all of these changes happening.”

For those who do persevere, there will be significant rewards. Eventually, business owners will be clamoring for people who can explain AI and implement it. The professionals who develop these skills now will be extremely valuable in the future.

“The people who know how to use AI, know how to create agents, and know how to make money from AI are going to be extremely valuable in the future.”

Watch the full video interview with Marie Haynes here:

Thank you to Marie Haynes for offering her insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

There’s a divided line in the industry between those who think optimizing for AI is separate from SEO and those who think LLM discovery is just SEO. But, this is an unproductive argument, because whatever you think, LLM inclusion is now part of SEO discovery.

So, let’s just focus on how the search journey works now and where you can find real business value.

To discuss inclusion in LLMs, I invited Patrick Stox to the latest edition of IMHO to find out what he thinks. As product advisor, technical SEO, and brand ambassador at Ahrefs, Patrick has plenty of data to work with and insights into what’s actually working for LLM inclusion right now.

In the face of the AI takeover, Patrick’s take is that Google isn’t going anywhere, and he still thinks human relationships are critical.

You can watch the full interview with Patrick on IMHO below.

Google Isn’t Going Anywhere

With the industry obsessing over ChatGPT, AI Overviews, and AI Mode, it’s easy to assume that traditional search really is dead. However, Patrick was quick to say, “I’m not betting against Google.”

“Google is still everything for most people … Most of the people that are using [LLMs] are tech forward, but the majority of folks are still just Googling things”

Recent Ahrefs data estimated that Google owns an estimated 40% of all traffic to websites, with LLM referrals still a fraction by comparison. Although Google’s share of traffic may be down a couple of percent this year, it still dominates.

After experimenting with ChatGPT and Claude when they first launched, Patrick found himself returning to Google’s AI Mode and Gemini, and thinks others will do the same. “Even I just went back to Google,” he admitted. “I think we’re going to see more of that as they improve their systems.”

Google continues releasing competitive AI innovations, and Patrick predicts these will pull many users back into Google’s ecosystem.

“I’m not betting against Google,” he says. “They’ve got more data than anyone, and they’re still on the bleeding edge.”

The Attribution Problem: LLMs Might Drive Conversions, But We Can’t Prove It

Even though sites are seeing growing referrals from LLMs, establishing attribution to any real value from LLM traffic is a challenge right now. We can talk about brand awareness, but C-Suite is only interested in business value.

Patrick agreed that while you can count mentions and citations in AI answers, that doesn’t easily translate into board-level reporting.

“You can measure how often you’re mentioned versus competitors … but going back to a business, I can’t report on that stuff. It’s all secondary, tertiary metrics.”

For Patrick, revenue and revenue-adjacent metrics still matter. That said, Ahrefs has had some signals from AI search traffic.

“We did track the signups. When I first looked at this data back in July, all the traffic from AI search was half a percent of our traffic total. But at the time, it was 12.1% of our total conversions.” He explained.

This has now dropped below 10%, while the traffic share has grown slightly.

Two Strategies That Are Working For LLM Inclusion

I asked if Ahrefs is actively investing in LLM inclusion, and Patrick said they are trying a number of different things, and the two fundamental approaches that determine LLM visibility are repetition and differentiation.

“Whatever the internet says, that’s kind of what’s being returned in these systems,”

Repetition means ensuring consistent messaging across multiple websites. LLMs synthesize what “the internet says,” so if you want to be recognized for something, that narrative needs to exist broadly. For Ahrefs, this has meant actively spreading the message that they have evolved beyond just SEO tools into a comprehensive digital marketing platform.

Differentiation through original data works alongside the repetition to stand out. Ahrefs has invested heavily in unique data studies throughout the year, including non-English language research. “This data is being heavily cited, heavily returned in these systems because there’s nothing else out there like it,” Patrick explained.

The more surprising tactic that is also currently working is listicles.

“I hate to say it, but listicles … they work right now. I don’t think it’s future-proof at all, but at the same time, I don’t want to just not be there.”

Agentic AI And The Threat Of Closed Systems

I then asked about agentic AI and systems, and does Patrick have concerns about systems becoming closed.

As LLM agents begin booking travel, making purchases, or accessing APIs directly, most likely they would rely on a small set of partners from big brands.

“ChatGPT isn’t going to make deals with unknown companies,” Stox says. “If they book flights, they’ll use major providers. If they use a dictionary, they’ll pick one dictionary.”

This would be the real threat to smaller businesses. “If an agent decides ‘we only check out through Amazon,’ a lot of stores lose sales overnight,” Patrick warns. There is no guaranteed defense. The only strategy we can follow right now is to grow your brand and footprint.

“What was the thing they used to say for Google? Make them embarrassed to not have you included.”

Beyond LLM Optimization: Channels That Still Matter

Patrick emphasized a point that’s possibly been forgotten in the AI hype: “It’s not ChatGPT that’s the second largest search engine, it’s still YouTube by far.”

YouTube has been a hugely successful referral platform for Ahrefs, and the company invested heavily in video. Patrick recommends both long and short-form, for brand discovery.

Community participation on platforms such as Reddit, Slack, and Discord also offers substantial value, but only when companies genuinely participate rather than spam.

While many brands have tried to brute-force Reddit with spam, Patrick says there can be huge value in genuine participation, especially when employees are allowed to represent the company authentically.

“You have literally a paid workforce of advocates who work for your company. Let them go out and talk to people … answer questions, basically advertise for you. They want to do it already. So let them.”

If You Started A Product Today, Where Would You Bet?

As a final question, I asked Patrick where he’d invest if launching a startup today; he did not hesitate to say relationships.

“If I launched a startup, the first thing I’d invest in is relationships. That’s still the most powerful channel … I think if I did do something like that, I’d probably grow it pretty fast. More from my connections than anything else,” he said.

After relationships, he’d focus on YouTube, website content creation, and telling friends about the product. In other words, “just normal marketing.”

“We’ve gone through this tech revolution, and now we’re realizing everything still comes back to direct connections with people.”

And that may be the most important insight of all. In an era of AI-driven discovery, the brands that win are the ones that remain unmistakably human.

Watch the full video interview with Patrick Stox here:

Thank you to Patrick Stox for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Out of many direct conversations I’ve had in the industry, there’s a mixed reaction to how much AI might impact SEO and search. It depends on your business model as to just how much of a catastrophic effect LLM platforms have taken away your clicks and, more importantly, your end business outcomes.

Google still remains the dominant search engine, and right now is still referring the majority of traffic. Although, traffic volumes are significantly reduced, especially for news publishers.

From my conversations, many SEOs believe that despite this Google is not going anywhere and it’s business as usual.

To dig into this topic, I spoke to Carolyn Shelby, who co-founded an ISP in 1994 and has worked in the search industry since for 30 years, working with major brands such as Disney, ESPN, and Tribune Publishing.

Over three decades, Carolyn has seen disruption in the industry many times over, so I asked for her IMHO: Is AI search overhyped?

Her opinion is that focusing on just 1% of a huge share is a good strategy, that we should be focused on technical accessibility and that no one should be ignoring AI search. She also thinks that Google is purposely throttling it’s own progression right now.

The Blogging Economy Is Imploding

Right now, AI and LLMs are dramatically changing search business models and how you can make money online. The biggest impact of this is within blogging for dollars and page views-for-AdSense business models.

As Carolyn said, “It’s not viable going forward as a sustainable business strategy to spin up garbage content sites and slap AdSense all over them and then make enough money to live. Hobby creators or people that are creating out of love will continue to create because they’re doing it for themselves, not for the money. And the amount of money they will make will be enough to maybe buy them coffee every month, but it is not going to be enough to pay their mortgage.

So, the people that are looking for the money to pay their mortgage or buy them a Lamborghini are going to go where there is money to be made, which is over to TikTok and over to YouTube and over to the video platforms.”

This isn’t a temporary disruption. Right now, we’re experiencing a fundamental restructuring of how value is created and captured on the internet.

The influence of TikTok has been building for a few years and is one platform that could be resistant and even flourish in the face of the changes happening in search.

SEO experts I have spoken to cited TikTok as a space where a startup could break into a niche.

1% Of A Trillion Is Traffic Worth Taking

Recently, in a podcast, Carolyn said that less than 1% of traffic comes from AI tools/platforms. On the surface, 1% might seem to be insignificant, but if you consider that 1% of a trillion is 10 billion, that’s a huge amount of traffic.

“If you told me today that if I focused on nothing but ChatGPT and I could guarantee I would monopolize the 1% of traffic, I would jump on that because that is so much traffic.” Carolyn said.

As marketers, we can easily get swept away by the big ‘trillion’ numbers, but if we remember that it can be far easier to gain traction in a smaller niche with less competition than to drown in a crowded space.

For example, SEOs have all been focused on Google because it has so much traffic potential. However, Bing is less competitive and could convert better, so it could be far more beneficial to invest in Bing.

Carolyn believes that the same logic applies to AI platforms. “It’s better to have the traffic from the people that convert, and it’s better to have people coming to your website that are going to convert in general. If you can increase that, increase that.”

