Getting squeezed from both sides here.
From leadership: “Why are we spending so much on SEO when everyone’s using ChatGPT now?”
From our SEO team: “AI search is the future, we need more budget for GEO.”
The numbers:
What I’m hearing:
My confusion: If AI visibility depends on Google rankings, shouldn’t I keep investing in SEO? But if AI is the future, shouldn’t I shift investment there? Are these mutually exclusive or complementary?
What I need:
I have a budget review in 2 weeks and I’m genuinely unsure what to recommend.
Let me give you the data your CFO needs:
SEO ROI comparison (2024-2025 data):
| Channel | Average ROI | Payback Period | Long-term Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEO | 550% | 12-18 months | Compounds over years |
| Paid Search (SEM) | 200% | Immediate | Stops when you stop paying |
| Social Media Ads | 150% | Immediate | Limited compounding |
| AI Optimization | Too early to measure | 6-12 months | Unknown |
The key insight: SEO isn’t competing with AI optimization. It’s FOUNDATIONAL to AI optimization.
Research from 25,000 searches:
What this means for budget: You can’t REPLACE SEO with AI optimization. AI systems USE Google rankings to identify trustworthy sources. If you kill SEO, you kill AI visibility too.
My recommendation:
This isn’t either/or. It’s both.
As a former CFO turned CMO, let me translate this for your budget meeting:
What CFOs actually worry about:
Your answers:
1. Is SEO driving revenue? “SEO drives 35% of our qualified pipeline at 550% ROI. That’s $X million in pipeline from $180K annual investment.”
2. What happens if we cut it? “If we reduce SEO investment, we’ll see organic traffic decline within 3-6 months. Competitors will fill the gap. Regaining those rankings takes 12-18 months - it’s not a tap you can turn off and on.”
3. Is AI optimization a better alternative? “AI optimization isn’t a replacement - it’s an expansion. AI systems use Google rankings as a trust signal. Cutting SEO would actually hurt our AI visibility. What I’m proposing is ADDING AI optimization while maintaining SEO.”
The budget ask: “I recommend adding $3K/month for AI visibility (tools + time allocation) while maintaining current SEO investment. This gives us coverage across both traditional and AI search surfaces.”
The risk narrative: “The risk of under-investing in SEO is proven (competitors gain, we lose). The risk of not starting AI optimization is emerging (we’re already seeing competitors in AI answers). Both/and is the conservative approach.”
Let me share what we’re actually seeing in the data:
Traffic composition (2025 vs 2024):
| Source | 2024 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google Organic | 62% | 58% | -4% |
| Direct | 18% | 19% | +1% |
| AI Referral | 0.5% | 3% | +2.5% |
| Paid | 15% | 14% | -1% |
| Other | 4.5% | 6% | +1.5% |
What this actually means: Google organic is still dominant, but declining. AI referral is growing fast from a small base. The shift is happening, but slowly.
Conversion rate comparison:
The insight: AI referral traffic converts slightly better (users come with more context), but volume is still much smaller.
Practical recommendation: Don’t reallocate - expand. SEO is still your horse. AI is your hedge.
I’ve been through several “SEO is dead” cycles:
What actually happened each time: SEO evolved. Added mobile optimization. Added voice search optimization. Added social signals. Now adding AI optimization.
The pattern: Each new technology doesn’t replace SEO - it adds a layer that SEO practitioners need to understand.
What will happen with AI:
My prediction: In 3 years, we won’t talk about “SEO vs GEO.” We’ll just call it “search optimization” and it will include all surfaces.
For your budget: Invest in people and processes that can adapt, not in either/or strategies that assume one approach wins permanently.
Here’s a practical budget framework:
Current state (what most companies have):
Recommended 2026 allocation:
| Category | % of Search Budget | Activities |
|---|---|---|
| Technical SEO | 25% | Site health, speed, structure |
| Content SEO | 35% | Keyword-optimized content |
| Link Building/PR | 20% | Authority building |
| AI Optimization | 15% | AI-specific content, citation tracking |
| Tools & Analytics | 5% | Including Am I Cited for AI |
How AI budget breaks down:
The implementation: Don’t cut existing SEO. Take from content budget for AI optimization since there’s strong overlap.
What NOT to do:
For context, I run marketing at a similar sized company ($25M). Here’s our honest experience:
What we tried: Shifted 30% of SEO budget to “AI optimization” in Q2 2025.
What happened:
What we learned:
What we do now:
Results after adjustment:
The lesson: SEO and AI visibility aren’t competing budgets. They’re the same muscle exercised in two ways.
