Marketing firms have begun shifting resources from search engine optimization to generative engine optimization, according to a report published by The ELEC, a Korean technology publication. The terminology change reflects how agencies respond to AI-driven search interfaces that now process substantial query volume across English and Asian language markets.

What does the GEO label actually mean?

GEO, or Generative Engine Optimization, entered the search vocabulary in late 2023. Researchers at Princeton University and the Georgia Institute of Technology published a paper titled "GEO: Generative Engine Optimization" proposing methods to optimize content for AI-driven search outputs. The paper preceded the public release of ChatGPT search features and Google's AI Overviews.

Agencies have since adopted the label to describe work targeting AI Overviews, ChatGPT search results, Perplexity citations, and Claude responses. Senior practitioners do not yet treat GEO as a measurable discipline with standardized metrics across the industry.

The takeaway: GEO began as an academic framework rebranded as an agency service.

How do agencies justify the pivot?

Agency executives cite declining organic click-through rates to standard web listings. Multiple third-party studies have confirmed click losses when AI Overviews appear above traditional results. Authoritas documented measurable CTR reductions in 2024 analysis of AI Overview queries. Similar patterns appeared in independent work from BrightEdge and SimilarWeb analysts.

Agency leaders argue GEO work compensates for these losses through citation frequency inside AI-generated answers. They claim cited content receives higher brand visibility than traditional ranked listings. They have not yet published audited traffic figures that isolate AI Overview citations from organic search gains in controlled studies.

The takeaway: traffic loss is documented. GEO compensation claims remain unverified.

Is GEO measurably distinct from SEO?

Skeptical practitioners note GEO deliverables remain undefined at present. Vendors sell AI visibility audits. Audit criteria vary between providers. No vendor has published reproducible measurement methodology subjected to independent peer review.

Google's official guidance does not distinguish GEO from SEO. Search Central documentation treats AI features as an extension of core ranking systems. Third-party tools including Ahrefs, Semrush, and Authoritas have begun tracking AI Overview inclusion. None have published correlation studies between GEO practice and inclusion rates subjected to outside validation.

The takeaway: vendors monetize GEO before measurement standards exist.

What did The ELEC report specify?

The ELEC piece frames the shift through executive interviews rather than audited data. Quoted agency leaders describe internal reallocations of staff hours. No specific percentage of agency revenue migrating from SEO to GEO appears in the source. No client case studies with before-and-after figures accompany the reporting.

Korean marketing firms have historically led regional adoption of new search tactics. Naver introduced AI-generated answers within its search product before Google's English-language rollout. Domestic agencies may be reacting earlier to generative search competition than Western competitors, based on this regional pattern.

The takeaway: source confirms direction. Source does not confirm scale.

What should practitioners monitor next?

Watch for three concrete signals. First, agency service pages renaming SEO offerings as GEO-led practice in 2025. Second, conference program shifts from keyword-track talks to citation-source methodology sessions. Third, vendor publication of reproducible AI-visibility measurement standards with third-party audit.

Until those signals appear at scale, the GEO label functions as a sales term rather than a discipline with verified metrics. Practitioners should retain SEO fundamentals while testing GEO claims against measured referral outcomes from named tools with documented methodology.

The takeaway: demand measurement before paying for methodology.