Carolyn was clear that in her opinion AI is not overhyped. “I think if you ignore these other opportunities with the LLMs and with AI, then you’re doing yourself a disservice. I wouldn’t call this overhyped. I would call this a shifting mindset, a shift in a paradigm.”

Google Is Holding Back As A Strategic Play

I asked Carolyn if she thought that Google could claw back its dominance, and she has an interesting theory centered on how Google’s Department of Justice battles might be influencing its competitive behavior.

Carolyn explained that during the appeals process, Google needs to prove it’s not a monopoly, which creates an incentive structure.

“They need to prove that they don’t hold absolute control over absolutely everything that happens. Which means they’re going to be inclined to allow other people to encroach on their position because that reinforces their point that they’re not a monopoly.”

Think of it like a driver spotting a speed trap; you slow down until you’re out of range, then floor it again. Google is playing the long game.

Carolyn also identified Chrome data as a critical factor, as it’s Google’s biggest competitive advantage. User signals and behavioral data from Chrome give them insights that drive innovation and performance and forcing the search engine to share this data would fundamentally alter the competitive landscape.

“You take the Chrome data away, that’s a different story. And I think that would be taking the gas out of their engine.” Carolyn commented.

AI Mode Is Here To Stay

We moved the conversation on to AI Mode, and I asked what she thought of the Google AI-generated search results.

Carolyn’s opinion is that Google is not going to roll it back, and it’s here to stay. “I think they’re going to take steps to make sure that we all get used to it and that we all start using it the way they want us to use it to get the best results.”

Carolyn acknowledged that AI Mode creates friction for users conditioned to traditional keyword searches.

“I feel weird asking Google questions like I would ask ChatGPT,” she admitted. “I’m conditioned to interface with ChatGPT in one way and I’m conditioned to interface with Google in a different way and my habits just haven’t changed yet.”

Her belief is that adaptation is inevitable. Google’s dominance means it can guide users toward new interaction patterns.

“They’ll just keep giving us bad answers and we’ll keep trying again because that’s what we do until we figure out how to get the answers that we want out of the machine ... together we’ll all keep iterating.”

Google has maintained a position at the forefront of industry development for the last 25 years with constant iteration, and it has wanted to be a personal assistant for years. AI is enabling that to happen.

“It would be ridiculous for Google to say, ‘We’re going to not evolve and we’re going to stay the way we’ve been doing things for 20 years while everyone else is doing AI.’” Carolyn commented. “There’s too much investment in the infrastructure. It’s to everyone’s benefit to learn how to operate within this new environment.”

What SEOs Should Focus On Right Now

My final question to Carolyn was to ask what she thought SEOs should focus on right now.

For me, the actual marketing strategy has been long overlooked in SEO, and Carolyn echoed this in her response to say there are a lot of marketing aspects that have been ignored.

Although in her opinion, the main focus should be on the technical aspects of SEO, not just for search engines but also for LLMs. She emphasized ensuring content accessibility at the machine level.

“I think focusing on the technical fundamentals.” Carolyn explained, “Can the machines [LLMs] traverse your site and retrieve the content and is the content retrievable in the way you need it to be retrievable?”

SEOs should be aware that different LLMs access content differently. Carolyn noted that some platforms, like Anthropic, only capture first-view content, missing anything in toggles or tabs.

“Your job is to figure out what is being found and making sure that the things that the message that you need to have conveyed is in that stuff that is being read. If it’s not, if it’s hidden in something, you have to unhide it.

“There are a lot of different things to do to get to that point, which is what constitutes SEO. Making sure that it’s accessible and it’s the message that you want seen, that if you boil it all down, that is your job.”

The Future Belongs To Those Who Adapt & Adopt

Rather than dismissing AI search as hype, Carolyn thinks we’re witnessing a fundamental transformation that requires strategic adaptation. Business models are changing, and success demands understanding how machines access and interpret content.

“If you ignore these opportunities with the LLMs and with AI, then you’re doing yourself a disservice.”

The future belongs to those who understand that 1% of a trillion is a huge market, who ensure their content is truly accessible to every machine that matters, and who can adopt real marketing.

The professionals who embrace AI will define the next era of SEO.

Watch the full video interview with Carolyn Shelby here:

Thank you to Carolyn Shelby for offering her insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Google has been doing what it always does, and that is to constantly iterate to try and retain the best product it can.

Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI chatbots are a new reality in SEO, and to keep up, Google is evolving its interface to try and cross the divide between AI and search. Although, what we should all remember is that Google has already been integrating AI in its algorithms for years.

Continuing my IMHO series and speaking to experts to gain their valuable insights, I spoke with Ray Grieselhuber, CEO of Demand Sphere and organizer of Found Conference. We explored AI search vs. traditional search, grounding data, the influence of schema, and what it all means for SEO.

“There is not really any such thing anymore as traditional search versus AI search. It’s all AI search. Google pioneered AI search more than 10 years ago.”

Scroll to the end of this article, if you want to watch the full interview.

Why Grounding Data Matters More Than The LLM Model

The conversation with Ray started with one of his recent posts on LinkedIn:

“It’s the grounding data that matters, far more than the model itself. The models will be trained to achieve certain results but, as always, the index/datasets are the prize.”

I asked him to expand on why grounding data is so important. Ray explained, “Unless something radically changes in how LLMs work, we’re not going to have infinite context windows. If you need up-to-date, grounded data, you need indexed data, and it has to come from somewhere.”

Earlier this year, Ray and his team analyzed ChatGPT’s citation patterns, comparing them to search results from both Google and Bing. Their research revealed that ChatGPT’s results overlap with Google search results about 50% of the time, compared to only 15-20% overlap with Bing.

“It’s been known that Bing has an historical relationship with OpenAI.” Ray expanded, “but, they don’t have Google’s data, index size, or coverage. So eventually, you’re going to source Google data one way or another.”

He went on to say, “That’s what I mean by the index being the prize. Google still has a massive data and index advantage.”

Interestingly, when Ray first presented these findings at Brighton SEO in April, the response was mixed. “I had people who seemed appalled that OpenAI would be using Google results,” Ray recalled.

Maybe the anger stems from the wishful idea that AI would render Google irrelevant, but Google’s dataset still remains central to search.

It’s All AI Search Now

Ray made another recent comment online about how people search:

“Humans are searchers, always have been, always will be. It’s just a question of the experience, behavior, and the tools they use. Focus on search as a primitive and being found and you can ignore pointless debates about what to call it.”

I asked him where he thinks that SEOs go wrong in their approach to the introduction of GEO/LLM visibility, and Ray responded by saying that in the industry, we often have a dialectical tension.

“We have this weird tendency in our industry to talk about how something is either dead and dying. Or, this is the new thing and you have to just rush and forget everything that you learned up until now.”

Ray thinks what we should really be focusing on is human behavior:

“These things don’t make sense in the context of what’s happening overall because I always go back to what is the core instinctual human behavior? If you’re a marketer your job is to attract human attention through their search behavior and that’s really what matters.”

“The major question is what is the experience that’s going to mediate that human behavior and their attention mechanisms versus what you have to offer, you know, as a marketer.

“There is not really any such thing anymore as traditional search versus AI search. It’s all AI search. Google pioneered AI search more than 10 years ago. They’ve been doing it for the last 10 years and now for some reason everyone’s just figuring out that now it’s AI search.”

Ray concluded, “Human behavior is the constant; experiences evolve.”

Schema’s Role In LLM Visibility

I turned the conversation to schema to clarify just how useful it is for LLM visibility and if it has a direct impact on LLMs.

Ray’s analysis reveals the truth is nuanced. LLMs don’t directly process schema in their training data, but there is some limited influence of structured data through retrieval layers when LLMs use search results as grounding data.

Ray explained that Google has essentially trained the entire internet to optimize its semantic understanding through schema markup. The reason they did this is not just for users.

“Google used Core Web Vitals to get the entire internet to optimize itself so that Google wouldn’t have to spend so much money crawling the internet, and they kind of did the same thing with building their semantic layer that enabled them to create an entire new level of richness in the results.”

Ray stressed that schema is only being used as a hint, and it shouldn’t be a question of does this work or not – should we implement Schema to influence results? Instead, SEOs should be focusing on the impact on user and human behavior.

Attract Human Attention Through Search Behavior

Binary thinking, such as SEO is dead, or LLMs are the new SEO, misses the reality that search behavior remains fundamentally unchanged. Humans are searchers who want to find information efficiently, and this underlying need remains constant.

Ray said that what really matters and underlines SEO is to attract human attention through their search behavior.

“I think people will be forced to become the marketers they should have been all along, instead of ignoring the user,” he predicted.

My prediction is that in a few years, we will look back on this time as a positive change. I think search will be better for it as a result of SEOs having to embrace marketing skills and become creative.

Ray believes that we need to use our own data more and to encourage a culture of experimenting with it, and learning from your users and customers. Broad studies are useful for direction, but not for execution.

“If you’re selling airline tickets, it doesn’t really matter how people are buying dog food,” he added.

An Industry Built For Change

Despite the disruption, Ray sees opportunity. SEOs are uniquely positioned to adapt.

