Google’s Mueller on SEO vs GEO

Google Search Advocate John Mueller has weighed in on the ongoing discussion around SEO versus GEO, urging businesses to take a step back and assess how AI fits into their overall traffic strategy rather than focusing on labels or trends.

Mueller was responding to a question on Reddit that asked whether traditional SEO is still sufficient, or if website owners should now be paying closer attention to GEO — a term increasingly used to describe optimisation for AI-powered answer engines such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity.

Instead of debating terminology, Mueller reframed the issue as a practical decision tied to how a business earns traffic. He explained that websites which depend heavily on referral traffic should look at the “full picture” of where their visitors come from and prioritise their efforts based on real impact.

According to Mueller, what businesses choose to call their strategy is far less important than understanding how their site provides value in an environment where AI tools are becoming more widely used. He made it clear that AI is not going away, and that it is worth considering how a website fits into this evolving landscape.

However, Mueller also cautioned against treating AI visibility as an automatic priority for everyone. Rather than assuming that GEO or AI optimisation should sit alongside SEO by default, he encouraged marketers to ground their decisions in data.

A key point in his response was the importance of audience metrics. Mueller advised site owners to look closely at how their users actually behave — including what percentage of traffic comes from AI tools compared to other sources such as Google Search, social media platforms, or direct visits.

He suggested that understanding these proportions should guide how businesses allocate their time and resources. Without clear evidence that AI-driven referrals are meaningful for a particular site, shifting focus too quickly could be inefficient.

This perspective stood out because it moved away from the usual theoretical debate. Rather than asking whether GEO is a new discipline or simply rebranded SEO, Mueller positioned the discussion as a question of prioritisation and return on effort.

The GEO conversation has gained momentum over the past year as AI answer engines have begun to send measurable referral traffic. This has led to growing interest across the industry, alongside research comparing traditional search rankings with AI citations.

What has been less clear is where Google stands on this shift. Mueller’s comments echo earlier statements from Google representatives, including remarks made at Search Central Live, where it was noted that AI-driven features share much of the same infrastructure as traditional search.

Taken together, these signals suggest that Google does not see AI discovery as a completely separate system. Instead, it appears to be an extension of existing search mechanisms, even if the way users interact with results is changing.

Recent data also supports Mueller’s cautious tone. For most publishers, referrals from AI tools still make up a very small share of total traffic, often well below one per cent. While this figure is expected to grow, it has not yet reached a level that justifies a complete strategic rethink for the average site.

The industry has a long history of quickly chasing new trends that only apply to a narrow group of websites. Mueller’s response pushes back against this pattern, reminding practitioners that strategies should be shaped by their own audience, not by generalised industry narratives.

Looking ahead, it is likely that the term GEO will continue to be used, regardless of Google’s position. What Mueller’s comments make clear is that the responsibility lies with individual businesses to measure, evaluate, and decide based on their own data.

For marketers and site owners, the message is straightforward: analytics should come first. If AI referrals are appearing and growing within your traffic sources, they are worth understanding and exploring further. If they are not, there may be more immediate priorities that deserve attention.