8. What GEO work is genuinely additional to our existing SEO programme?

Ask for incremental deliverables, not a new label for the same work.

Put to: Mike King and Lily Ray.

Why it matters to buyers: Google’s current guidance frames optimisation for its generative search features as SEO. It says Google Search does not use llms.txt for visibility or ranking and rejects a requirement to divide content into tiny pieces. These are Google-specific statements, not proof about every assistant. (developers.google.com)

Ask: “Which proposed answer engine optimisation or generative engine optimisation deliverables should already be covered by our SEO retainer, and which require genuinely different research or execution?”

A good answer should cover:

• Existing obligations: technical maintenance, helpful product information and sound site architecture.
• Additional work proposed for this buyer: cross-surface answer testing, claim verification, source investigation or conversation-stage analysis.
• The specific platform and evidence behind any formatting, schema or machine-readable-file recommendation.
• Costs of maintaining additional content representations.
• A falsifiable test for any claimed advantage over ordinary improvements.

Press for: an itemised overlap map. Invite evidence-based disagreement with platform guidance, but require the expert to distinguish documented behaviour, observational patterns and hypotheses.

The buying question is not whether GEO is a legitimate acronym. It is whether the proposed work resolves a diagnosed problem that the existing programme does not address.

Expert quote — pending: ____________________