“We’re researchers and builders by nature; that’s why this industry can embrace change faster than most,” he said.

Success in the age of AI-powered search isn’t about mastering new tools or chasing the latest optimization techniques. It’s about understanding how people search for information, what experiences they expect, and how to provide genuine value throughout their journey, principles that have always defined effective marketing.

He believes that some users will eventually experience AI exhaustion, returning to Google’s familiar search experience. But ultimately, people will navigate across both generative AI and traditional search. SEOs will have to meet them where they are.

“It doesn’t matter what we call it. What matters is attracting attention through search behavior.”

Watch the full video interview with Ray Grieselhuber below.

Thank you to Ray for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

While industry professionals have debates over nomenclature of SEO, GEO, or AEO, and if ChatGPT or Google’s AI Overviews will replace traditional search, a more fundamental shift is happening that could disrupt the entire industry business model.

To get a better understanding of this, I spoke to the 25-year veteran and SEO pioneer Duane Forrester to discuss some of his recent articles about the shift from traditional SEO and the impact on how SEO roles are changing and adapting.

Duane previously worked at Microsoft as a senior program manager of SEO, where he helped to launch Bing Webmaster Tools and bring Schema.org to life. He has a deep understanding of how search engines work and has now turned his attention to adapting to the realities of AI-powered search and digital discovery.

His belief is that the real disruption isn’t AI replacing search engines; it’s the rise of AI agents. These “Agentic AI” systems will empower individuals to work like small agencies, and the jobs that thrive will be those that can effectively manage an AI team.

The Rise Of Agentic AI: Virtual Team Members

In Duane’s recent article “SEO’s Existential Threat is AI, but Not in the Way You Think,” he said it’s the rise of AI agents and retrieval-based systems that are already transforming how people interact with information, quietly eroding SEO’s return on investment. So, I asked him how agents and not SERPs are the future.

Duane explained:

“The most significant development isn’t AI replacing search engines; it’s the emergence of Agentic AI systems that can be given tasks and execute them autonomously … This is really a personal thing and I’ve been following this since I worked at Microsoft. I did some early work with Cortana with that program and training it for language recognition.”

Within six months, Duane predicts professionals will routinely instruct AI agents to perform work while they focus on higher-value activities. This is going to have the impact where individuals can behave much more like a small agency.

“If I can create a process and the process is largely executed by agents, then the 100% of my time that I can devote can be reapportioned to human-in-the-loop analysis.

This is going to be the way for us to create virtual players on our team and to do specific tasks to enable us to define the most valuable use of our time, whatever it happens to be. That valuable use of time for some people may be closing their next client. It may simply be the sales cycle. For other people who, maybe, lack knowledge and experience, it may actually be executing on what you promised the client.”

However, Dunae thinks that developing people management skills will be critical to success:

“If you step into the world of Agentic AI and you’re going down that path, you better have people management skills because you’re going to need them. That’s the skill set that will prove most valuable to managing Agentic AI work. You have to think of them not necessarily as humans, but as systems that need guidance.”

The Job Transformation: Writers As AI Instructors

I then asked Duane about his latest article, where he wrote about which SEO jobs AI will reshape and which might disappear.

He responded that the most dramatic changes will impact content creators, but not in the way many expect.

Duanes thinks that traditional writing roles face automation, but professionals who adapt will become more valuable than ever.

“If your full-time job is sitting down writing, that’s in jeopardy,” Duane acknowledges.

“The new model transforms writers from creators to instructors, managing multiple AI agents across different clients simultaneously. Instead of spending hours researching and writing, professionals can brief a dozen agents in minutes and focus on editing, refining tone, and ensuring accuracy.”

“You can tell a dozen agents for a dozen clients to all start and you can get them all started in less than two minutes and then in about 10 minutes have all of the output that you now will go in and edit one by one.”

Paradoxically, he thinks the role most in demand will be quality experienced writers, but only those who learn how to embrace and integrate AI to be efficient and effectively manage an AI team of writers.

By becoming a “human in the loop” editor who can guide AI output, an experienced writer can add value in ways machines can’t by refining tone, ensuring factual accuracy, and aligning copy with brand voice and client needs.

“I recently wrote about a Microsoft survey that showed the overlay of how AI can do a job versus humans doing that same job … their point was, if you’re in these jobs, you kind of want to figure out how to pivot to something different.”

Strategic Roles Remain Safe

The jobs that are vulnerable to AI are those with a repetitive nature that can be done by an AI faster, easier, and cheaper than a human.

While these execution-focused roles face disruption, strategic positions like CMOs remain relatively protected. These roles survive because they require experience-based decision-making that AI cannot replicate.

“It’s going to be harder to replace that level of experience because the system doesn’t have the experience,” Duane emphasizes.

The distinction isn’t about seniority but about the nature of the work. Repetitive tasks get automated first, while roles requiring strategic thinking, relationship building, and complex problem-solving remain human-dominated.

CMOs are considered “safe” not because they are senior, but because they are thinking in terms of strategy. They succeed by analyzing consumer behavior, identifying monetization opportunities, and aligning products with customer problems, capabilities that demand human insight and industry knowledge.

“They’re watching consumer behavior, and they’re trying to tease out from the consumer behavior: How do we make money from that? How do we align our product to solve a customer’s problem? And then that generates more sales. That’s the job of the CMO.

And then everything else under it, which is building and maintaining the team, running all the groups, and making sure everything is on track. It’s going to be harder to replace that level of experience because the system doesn’t have the experience.”

Preparing For The Future

Success in these evolving times requires immediate action on hiring and training. Companies must update job descriptions today to reflect skills needed in two to three years, or develop comprehensive training programs for existing staff.

“The people you’re hiring today, in theory, should still be with you in a couple of years. And if they are still with you in a couple of years and you don’t hire these new skills today, well then, you better have a training plan to get them there.”

I compared the current transformation with the early days of SEO, when pioneers navigated uncharted territory. Today’s professionals face a similar challenge of adapting to work alongside AI systems or risking obsolescence.

The future belongs to those who can embrace AI as a productivity multiplier rather than a replacement threat. Those who learn to instruct, guide, and optimize AI agents will find themselves more valuable than ever, while those who resist change may find themselves left behind.

“This isn’t just about surviving disruption,” Duane concluded. “It’s about positioning yourself to benefit from it.”

Watch the full video interview with Duane Forrester below.

Thank you to Duane for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Bill Hunt is a true pioneer in the industry, with more than 25 years of experience working on the websites of some of the largest multinationals. Having built two large digital/search agencies, one of which was acquired by Ogilvy, Bill has now moved into consulting focused on repositioning search to leverage marketing for shareholder growth.

His approach is not myopic surface-level SEO, but as an enterprise specialist who looks at what users actually want from their online experience. He connects the dots between search visibility, user experience, and business value for real results.

Bill is currently writing a series for Search Engine Journal about connecting search visibility to business value, and I spoke to him for IMHO to find out why he thinks SEO is currently not working.

“SEOs are creatures of habit. To succeed now, we need to unlearn and relearn how discovery actually works.”

The Real Problems Aren’t What You Think

I started out by asking Bill why SEO isn’t working, and his key message was not that SEO is broken, but there is paralysis, distraction from AI hype, and a neglect of fundamentals:

“I think there are three key problems right now. One is paralysis. We see that clients put search on pause, especially organic search, because they just don’t know what to do.

The second is the distraction with all the hype around the AI thing.

I mean, there’s a different acronym every day. So, which do we do? Are we chasing answers? Are we doing LLM index files or whatever craziness comes out?

And then the third is that there’s such a distraction from all this that a lot of the fundamentals aren’t being covered. And I think that’s where the problem is.”

Bill emphasized that the impact varies significantly by business type. Information-based businesses have been significantly affected because AI now directly answers queries that previously drove traffic to their sites. However, many other businesses might not be negatively impacted if they understand what’s actually changed.

Three Fundamental Shifts To Pay Attention To

Bill went on to talk about how three core changes have reshaped search, and understanding them is crucial for adaptation:

• Intent understanding has evolved: Everything is about what did they search for? What are they hoping to see?

• Friction must be removed: Platforms reward the path of least resistance.

• Monetization is leading the way: It’s not just about helpful, but also about profitable.

Bill used an example from his work with Absolut Vodka.

“When I was working with Absolut Vodka, we had a drink site that was really just an awareness driver, and every month we sat down and we looked at Google’s search results and said, ‘If we were Google, what would we be changing around drinks or recipes or things like that?’

And so, by looking at the results, we could see, little by little, [that] somebody [was] looking for yellow cocktails. What should Google present?”

Rather than just optimizing for rankings, his team studied Google’s interface changes and adapted their visual content accordingly.

“We started focusing on the drink, bringing it front and center, amplifying the colors, the ingredients, and more and more people clicked.

We were generating millions and millions of visits because every step that Google was making to create a different user experience, we were trying to accommodate it.”

Bill believes that the idea of intent is still crucial. Considering how users just want to get to an answer, we must think about how they discover information and how we then present information to them.

