Getting pressure from the board to “figure out AI search.” Now I need to decide how.
Option A: Hire a GEO specialist
Option B: Upskill existing SEO team
Our current situation:
My concerns:
The board wants a plan in 2 weeks.
What would you do? Has anyone hired for this role or upskilled teams?
We went through this exact decision 6 months ago. Here’s what I learned:
The skills overlap is ~80%:
| Skill | Traditional SEO | GEO Addition |
|---|---|---|
| Keyword research | Core | → Prompt research |
| Content optimization | Core | → AI extraction optimization |
| Technical SEO | Core | → AI crawlability |
| Link building | Core | → Citation building |
| Analytics | Core | → Multi-platform tracking |
| Competitive analysis | Core | → AI visibility comparison |
What’s actually NEW in GEO:
Our decision: We upskilled existing team + added tools (Am I Cited for tracking) + gave them 25% dedicated time for GEO.
6-month results:
When to hire instead:
We did hire, and I can share the experience:
The hiring process:
What the good candidates had:
What we learned: The role DOES exist, but the talent pool is small. Expect a longer search or higher compensation to attract the best.
The honest assessment: Our hire has been good, but looking back, we could have achieved 80% of the results by upskilling + tools. We hired because:
If budget is tight, upskill first.
Speaking as the SEO person who got “upskilled” for GEO:
What I needed to learn (took ~2 months):
What I DIDN’T need to learn:
What actually helped me learn:
What would have KILLED the initiative:
My advice to CMOs: Your SEO team CAN do this. But they need:
If you can’t give those things, hire instead.
Before you decide hire vs. upskill, audit what’s ACTUALLY missing:
The common misconception: “We don’t have GEO capability.”
The reality: “We don’t have GEO INFRASTRUCTURE.”
What infrastructure means:
| Need | Without It | With It |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility tracking | Flying blind | Data-driven decisions |
| Clear ownership | Nobody’s responsibility | Accountable progress |
| Time allocation | Squeezed between everything | Dedicated focus |
| Workflow documentation | Tribal knowledge | Scalable process |
| Success metrics | Vague “are we doing AI?” | Measurable outcomes |
My assessment of most teams:
What happens when you hire without infrastructure: New person is equally lost. No visibility data. No clear process. No way to show impact. They leave in 6-12 months.
My recommendation:
Infrastructure first, people second.
Let me do the actual budget math:
Option A: Hire GEO Specialist
Option B: Upskill + Tools
Option C: Hybrid - Part-time consultant + tools
ROI consideration: At $50M revenue, even a 2% improvement in qualified pipeline = $1M. All three options can achieve that if executed well.
My take: Option B (upskill) or C (hybrid) for most mid-market companies. Option A (hire) only for enterprise or when team is genuinely at capacity.
Don’t hire for prestige. Hire for capacity.
As someone who consults on this, here’s when clients should/shouldn’t hire:
Hire a GEO specialist when:
DON’T hire when:
The failed hire pattern I see:
The successful pattern:
Hire to scale what works, not to figure out what works.
Since you mentioned board pressure, let me help with that angle.
What boards actually want:
What boards DON’T want:
The pitch I’d make:
“We’re implementing a phased AI visibility strategy:
Phase 1 (Q1): Infrastructure
Phase 2 (Q2): Execution
Phase 3 (Q3): Evaluate
This approach lets us move fast, minimize risk, and make the hire decision based on actual results rather than speculation.”
Boards love phased approaches with clear decision points.
Reality check for small teams like yours:
You have 2 SEO people. Here’s what I’d actually do:
Week 1-2:
Week 3-4:
Month 2-3:
Then decide: If you’re seeing progress and capacity is fine → Continue If progress is good but capacity is strained → Consider hire If progress is poor → Diagnose why (probably infrastructure, not skill)
The 4 hours/week reality: 4 hours/week = 208 hours/year = ~5 weeks of full-time work
That’s enough to make meaningful progress on GEO without major disruption. If you can’t find 4 hours/week, you have a prioritization problem, not a headcount problem.
Here’s how to assess if your team can upskill:
Questions for your SEO team:
“Can you explain how ChatGPT decides what to cite?”
“How would you track our visibility in AI answers?”
“How would you optimize a page for AI citation vs. Google ranking?”
“What would you deprioritize to focus on GEO?”
Assessment outcome:
Most SEO professionals I meet can answer 2-3 well. That’s enough to start.
This thread was exactly what I needed. Here’s my board presentation outline:
Recommendation: Phased upskill approach
Why not immediate hire:
Phase 1 (Weeks 1-4): Foundation
Phase 2 (Months 2-3): Execution
Phase 3 (Month 4): Decision Point
Success metrics:
What the board will like:
Thanks everyone. This is a much better plan than my original “should I hire?” framing.
Get personalized help from our team. We'll respond within 24 hours.
Whether you hire or upskill, your team needs visibility data. Track AI citations across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and other platforms to inform your strategy.
Community discussion on team roles for AI search optimization. Real experiences from marketers building GEO teams and evolving SEO teams for AI visibility.
Community discussion on building GEO teams. HR leaders and marketing executives share team structures, hiring strategies, and skill requirements for generative ...
Community discussion on whether to hire a GEO agency or build in-house capabilities. Real experiences with agency selection, red flags, and what to expect from ...
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience and analyze our traffic. See our privacy policy.