Google’s Mueller Weighs In on SEO vs. GEO Debate as AI Referrals Grow

John Mueller, a Search Advocate at Google, has weighed in on an ongoing industry debate over whether traditional search engine optimization remains sufficient, or whether practitioners should begin focusing on so called “GEO,” a term used by some marketers to describe optimizing visibility in AI powered answer engines.

Mueller responded to a discussion on Reddit in which a user asked whether SEO alone is still effective, given the rise of tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity. Rather than endorsing a new discipline, Mueller framed the issue as a business and resource allocation question.

“If you have an online business that makes money from referred traffic, it’s definitely a good idea to consider the full picture, and prioritize accordingly,” Mueller wrote.

Framing AI as a Business Decision

Mueller avoided validating or dismissing the GEO label itself, suggesting that terminology is less important than understanding how AI tools affect discovery and traffic patterns.

“What you call it doesn’t matter, but ‘AI’ is not going away,” he wrote, adding that site owners should think about how their value proposition works in an environment where AI tools are widely available.

He also cautioned against treating AI visibility as a universal or urgent priority for all sites. Instead, Mueller encouraged practitioners to examine their own audience data before shifting strategy.

“Be realistic and look at actual usage metrics and understand your audience,” he wrote, pointing to questions such as what percentage of users rely on AI tools versus social platforms, and how those behaviors should influence where time and resources are spent.

Context From Google and the Industry

The comments align with broader messaging from Google over the past year. At Search Central Live events, Google representatives including Gary Illyes have emphasized that AI driven features largely rely on the same underlying infrastructure as traditional Search. That position suggests incremental evolution rather than a wholesale replacement of SEO practices.

At the same time, the GEO concept has gained attention as AI answer engines have begun sending measurable, though limited, referral traffic to publishers. Industry studies have examined how often large language models cite sources and how those citations correlate with conventional search rankings. What has remained unclear is whether this shift represents a fundamentally new optimization discipline or an extension of existing ones.

Measured Impact, For Now

Available data indicates that AI generated referrals remain a small share of overall traffic for most publishers. Estimates commonly place referrals from ChatGPT at well under one percent of total visits, with AI assistants combined still accounting for a marginal portion compared to traditional search and social platforms. While those numbers are increasing, they have not yet reached levels that would justify a complete strategic overhaul for most sites.

Mueller’s comments appear to reflect that reality. Rather than encouraging broad adoption of GEO tactics, he underscored the importance of grounding decisions in analytics and audience behavior, acknowledging that trends can affect sites unevenly.

What Comes Next

As AI tools continue to evolve, the terminology around optimization may continue to shift. Mueller’s response suggests that Google is less concerned with labels than with how site owners evaluate real world impact.

For businesses and publishers, the implication is practical rather than theoretical. If AI referrals are present and growing in analytics, they warrant attention and analysis. If they are not, existing channels may remain the higher priority. In Mueller’s framing, the question is not whether SEO or GEO “wins,” but how each site adapts based on evidence rather than industry momentum.