“I think that’s really it in a nutshell. All of this change has paralyzed us and distracted us, and we need to recenter and refocus.

And that’s really a key part of what this series [at SEJ] is about: How do we refocus? How do we rethink this, both from a strategic point of view, from a shareholder value standpoint, and from a simple workflow standpoint?”

AI Tools Reward Consensus, Not Originality

In a recent LinkedIn post, Bill stated that AI tools don’t reward originality; they reward consensus.

As generative AI becomes embedded into how users explore and consume information, Bill warned against assuming that originality is enough to get discovered.

“AI systems synthesize consensus. If you’re saying something radically different, you won’t show up unless you connect it to what people already know.”

So, I asked Bill if you are creating this original content, how do you teach the systems to see you?

Bill’s advice is that to succeed in AI search environments, businesses need to:

• Link new ideas to familiar terms.

• Reflect user language and legacy concepts.

• Be explicit in bridging the gap between old and new methods.

Otherwise, you risk being invisible to LLMs and answer engines that rely on summarizing well-established viewpoints.

“If you’re stating that you’re radically different, you’re not going to be shown because you’re radically different. So, you have to connect, and this is what I put in that article. You need to connect back to the consensus idea.

If you’re saying you’ve got a new way to cut bread, you have to talk about the old way to cut bread and connect it to a more efficient or easier way to do it.”

Is Your Product Even Discoverable?

The most practical insight from our conversation surrounded how people can discover your brand or your product.

Historically, keyword research has been focused on connecting to searches that have existing search volume. But, if somebody doesn’t know a product exists to solve a problem, how would they search for it?

“I used to tell companies, if somebody doesn’t know a product exists to solve a problem, how would they search for it?

They would use the problem or symptoms of the problem. If they know a product exists but don’t know you exist, how would they search for it?”

Bill recommended that you run searches for problems related to your product and see if you show up. Search as if you know the solution exists, but not your brand.

And if you don’t surface, ask yourself why not?

“Take the symptoms people have, go into any tool you want, Google, Perplexity, ChatGPT, Gemini, and search and see if you come up.

If you don’t come up, the very next question you should ask is, ‘Why isn’t this product or this company in your result set?’ That’s probably the single most illuminating thing a senior executive can do…

When it tells you that you don’t have the answer, your very next step is, ‘How do we then create the answer, and then how do we get it into these?’”

This kind of query-path analysis is more revealing than traditional keyword research because it aligns with how people actually search, especially in AI environments that interpret broader queries.

Moving Forward: Back To Basics

Despite all the AI disruption, Bill recommends a return to fundamental principles. Companies need to ensure they’re indexable, crawlable, and seen as authorities in their space. The same core elements that have always mattered for search visibility.

“Who got cited? Who was number one? And Larry and Sergey said, ‘Well, if they’re cited most frequently as a source for a question, shouldn’t they be?’”

The key difference is that these fundamentals now operate in an AI-enhanced environment where understanding user intent and creating relevant, engaging content matter more than ever.

And if you want to find answers, ask the tools; they can tell you everything you need to know.

“I would tell everybody to go do that query and do the follow-up saying why aren’t we there? And you’d be surprised how efficient these tools are at telling you what you need to do to close that gap.”

Rather than panicking about AI destroying SEO, organizations should focus on understanding what’s actually changed and adapting their strategies accordingly.

The fundamentals remain solid; they just need to be applied in new ways.

You can watch the full interview with Bill Hunt below:

Thank you to Bill Hunt for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I recently saw Stephen Kenwright speak at a small Sistrix event in Leeds about strategies for exploiting Google’s brand bias, and a lot of what he said still feels as fresh today as it did over a decade ago when he first started promoting this theory.

Right now, the search experience is changing more than in the last 25 years, and many SEOs are citing that brand is the critical focus for survival.

Some might say (Stephen included) that this is what SEO should always have been about.

I spoke to Stephen, the founder of Rise at Seven, about his talk and about how his theories and strategies could translate to a world of large language model (LLM) optimization alongside a fractured search journey.

You can watch the full interview with Stephen on IMHO below, or continue reading the article summary.

[embed]

Google’s Brand Bias Is Foundational

Brand bias isn’t a recent development. Stephen was already writing about it in 2016 during his time at Branded3. What underlines this bias is the trust users have in brands.

“Google wants to give a good experience to its users. That means surfacing the results they expect to see. Often, that’s a brand they already know,” Stephen explained.

When users search, they’re often subconsciously looking to reconnect with a mental shortcut that brands provide. It’s not about discovery; it’s about recognition.

When brands invest in traditional marketing channels, they influence user behavior in ways that create cascading effects across digital platforms.

Television advertising, for example, makes viewers significantly more likely to click on branded results even when searching for generic terms.

Traditional Marketing Directly Influences Search Behavior

At his talk in Leeds, Stephen referenced research that demonstrates television advertising creates measurable impacts on search behavior, with viewers 33% more likely to click on advertised brands in search results.

“People are about a third more likely to click your result after seeing a TV ad, and they convert better, too,” Stephen said.

When users encounter brands through traditional marketing channels, they develop mental associations that influence their subsequent search behavior. These behavioral patterns then signal to Google that certain brands provide better user experiences.

“Having the trust from the user comes from brand building activity. It doesn’t come from having an exact match domain that happens to rank first for a keyword,” Stephen emphasized. “That’s just not how the real world works.”

Investment In Brand Building Gains More Buy-In From C-Suite

Even though this bias has been evident for so long, Stephen highlighted a disconnect from brand-building activities within the industry.

“Every other discipline from PR to the marketing manager through to the social media team, literally everyone else, including the C-suite is interested in brand in some capacity and historically SEOs have been the exception,” Stephen explained.

This separation has created missed opportunities for SEOs to access larger marketing budgets and gain executive support for their initiatives.

By shifting focus toward brand-building activities that impact search visibility, they can better align with broader marketing objectives.

“Just by switching that mindset and asking, ‘What’s the impact on brand of our SEO activity?’ we get more buy-in, bigger budgets, and better results,” he said.

Make A Conscious Decision About Which Search Engine To Optimize For

While Google’s dominance remains statistically intact, user behavior tells us that there has always existed a fractured search journey.

Stephen cited that half of UK adults use Bing monthly. A quarter is on Quora. Pinterest and Reddit are seeing massive engagement, especially with younger users. Nearly everyone uses YouTube, and they spend significantly more time on it than on Google.

Also, specialized search engines like Autotrader for used cars and Amazon for ecommerce have captured significant market share in their respective categories.

This fragmentation means that conscious decisions about platform optimization become increasingly important. Different platforms serve different demographics and purposes, requiring strategic choices about where to invest optimization efforts.

I asked Stephen if he thought Google’s dominance was under threat, or if it would remain part of a fractured search journey. But, he thought Google would be relevant for at least half a decade to come.

“I don’t see Google going anywhere. And I also don’t see the massive difference in LLM optimization. So most of the things that you would be doing for Google now … are broadly marketing things anyway and broadly impact LLM optimization.”

LLM Optimization Could Be A Return To Traditional Marketing

Looking toward AI-driven search platforms, Stephen believes the same brand-building tactics that work for Google will prove effective across LLM platforms. These new platforms don’t necessarily demand new rules; they reinforce old ones.

“What works in Google now, broadly speaking, is good marketing. That also applies to LLMs,” he said.

While we’re still learning how LLMs surface content and determine authority, early indicators suggest trust signals, brand presence, and real-world engagement all play pivotal roles.

The key insight is that LLM optimization doesn’t require entirely new approaches but rather a return to fundamental marketing principles focused on audience needs and brand trust.

Television Advertising Creates Significant Impact

I asked Stephen what he would do if he were to launch a new brand and how he would quickly gain traction.

In an interesting twist for someone who has worked in the SEO industry for so long, he cited TV as his primary focus.

“I’d build a transactional website and spend millions on TV [advertising]. If I did more [marketing], I’d add PR.” Stephen told me.

This recommendation reflects his belief that traditional marketing channels create a significant impact.

He believes, the combination of a functional ecommerce website with substantial television advertising investment, supplemented by PR activities, provides the foundation for rapid brand recognition and search visibility.

Before We Ruined The Internet

To me, it feels like we are going full circle and back to the days prior to the introduction of “new media” in the early 90s, when TV advertising was dominant and offline advertising was heavily influential.

“It’s like we’re going back to before we ruined the internet,” Stephen joked.

In reality, we’re circling back to what always worked: building real brands that people trust, remember, and seek out. The future requires classical marketing principles that prioritize audience understanding and brand building over technical optimization tactics.

This shift benefits the entire marketing industry by encouraging more integrated approaches that consider the complete customer journey rather than isolated technical optimizations.

Success in both search and LLM platforms increasingly depends on building genuine brand recognition and trust through consistent, audience-focused marketing activities across multiple channels.

Whether it’s Google, Bing, an LLM, or something we haven’t seen yet, brand is the one constant that wins.

Thank you to Stephen Kenwright for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Google’s transformation into an AI-driven search platform represents more than just a technological advancement. It’s a fundamental shift in how the search giant views itself as a company and the value it provides to users.