Let me explain WHY Google rankings matter for AI visibility:
The query fan-out effect:
When someone asks ChatGPT a question, it doesn’t just run one search. It runs multiple related searches to build a comprehensive answer.
Example query: “Best project management tools for startups”
ChatGPT might internally search:
Why rankings matter: Your chance of appearing in the AI answer increases with every related query you rank well for. It’s not just your main keyword - it’s the entire topic cluster.
The math:
Implication: The SEO practice of building topical authority (ranking for clusters of related terms) directly feeds AI visibility.
Why you CAN’T skip SEO: AI systems trust Google’s judgment. They don’t independently evaluate content - they start with what Google has already validated.
Cut SEO → Lose rankings → Lose AI visibility
It’s a dependency, not a choice.
Playing devil’s advocate:
Arguments for reducing SEO investment:
Zero-click searches are growing - Users get answers without clicking. Rankings matter less.
AI Overviews compress the funnel - Even ranked pages get less traffic when AI summarizes above them.
Brand building might matter more - AI cites brands it trusts, not just pages that rank.
Content quality > SEO tricks - AI evaluates substance, not optimization signals.
My honest take: Traditional SEO focused on keywords and links is less valuable. Modern SEO focused on authority and clarity is more valuable.
What to CUT from SEO budget:
What to KEEP in SEO budget:
The question isn’t “SEO vs AI” - it’s “outdated SEO vs modern SEO.”
Building on this nuance:
SEO that feeds AI visibility:
| SEO Practice | AI Relevance | Keep/Cut |
|---|---|---|
| Quality content | High | INVEST MORE |
| Technical SEO | High | MAINTAIN |
| Schema markup | High | INVEST MORE |
| Topic authority | High | INVEST MORE |
| Link from quality sites | Medium-High | MAINTAIN |
| Keyword targeting | Medium | EVOLVE |
| Low-quality link building | Low | CUT |
| Content volume plays | Low | CUT |
The evolution: Old: “Rank for keyword X” New: “Be the authoritative answer for topic X across all search surfaces”
Practical change: Instead of “optimize this page for keyword,” it’s “make this content the definitive answer that both Google AND AI systems want to cite.”
Same budget, evolved strategy.
Let me share our A/B budget experiment:
Setup: Two product lines, similar markets, different budget strategies for 6 months.
Product A: SEO-heavy
Product B: AI-heavy
Results after 6 months:
| Metric | Product A | Product B |
|---|---|---|
| Google organic traffic | +22% | +8% |
| AI citation rate | +35% | +28% |
| Branded search | +15% | +12% |
| Pipeline influenced | +30% | +18% |
The surprise: Product A (SEO-heavy) actually saw BETTER AI visibility growth.
Why: Strong Google rankings created the foundation that AI systems needed to discover and trust the content. The AI-heavy approach for Product B spent resources optimizing content that AI couldn’t find because rankings weren’t strong enough.
The lesson: Build the SEO foundation first. AI optimization is amplification, not replacement.
This thread gave me exactly what I needed for the budget review. Here’s my pitch:
For the CFO:
“SEO continues to deliver 550% ROI and drives 35% of qualified pipeline. But the search landscape is evolving, and we need to maintain our position across both traditional and AI search surfaces.”
The recommendation:
Current: $15K/month SEO Proposed: $15K/month SEO + $2K/month AI optimization
Breakdown of additional $2K:
Why not cut SEO: “AI systems use Google rankings to identify trustworthy content. Research shows #1 Google rankings appear in AI answers 25% of the time. Cutting SEO investment would hurt both channels.”
Success metrics:
The risk narrative: “Continuing SEO investment is low risk - proven ROI. Adding AI optimization is low cost, high potential. Cutting SEO to fund AI would undermine both.”
Timeline:
Thanks everyone. This is a much clearer narrative than “SEO vs AI” framing I came in with.
Get personalized help from our team. We'll respond within 24 hours.
Monitor your performance across Google rankings AND AI citations. See how traditional SEO feeds AI visibility across ChatGPT, Perplexity, and other platforms.
Community discussion on building the business case for Generative Engine Optimization. Real strategies from marketers who successfully got executive buy-in for ...
Community discussion on budget allocation between SEO and GEO. Real numbers and frameworks from marketing leaders balancing traditional search and AI optimizati...
Community discussion on GEO budget allocation. Real numbers and strategies for investing in generative engine optimization.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience and analyze our traffic. See our privacy policy.
