Google Says AEO Is Just SEO. They're Right.

Google has published a guide to optimizing for its generative AI features, and buried in it is a sentence that undercuts a large amount of what is currently being sold as Answer Engine Optimization:

"From Google Search's perspective, optimizing for generative AI search is optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO."

That is Google's own documentation, last updated in July 2026. Not a leak, not a conference remark. A published page anyone can read.

I sell Answer Engine Optimization. So let me deal with the awkward part first.

They are right, and it does not change my job

There is a version of this industry that needs AEO to be a brand new discipline, because a brand new discipline justifies a brand new invoice. That version is going to keep quiet about this page.

The honest reading is simpler. For Google's surfaces, this is SEO. The technical work that gets you quoted in an AI Overview is the same technical work that got you into a featured snippet: be crawlable, be legible, answer a real question, be who you say you are.

What changed is not the discipline. It is the payoff. A results page with ten links forgives a lot of ambiguity, because a person can look at ten options and work out which one is you. A surface that returns one answer forgives nothing. Every ambiguity in your records is now a reason to name somebody else.

So the work is not new. The cost of skipping it is.

The list of things you do not need

Google's guide includes a mythbusting section. These are direct quotes.

On AI-specific files: "You don't need to create new machine readable files, AI text files, markup, or Markdown to appear in Google Search."

That covers llms.txt, the file a good deal of the industry has spent the last year selling. Google addresses it explicitly: "Doing so will neither harm nor help your site's visibility or rankings."

Neither harm nor help. If somebody quoted you for one, you paid for a file that does nothing.

On chunking: "There's no requirement to break your content into tiny pieces for AI to better understand it."

On writing for machines: "You don't need to write in a specific way just for generative AI search."

On mentions: "Seeking inauthentic 'mentions' across the web isn't as helpful as it might seem."

Every one of those is a service somebody is selling right now.

The structured data question, answered properly

This is the one that gets misquoted, and I have seen the misquote spread this week. What Google actually says is two things, and you need both:

"Structured data isn't required for generative AI search, and there's no special schema.org markup you need to add."

And, in the same guide:

"It's a good idea to continue using it as part of your overall SEO strategy, as it helps with being eligible for rich results."

So: there is no secret AI schema. Anyone selling you one is selling you nothing. Ordinary structured data remains recommended, by Google, in writing.

I do a lot of structured data work, and none of it is the special kind. It is declaring what type of business you are, making your address and phone readable by machine, connecting a practice to the people who work there, and making sure the markup matches what the page actually says. Google lists that last one as a best practice too.

The businesses I audit are not overfocused on structured data. They have none.

What Google says to do instead

The same guide is specific about what does matter, and none of it is exotic:

• Make sure crawling is allowed in robots.txt
• Make your content findable through internal links
• Make sure important content is available in textual form
• Ensure structured data matches the visible text
• Keep Business Profile information up to date
• Provide a good page experience

Then there is the part that is harder than it sounds. Google draws a line between commodity content and non-commodity content, and gives examples. A commodity post is "7 Tips for First-Time Homebuyers" — knowledge that "could originate from anyone." A non-commodity post is "Why We Waived the Inspection & Saved Money: A Look Inside the Sewer Line" — something that "provides unique expert or experienced takes that go beyond common knowledge."

Most business blogs are the first kind. That is why they do not get quoted. An answer engine has no reason to cite your version of advice it can find in four hundred places.

What this means if you run a small business

If somebody has quoted you for an AEO package built around AI-specific files, special schema, or rewriting your site for machines, you now have Google's own documentation saying those are not required. Ask them about it. A good one will have a real answer about non-Google engines. A bad one will change the subject.

And if your reaction to "it's just SEO" is relief, be careful. It is only good news if you have already done the SEO. Most of the sites I look at have not. They have a services page listing eight things and no page about any of them, an address that disagrees with their Google listing, and five seconds of mobile load before anything appears. "Just do good SEO" is not reassurance to a business in that position. It is the whole invoice.

The acronym was never the point. Being the clearest, fastest, most unambiguous answer to a question somebody is actually asking — that was always the point, and it is the same point Google is making.

Read it yourself

I would rather you check than take my word for it:

• Google's Guide to Optimizing for Generative AI Features on Google Search
• AI features and your website

Both are Google Search Central documentation. Both are free. If anything I have written here contradicts them, believe them and email me.