Cindy Krum has spoken at several events this year about her theory that Google might merge AI Overviews, Discover, and international results to build the next-gen search engine.

The overview of Cindy’s thoughts is that Google is not only internationalizing its platform, but is also converging AI Overview, Google Discover, and AI Mode into a unified, hyper-personalized search experience.

This evolution aligns with Google’s broader push toward understanding search as “journeys” rather than static queries, underlined by MUM.

My theory is that the move into heavily personalized search journeys builds on the past 20 years that Google has been striving to be a personal assistant. AI has made that possible.

Cindy is the founder of MobileMoxie and is described as being “years ahead of the pack.” I spoke to her about the implications for SEO and what part of this shift to AI-organized search and journeys SEO professionals are underestimating right now.

You can watch the full interview with Cindy on IMHO below, or continue reading the article summary.

Predictive, Conversational, And Personalized

Cindy believes that, currently, there is a bigger shift than what some SEO professionals have been talking about: A fundamental shift in the way Google sees itself as a company and the way that it sees the value that it provides.

The real shift was in 2018, just after Google launched mobile-first indexing, when Google began organizing search results around entities. It said it wanted to be more predictive, more conversational, and more personalized.

According to Cindy, Google’s current AI initiatives aren’t new developments but rather the culmination of a strategy.

“Everything they’ve been doing since 2018 has been feeding this goal of getting us into this AI search reality,” she explains.

The AI Overviews, Google Discover expansion, and AI Mode we see today are direct results of this seven-year journey.

The Hidden Strategy Behind Google’s International Push

One of the most overlooked aspects of Google’s current transformation is its renewed attempt to consolidate international domains.

Google previously tried to eliminate country-specific versions (CCTLDs) before mobile-first indexing but had to roll back the initiative. Now, it is trying again, and the timing is significant.

“If you separate everything by country and language, you’re limiting your learning pipeline. You have smaller, fragmented datasets.” Cindy explains.

When you consolidate and abstract at the entity level, you can disambiguate meaning and link keywords to entity ideas across all languages. That speeds up the learning process.

Google can then apply what it learns in one language to another; we’re already seeing this with AI Overviews.

When it can’t find the right answer in a local language, it translates English content because it knows the English answer is probably also correct in other languages. This saves time and money on crawling, indexing, and ranking.

AI Mode Isn’t The Product. You Are

I asked Cindy if she thought Google might try to monetize AI Mode, but she believes Google’s strategy is more sophisticated.

“We can’t forget how Google makes money, it’s ads,” Cindy emphasizes. The real value lies in building comprehensive user profiles that enable precision ad targeting.

Google’s goal is to present ads only to users likely to convert, making its advertising platform more attractive to businesses while creating a seamless experience for users.

“They’re not monetizing AI Mode directly. They’re using it to collect data that allows them to monetize ads more effectively.”

This strategy extends to Performance Max campaigns on the paid search side, where Google controls optimization based on metrics it doesn’t trust advertisers to manage effectively.

Discovery Is Moving To TikTok, Reddit & Social

Despite Google’s technological advances, some users are losing trust in the quality of search results.

However, the solution isn’t abandoning Google but rather understanding how different platforms serve different purposes in the modern search ecosystem.

Cindy’s opinion is that Google is no longer the place where discovery happens.

Users increasingly conduct research across multiple platforms. TikTok for discovery, Reddit for authentic opinions, and eventually Google for final purchase decisions.

This multi-platform journey reflects a more sophisticated approach to information gathering and decision-making.

Cindy stresses the need to understand real branding, not just SEO branding or digital PR.

“To be able to influence the narrative in any kind of AI search result, you have to be actively influencing all those things,” she notes. “SEOs for years have been so focused on their website to the detriment of every other branding opportunity out there.”

Understanding Search Journeys

For SEO professionals looking to optimize for journeys rather than just keywords, Cindy recommends studying Google’s own navigation suggestions.

When performing searches, Google often displays additional navigation layers that reveal its understanding of user intent and likely next steps.

“This is where Google is kind of showing their cards and saying these are the queries that we expect you’re going to narrow down this query,” she explains.

By mapping these suggested pathways, SEO professionals can identify where their content fits into the user journey and where Google needs education about additional aspects of that journey.

If She Were Starting Today? TikTok

I asked Cindy if she were starting from the beginning now, what she would do and where she would invest, her immediate answer was TikTok.

She explains, “It’s where young audiences are, the algorithm promotes discovery, and content is repurposed across all other platforms. Importantly, it’s not just a fad; businesses are being built and scaled directly on TikTok.”

And while influencer saturation is real, Cindy sees TikTok as a smart, scrappy way to build awareness with a small budget and scale fast.

Preparing For The Future

The shift toward AI-organized search results and journey-based optimization requires a fundamental rethinking of digital marketing approaches.

Success in this new era of AI search demands understanding the complete customer journey, from initial discovery through final purchase, and ensuring brand presence at every touchpoint.

This includes active participation in the broader digital conversation about your industry, products, and services.

The future of search isn’t just about ranking higher; it’s about being present wherever your audience might encounter your brand throughout their decision-making journey.

“The future of search is understanding the entire journey, not just the keyword or the query.”

Thank you to Cindy Krum for offering her insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

The launch of ChatGPT blew apart the search industry, and the last few years have seen more and more AI integration into search engine results pages.

In an attempt to keep up with the LLMs, Google launched AI Overviews and just announced AI Mode tabs.

The expectation is that SERPs will become blended with a Large Language Model (LLM) interface, and the nature of how users search will adapt to conversations and journeys.

However, there is an issue surrounding AI hallucinations and misinformation within LLM and Google AI Overview generated results, and it seems to be largely ignored, not just by Google but also by the news publishers it affects.

More worrying is that users are either unaware or prepared to accept the cost of misinformation for the sake of convenience.

Barry Adams is the authority on editorial SEO and works with the leading news publisher titles worldwide via Polemic Digital. Barry also founded the News & Editorial SEO Summit along with John Shehata.

I read a LinkedIn post from Barry where he said:

“LLMs are incredibly dumb. There is nothing intelligent about LLMs. They’re advanced word predictors, and using them for any purpose that requires a basis in verifiable facts – like search queries – is fundamentally wrong.

But people don’t seem to care. Google doesn’t seem to care. And the tech industry sure as hell doesn’t care, they’re wilfully blinded by dollar signs.

I don’t feel the wider media are sufficiently reporting on the inherent inaccuracies of LLMs. Publishers are keen to say that generative AI could be an existential threat to publishing on the web, yet they fail to consistently point out GenAI’s biggest weakness.”

The post prompted me to speak to him in more detail about LLM hallucinations, their impact on publishing, and what the industry needs to understand about AI’s limitations.

You can watch the full interview with Barry on IMHO below, or continue reading the article summary.

[embed]

Why Are LLMs So Bad At Citing Sources?

I asked Barry to explain why LLMs struggle with accurate source attribution and factual reliability.

Barry responded, “It’s because they don’t know anything. There’s no intelligence. I think calling them AIs is the wrong label. They’re not intelligent in any way. They’re probability machines. They don’t have any reasoning faculties as we understand it.”

He explained that LLMs operate by regurgitating answers based on training data, then attempting to rationalize their responses through grounding efforts and link citations.

Even with careful prompting to use only verified sources, these systems maintain a high probability of hallucinating references.

“They are just predictive text from your phone, on steroids, and they will just make stuff up and very confidently present it to you because that’s just what they do. That’s the entire nature of the technology,” Barry emphasized.

This confident presentation of potentially false information represents a fundamental problem with how these systems are being deployed in scenarios they’re not suited for.

Are We Creating An AI Spiral Of Misinformation?

I shared with Barry my concerns about an AI misinformation spiral where AI content increasingly references other AI content, potentially losing the source of facts and truth entirely.

Barry’s outlook was pessimistic, “I don’t think people care as much about truth as maybe we believe they should. I think people will accept information presented to them if it’s useful and if it conforms with their pre-existing beliefs.”

“People don’t really care about truth. They care about convenience.”

He argued that the last 15 years of social media have proven that people prioritize confirmation of their beliefs over factual accuracy.

LLMs facilitate this process even more than social media by providing convenient answers without requiring critical thinking or verification.

“The real threat is how AI is replacing truth with convenience,” Barry observed, noting that Google’s embrace of AI represents a clear step away from surfacing factual information toward providing what users want to hear.

Barry warned we’re entering a spiral where “entire societies will live in parallel realities and we’ll deride the other side as being fake news and just not real.”

Why Isn’t Mainstream Media Calling Out AI’s Limitations?

I asked Barry why mainstream media isn’t more vocal about AI’s weaknesses, especially given that publishers could save themselves by influencing public perception of Gen AI limitations.

Barry identified several factors: “Google is such a powerful force in driving traffic and revenue to publishers that a lot of publishers are afraid to write too critically about Google because they feel there might be repercussions.”

He also noted that many journalists don’t genuinely understand how AI systems work. Technology journalists who understand the issues sometimes raise questions, but general reporters for major newspapers often lack the knowledge to scrutinize AI claims properly.

Barry pointed to Google’s promise that AI Overviews would send more traffic to publishers as an example: “It turns out, no, that’s the exact opposite of what’s happening, which everybody with two brain cells saw coming a mile away.”

How Do We Explain The Traffic Reduction To News Publishers?

I noted research that shows users do click on sources to verify AI outputs, and that Google doesn’t show AI Overviews on top news stories. Yet, traffic to news publishers continues to decline overall.

Barry explained this involves multiple factors:

“People do click on sources. People do double-check the citations, but not to the same extent as before. ChatGPT and Gemini will give you an answer. People will click two or three links to verify.

Previously, users conducting their own research would click 30 to 40 links and read them in detail. Now they might verify AI responses with just a few clicks.

Additionally, while news publishers are less affected by AI Overviews, they’ve lost traffic on explainer content, background stories, and analysis pieces that AI now handles directly with minimal click-through to sources.”

Barry emphasized that Google has been diminishing publisher traffic for years through algorithm updates and efforts to keep users within Google’s ecosystem longer.

“Google is the monopoly informational gateway on the web. So you can say, ‘Oh, don’t be dependent on Google,’ but you have to be where your users are and you cannot have a viable publishing business without heavily relying on Google traffic.”

What Should Publishers Do To Survive?

I asked Barry for his recommendations on optimizing for LLM inclusion and how to survive the introduction of AI-generated search results.

Barry advised publishers to accept that search traffic will diminish while focusing on building a stronger brand identity.

“I think publishers need to be more confident about what they are and specifically what they’re not.”

He highlighted the Financial Times as an exemplary model because “nobody has any doubt about what the Financial Times is and what kind of reporting they’re signing up for.”

This clarity enables strong subscription conversion because readers understand the specific value they’re receiving.

Barry emphasized the importance of developing brand power that makes users specifically seek out particular publications, “I think too many publishers try to be everything to everybody and therefore are nothing to nobody. You need to have a strong brand voice.”

He used the example of the Daily Mail that succeeds through consistent brand identity, with users specifically searching for the brand name with topical searches such as “Meghan Markle Daily Mail” or “Prince Harry Daily Mail.”

The goal is to build direct relationships that bypass intermediaries through apps, newsletters, and direct website visits.

The Brand Identity Imperative

Barry stressed that publishers covering similar topics with interchangeable content face existential threats.

He works with publishers where “they’re all reporting the same stuff with the same screenshots and the same set photos and pretty much the same content.”

Such publications become vulnerable because readers lose nothing by substituting one source for another. Success requires developing unique value propositions that make audiences specifically seek out particular publications.

“You need to have a very strong brand identity as a publisher. And if you don’t have it, you probably won’t exist in the next five to ten years,” Barry concluded.

Barry advised news publishers to focus on brand development, subscription models, and building content ecosystems that don’t rely entirely on Google. That may mean fewer clicks, but more meaningful, higher-quality engagement.

Moving Forward

Barry’s opinion and the reality of the changes AI is forcing are hard truths.

The industry requires honest acknowledgment of AI limitations, strategic brand building, and acceptance that easy search traffic won’t return.

Publishers have two options: To continue chasing diminishing search traffic with the same content that everyone else is producing, or they invest in direct audience relationships that provide sustainable foundations for quality journalism.

Thank you to Barry Adams for offering his insights and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

With the introduction of AI Overviews and ongoing Google updates, it’s been a challenging few years for news publishers, and the announcement that Google Discover will now appear on desktop was welcome.

However, the latest announcement of AI Mode could mean that users move away from the traditional search tab, and so the salvation of Discover might not be enough.

To get more insight into the state of SEO for new publishers, I spoke with John Shehata, a leading expert in Discover, digital audience development, and news SEO.

Shehata is the founder of NewzDash and brings over 25 years of experience, including executive roles at Condé Nast (Vogue, New Yorker, GQ, etc.).

In our conversation, we explore the implications of Google Discover launching on desktop, which could potentially bring back some lost traffic, and the emergence of AI Mode in search interfaces.

We also talk about AI becoming the gatekeeper of SERPs and John offers his advice for how brands and publishers can navigate this.

You can watch the full video here and find the full transcript below:

IMHO: Google Discover, AI, And What It Means For Publishers [Transcript]

Shelley Walsh: John, please tell me, in your opinion, how much traffic for news publishers do you think has been impacted by AIO?

John: In general, there are so many studies showing that sites are losing anywhere from 25 to 32% of all their traffic because of the new AI Overviews.

There is no specific study done yet for news publishers, so we are working on that right now.

In the past, we did an analysis about a year ago where we found that about 4% of all the news queries generate an AI Overview. That was like a year ago.

We are integrating a new feature in NewzDash where we actually track AI Overview for every news query as it trends immediately, and we will see. But the highest penetration we saw of AI Overview was in health and business.

Health was like 26% of all the news queries generated AI Overview. I think business, I can’t remember specifically, but it was like 8% or something. For big trending news, it was very, very small.

So, in a couple of months, we will have very solid data, but based on the study that I did a year ago, it’s not as integrated for news queries, except for specific verticals.

But overall, right now, the studies show there’s about a loss of anywhere from 25 to 32% of their traffic.

Can Google Discover Make Up The Loss?

Shelley: I know from my own experience as well that publishers are being really hammered quite hard, obviously not just by AIO but also the many wonderful Google updates that we’ve been blessed with over the last 18 months as well. I just pulled some stats while I was doing some research for our chat.

You said that Google Discover is already the No. 1 traffic source for most news publishers, sometimes accounting for up to 60% of their total Google traffic.

And based on current traffic splits of 90% mobile and 10% desktop, this update could generate an estimated 10-15% of additional Discover traffic for publishers.

Do you think that Discover can actually replace all this traffic that has been lost by AIO? And do you think Discover is enough of a strategy for publishers to go all in on and for them to survive in this climate?

John: Yeah, this is a great question. I have this conspiracy theory that Google is sending more traffic through Discover to publishers as they are taking away traffic from search.

It’s like, “You know what? Don’t get so sad about this. Just focus here: Discover, Discover, Discover.” Okay? And I could be completely wrong.

“The challenge is [that] Google Discover is very unreliable, but at the same time, it’s addictive. Publishers have seen 50-60% of their traffic coming through Discover.”

I think publishers are slowly forgetting about search and focusing more on Discover, which, in my opinion, is a very dangerous approach.

“I think Google Discover is more like a channel, not a strategy. So, the focus always should be on the content, regardless of what channel you’re pushing your content into – social, Discover, search, and so on.”

I believe that Discover is an extension of search. So, even if search is driving less traffic and Discover is driving more and more traffic, if you lose your status in search, eventually you will lose your traffic in Discover – and I have seen that.

We work with some clients where they went like very social-heavy or Discover-heavy kind of approach, you know – clicky headlines, short articles, publish the next one and the next one.

Within six months, they lost all their search traffic. They lost their Discover traffic, and [they] no longer appear in News.

So, Google went to a certain point where it started evaluating, “Okay, this publisher is not a news publisher anymore.”

So, it’s a word of caution.

You should not get addicted to Google Discover. It’s not a long-term strategy. Squeeze every visit you can get from Google Discover as much as you can, but remember, all the traffic can go away overnight for no specific reason.

We have so many complaints from Brazil and other countries, where people in April, like big, very big sites, lost all their traffic, and nothing changed in their technical, nothing changed in their editorial.

So, it’s not a strategy; it’s just a tactic for a short-term period of time. Utilize it as much as you can. I would think the correct strategy is to diversify.

Right now, Google is like 80% of publishers’ traffic, including search, Discover, and so on.

And it’s hard to find other sources because social [media] has kept diminishing over the years. Like Facebook, [it] only retains traffic on Facebook. They try as best as they can. LinkedIn, Twitter, and so on.

So, I think newsletters are very, very important, even if they’re not sexy or they won’t drive 80% [of] other partnerships, you know, and so on.

I think publishers need to seriously consider how they diversify their content, their traffic, and their revenue streams.

The Rise Of AI Mode

Shelley: Just shifting gears, I just wanted to have a chat with you about AI Mode. I picked up something you said recently on LinkedIn.

You said that AI Mode could soon become the default view, and when that happens, expect more impressions and much fewer clicks.

So on that basis, how do you expect the SERPs to evolve over the next year, obviously bearing in mind that publishers do still need to focus on SERPs?

John: If you think about the evolution of SERPs, we used to have the thin blue links, and then Google recognized that that’s not enough, so they created the universal search for us, where you can have all the different elements.

And that was not enough, so it started introducing featured snippets and direct answers. It’s all about the user at the end of the day.

And with the explosion of LLM models and ChatGPT, Perplexity, and all this stuff, and the huge adoption of users over the last 12 months, Google started introducing more and more AI.

It started with SGE and evolved to AI Overview, and recently, it launched AI Mode.

And if you listen to Sundar from Google, you hear the message is very clear: This is the future of search. AI is the future of search. It’s going to be integrated into every product and search. This is going to be very dominant and so on.

I believe right now they are testing the waters, to see how people interact with AI Overviews. How many of them will switch to AI Mode? Are they satisfied with the single summary of an answer?

And if they want to dig more, they can go to the citations or the reference sites, and so on.

I don’t know when AI Mode will become dominant, but if you think, if you go to Perplexity’s interface and how you search, it’s like it’s a mix between AI and results.

If you go to ChatGPT and so on, I think eventually, maybe sooner or later, this is going to be the new interface for how we deal with search engines and generative engines as well.

From all that we see, so I don’t know when, but I think eventually, we’re going to see it soon, especially knowing that Gen Z doesn’t do much search. It’s more conversational.

So, I think we’re going to see it soon. I don’t know when, but I think they are testing right now how users are interacting with AI Mode and AI Overviews to determine what are the next steps.

Visibility, Not Traffic, Is The New Metric

Shelley: I also picked up something else you said as well, which was [that] AI becomes the gatekeeper of SERPs.

So, considering that LLMs are not going to go away, AI Mode is not going to go away, how are you tackling this with the brands that you advise?

John: Yesterday, I had a long meeting with one of our clients, and we were talking about all these different things.

And I advised them [that] the first step is they need to start tracking, and then analyze, and then react. Because I think reacting without having enough data – what is the impact of AI on their platform, on their sites, and traffic – and traffic cannot be the only metric.

For generations now, it’s like, “How much traffic I’m getting?” This has to change.

Because in the new world, we will get less traffic. So, for publishers that solely depend on traffic, this is going to be a problem.

You can measure your transactions or conversions regardless of whether you get traffic or not.

ChatGPT is doing an integration with Shopify, you know.

Google AI Overview has direct links where you can shop through Google or through different sites. So, it doesn’t have to go through a site and then shop, and so on.

I think you have to track and analyze where you’re losing your traffic.

For publishers, are these verticals that you need to focus on or not? You need to track your visibility.

So now, more and more people are searching for news. I shared something on LinkedIn yesterday: If a user said, “Met Gala 2025,” Google will show the top stories and all the news and stuff like this.

But if you slightly change your query to say “What happened at Met Gala? What happened between Trump and Zelensky? What happened in that specific moment or event?”

Google now identifies that you don’t want to read a lot of stories to understand what happened. You want a summary.

It’s like, “Okay, yesterday this is what happened. That was the theme. These are the big moments,” and so on, and it gives you references to dive deeper.

More and more users will be like, “Just tell me the summary of what happened.” And that’s why we’re going to see less and less impressions back to the sites.

And I think also schema is going to be more and more important [in] how ChatGPT finds your content. I think more and more publishers will have direct relationships or direct deals with different LLMs.

I think ChatGPT and other LLMs need to pay publishers for the content that they consume, either for the training data or for grounded data like search data that they retrieve.

I think there needs to be some kind of an exchange or revenue stream that should be an additional revenue stream for publishers.

Prioritize Analysis Over Commodity News

Shelley: That’s the massive issue, isn’t it? That news publishers are working very hard to produce high-quality breaking news content, and the LLMs are just trading off that.

If they’re just going to be creating their summaries, it does take us back, I suppose, to the very early days of Google when everybody complained that Google was doing exactly the same.

Do you think news publishers need to change their strategy and the content they actually produce? Is that even possible?

John: I think they need to focus on content that adds value and adds more information to the user. And this doesn’t apply to every publisher because some publishers are just reporting on what happened in the news. “This celebrity did that over there.”

This kind of news is probably available on hundreds and thousands of sites. So, if you stop writing this content, Google and other LLMs will find that content in 100 different ways, and it’s not a quality kind of content.

But the other content where there’s deep analysis of a situation or an event, or, you know, like, “Hey, this is how the market is behaving yesterday. This is what you need to do.”

This kind of content I think will be valuable more than anything else versus just simply reporting. I’m not saying reporting will go away, but I think this is going to be available from so many originals and copycats that just take the same article and keep rewriting it.

And if Google and other LLMs are telling us we want quality content, that content is not cheap. Producing that content and reporting on that content and the media, and so on, is not cheap.

So, I believe there must be a way for these platforms to pay publishers based on the content they consume or get from the publisher, and even the content that they use in their training model.

The original model was Google: “Hey, we will show one or two lines from your article, and then we will give you back the traffic. You can monetize it over there.” This agreement is broken now. It doesn’t work like before.

And there are people yelling, “Oh, you should not expect anything from Google.” But that was the deal. That was the unwritten deal, that we, for the last two generations, the last two decades, were behaving on.

So, yeah, that’s I think, this is where we have to go.

The Ethical Debate Around LLMs And Publisher Content

Shelley: It’s going to be a difficult situation to navigate. I agree with you totally about the expert content.

It’s something we’ve been doing at SEJ, investing quite heavily in creating expert columns for really good quality, unique thought-leadership content rather than just news cycle content.

But, this whole idea of LLMs – they are just rehashing; they are trading fully off other people’s hard work. It’s going to be quite a contentious issue over the next year, and it’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out. But that’s a much wider discussion for another time.

You touched on something before, which was interesting, and it was about tracking LLMs. And you know, this is something that I’ve been doing with the work that I do, trying to track more and more references, citations in AI, and then referrals from AI.

John: I think one of the things I’m doing is I meet with a lot of publishers. In any given week, I will meet with maybe 10 to 15 publishers.

And by meeting with publishers and listening to what’s happening in the newsroom – what their pain points are, [what] efficiency that they want to work on, and so on, that motivates us – that actually builds our roadmap.

For NewzDash, we have been tracking AI Overview for a while, and we’re launching this feature in a couple of months from now.

So, you can imagine that this is every term that you’re tracking, including your own headlines and what they need to rank for, and then we can tell you, “For this term, AI Overview is available there,” and we estimate the visibility, how it’s going to drop over there.

But we can also tell you for a group of terms or a category, “Hey, you write a lot about iPhones, and this category is saturated with AI Overview. So, 50% of the time for every new iPhone trend – iPhone 16 launch date – yes, you wrote about it, but guess what? AI Overview is all over there, and it’s pushing down your visibility.”

Then, we’re going to expand into other LLMs. So, we’re planning to track mentions and prompts and citations and references in ChatGPT, which is the biggest LLM driver out of all, and then Perplexity and any other big ones.

I think it’s very important to understand what’s going on, and then, based on the data, you develop your own strategy based on your own niche or your content.

Shelley: I think the biggest challenge [for] publisher SEOs right now is being fully informed and finding attribution for connecting to the referrals that are coming from AI traffic, etc. It’s certainly an area I’m looking at.

John, it’s been fantastic to speak to you today, and thank you so much for offering your opinion. And I hope to catch you soon in person at one of your meetups.

John: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Thank you to John Shehata for being a guest on the IMHO show.

Note: This was filmed before Google I/O and the announcement of the rollout of AI Mode in the U.S.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

For the SEO industry, the Google documents leak offered an important view behind the scenes. Although the leak was not a blueprint of how the algorithm worked, there was considerable confirmation that SEO professionals were right about many elements of the algorithm.

From all the analysis and discussion following the leak, the one insight that got my attention was how important the brand is.

Rand Fishkin, who broke the leak, said this:

“Brand matters more than anything else … If there was one universal piece of advice I had for marketers seeking to broadly improve their organic search rankings and traffic, it would be: “Build a notable, popular, well-recognized brand in your space, outside of Google search.”

Mike King echoed this statement with the following observation:

“All these potential demotions can inform a strategy, but it boils down to making stellar content with strong user experience and building a brand, if we’re being honest.”

Mordy Oberstein, who is an advocate for building a brand online, posted on X (Twitter):

“I am SO happy that the SEO conversation has shifted to thinking about “brand.”

It’s not the first time that “brand” has been mentioned in SEO. We began to talk about this around 2012 after the impact of Panda and Penguin when it first became apparent that Google’s aim was to put more emphasis on brand.

Compounding this is the introduction of AI, which has accelerated the importance of taking a more holistic approach to online marketing with less reliance on Google SERPs.

When I spoke to Pedro Dias, he said, “We need to focus more than ever on building our own communities with users aligned to our brands.”

As someone who had 15 years of offline experience in marketing, design, and business before moving into SEO, I have always said that having this wide knowledge allows me to take a holistic view of SEO. So, I welcome the mindset shift towards building a brand online.

As part of his X/Twitter post, Mordy also said:

“I am SO happy that the SEO conversation has shifted to thinking about “brand” (a lot of which is the direct result of @randfish’s & @iPullRank’s great advice following the “Google leaks”).

As someone who has straddled the brand marketing and SEO world for the better part of 10 years - branding is A LOT harder than many SEOs would think and will be a HUGE adjustment for many SEOs.”

Following his X/Twitter post, I reached out to Mordy Oberstein, Head of SEO Brand at Wix, to have a conversation about branding and SEO.

What Do SEO Pros Need To Know About ‘Brand’ To Make The Mindset Shift?

I asked Mordy, “In your opinion, what does brand and building a brand mean, and can SEO pros make this mindset shift?”

Mordy responded, “Brand building basically means creating a connection between one entity and another entity, meaning the company and the audience.

It’s two people meeting, and that convergence is the building of a brand. It’s very much a relationship. And I think that’s what makes it hard for SEOs. It’s a different way of thinking; it’s not linear, and there aren’t always metrics that you can measure it by.

I’m not saying you don’t use data, or you don’t have data, but it’s harder to measure to tell a full story.

You’re trying to pick up on latent signals. A lot of the conversation is unconscious.

It’s all about the micro things that compound. So, you have to think about everything you do, every signal, to ensure that it is aligned with the brand.

For example, a website writes about ‘what is a tax return.’ However, if I’m a professional accountant and I see this on your blog, I might think this isn’t relevant to me because you’re sending me a signal that you’re very basic. I don’t need to know what a tax return is; I have a master’s degree in accounting.

The latent signals that you’re sending can be very subtle, but this is where it is a mindset shift for SEO.”

I recalled a recent conversation with Pedro Dias in which he stressed it was important to put your users front and center and create content that is relevant to them. Targeting high-volume keywords is not going to connect with your audience. Instead, think about what is going to engage, interest, and entertain them.

I went on to say that for some time, the discussion online has been about SEO pros shifting away from the keyword-first approach. However, the consequences of moving away from a focus on traffic and clicks will mean we are likely to experience a temporary decline in performance.

How Does An SEO Professional Sell This To Stakeholders – How Do They Measure Success?

I asked Mordy, “How do you justify this approach to stakeholders – how do they measure success?”

Mordy replied, “I think selling SEO will become harder over time. But, if you don’t consider the brand aspect, then you could be missing the point of what is happening. It’s not about accepting lower volumes of traffic; it’s that traffic will be more targeted.

You might see less traffic right now, but the idea is to gain a digital presence and create digital momentum that will result in more qualified traffic in the long term.”

Mordy went on to say, “It’s going to be a habit to break out of, just like when you have to go on a diet for a long-term health gain.

The ecosystem will change, and it will force change to our approach. SEOs may not have paid attention to the Google leak documents, but I think they will pay attention as the entire ecosystem shifts – they won’t have a choice.

I also think C-level will send a message that they don’t care about overall traffic numbers, but do care about whether a user appreciates what they are producing and that the brand is differentiated in some way.”

How Might The Industry Segment And What Will Be The Important Roles?

I interjected to make the point that it does look a lot like SEO is finally making that shift across marketing.

Technical SEO will always be important, and paid/programmatic will remain important because it is directly attributable.

For the rest of SEO, I anticipate it merges across brand, SEO, and content into a hybrid strategy role that will straddle those disciplines.

What we thought of as “traditional SEO” will fall away, and SEO will become absorbed into marketing.

In response, Mordy agreed and thought that SEO traffic is part of a wider scope or part of a wider paradigm, and it will sit under brand and communications.

An SEO pro that functions as part of the wider marketing and thinks about how we are driving revenue, how we are driving growth, what kind of growth we are driving, and using SEO as a vehicle to that.

The final point I raised was about social media and whether that would become a more combined facet of SEO and overall online marketing.

Mordy likened Google to a moth attracted to the biggest digital light.

He said, “Social media is a huge vehicle for building momentum and the required digital presence.

For example, the more active I am on social media, the more organic branded searches I gain through Google Search. I can see the correlation between that.

I don’t think that Google is ignoring branded searches, and it makes a semantic connection.”

SEO Will Shift To Include Brand And Marketing

The conversation I had with Mordy raised an interesting perspective that SEO will have to make significant shifts to a brand and marketing mindset.

The full impact of AI on Google SERPs and how the industry might change is yet to be realized. But, I strongly recommend that anyone in SEO consider how they can start to take a brand-first approach to their strategy and the content they create.

I suggest building and measuring relationships with audiences based on how they connect with your brand and moving away from any strategy based on chasing high-volume keywords.

Think about what the user will do once you get the click – that is where the real value lies.

Get ahead of the changes that are coming.

Thank you to Mordy Oberstein for offering his opinion and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Generative AI, SGE, and now AI Overviews have been hot topics since the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, which gave Gen AI an accessible interface to the wide market.

Since then, the SEO industry has been trying to figure out just how much search behavior will change and how much this will impact organic search traffic.

Will we see the catastrophic drops in clicks that are being estimated?

Google’s aim is to integrate Gen AI into search to provide better answers and, in its words:

Sometimes you want a quick answer, but you don’t have time to piece together all the information you need. Search will do the work for you with AI Overviews.

However, there has been much contention and discussion about this as, in practice, the results are somewhat unpredictable – with advice, such as the health benefits of running with scissors, taking a bath with a toaster, and adding glue to pizza to make the cheese stick.

Google is still experimenting with AIO. Recently (June 19), a study from SE Ranking showed the frequency of AIO in SERPs has reduced from 64% to 8%. Meanwhile, BrightEdge reports that Google went from showing AI on 84% of queries to 15%.

Google also keeps experimenting with how AIO results appear in SERPs, and the latest iteration features citations in the top carousel.

Gen AI is disrupting the industry faster than anything else in the 25-year history of SEO. Some of the main discussion points for SEO include: How much is AI plagiarizing content, and how much do we need to pivot our approach to SEO?

I spoke to ex-Googler Pedro Dias and asked him:

In Your Opinion, What Do You Think About AI Overviews, How Will They Impact The Industry, And Where Is This Going?

This is what Pedro had to say:

“As I have mentioned before, Google wants to be your personal assistant and not your friendly librarian.

This is an important distinction, to see Google from this perspective moving forward. Instead of pointing us to the books, they will do the work for us.

If we continue to put out content that only requires a quick answer, this is where we will be disrupted. We need to focus on what people want beyond quick answers.

Google wants to be the personal assistant and caters for this by providing quick answers.

AI Overviews is no more than an evolution of instant answers.

If a site owner wants to target the quick answers, they should also be putting effort into more in-depth content that you can funnel your readers to and ideally, is closed to Google.

By doing this, you can protect the content assets you build.

We need to focus more than ever on building our own communities with users aligned to our brands. And doing more than simply providing a ‘this will do’ snippet, or an instant answer.

Right now, it’s impossible to predict how AIO will develop and what the format will be. Google keeps changing how it is presenting the SERP results and playing with the format much like live beta testing.

But, AIO will trigger different search behaviors.

Before, in SEO, we had ten blue links and no instant answers. From this, users would have to visit your website to get the answer, so a site could get considerable traffic for a basic question.

However, this type of traffic has little value, and these are not your customers – they are Google’s customers.

We need to understand how we can distinguish between instant answer traffic and users who want to consume our content. And this is the area where we should put our efforts.

Focus on building content for the people who don’t want the summary or the quick answer. Those who want to ‘read the book’ and consume the details to augment their knowledge.

In the same way that the web disrupted the music industry and the publisher industry, we are about to go through another change and we have to adapt to it. It’s a matter of time – when and not if.”

How Can You Leverage AIO And Google To Build A Content Community?

I asked Pedro:

“If we want to embrace this new approach, it will require thinking about how to gain users from a ‘take all the traffic you can get’ mentality to a selective one – leveraging Google to provide targeted traffic that you can absorb into your own community.

This will be a big change for some, so how can you leverage Google to achieve this?”

Pedro responded:

“Trying to figure out how much ‘discovery’ traffic Google will take away will be different for all verticals. For example, in the legal industry, or accountancy, the industry is based on consultants who understand and are gatekeepers to complex rules.

You can now ask AI to explain complex legislation on wider topics. But, if you have a specific scenario, you still need to visit a specialist who can deal with this for you.

AI can give you the wider information, but the expert is still needed for the detail.

As professionals in SEO, we can create content that covers broad concepts that AI can tap into. And then, for the specific scenarios and questions, this is where we can build out much more in-depth content.

This in-depth content is kept away from Google and AI and gated for your community or clients.

Every business will need to consider where to draw this line of what they give away for free and what they keep back as a premium.

AI came along to create more distance between those who know something and those who are specialists and will be sources of information.

The middle ground is about to disappear.

The professionals will remain because industries rely on the knowledge and the research these people do. And the rest will just be the rest.

Users will be divided into those who want a little information from AI and then the others who want specialist in-depth knowledge.

Being able to discern where you fit into this scenario and being able to create a strategy around this is how you can adapt.”

Fundamental Rules Never Change

I think we can expect more experimentation from Google before we begin to embrace AI in SERPs and SEO.

During a time of great flux, the best thing we can focus on is the fundamental rules that never change. And those fundamentals are all centered around how a brand builds a direct relationship with their user.

For SEO pros, it could be a challenging shift to adapt to this mindset away from chasing volume keyword traffic. Instead, looking at building user journeys and considering content touches where relevant.

The old days of gaining huge amounts of traffic for ranking from one high-volume keyword are becoming outdated. Moving forward, more effort will be needed to achieve far fewer clicks. However, those clicks should be far more relevant and beneficial.

Thank you to Pedro Dias for offering his opinion and being my guest on IMHO.

Subscribe now