The GEO Opportunity: Proving the Value of Long-Term Brand Investment
Image of tree trunk and tape measure. From @Cottonbro
Like many communications professionals, I've spent much of my career helping organisations answer a deceptively simple question:
Did our communications spend, strategy and campaign activity actually make a difference?
It's a question that has followed our profession for decades, from column inches and advertising value equivalents through to digital analytics and social media metrics. Now, AI is forcing us to ask it all over again.
Recently, I attended a PRCA AI Working Group discussion focused on measurement, evaluation and the growing influence of AI-driven search and discovery. Alongside the latest guidance from AMEC, it reinforced something I've believed for many years:
Technology changes. Good measurement principles don't.
I've long championed accountability in communications because measurement benefits clients and sharpens a team's focus. Both lead to better commercial outcomes.
But what particularly interests me about GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation) is not the technology itself.
It's the opportunity it presents for communications professionals to demonstrate the value of long-term investment in brand, reputation and trust.
Why GEO Matters
· Much of the discussion around GEO has focused on visibility.
· Will my brand appear in AI-generated responses?
· How often are we cited?
· How do we compare with competitors?
All valid questions. I think the bigger opportunity lies elsewhere.
For years, organisations have invested in reputation management, thought leadership, earned media, stakeholder engagement and brand building. Much of this work delivers value over time and can be difficult to evidence through traditional campaign reporting alone.
GEO gives us another lens through which to assess that investment.
If an organisation is consistently surfaced, accurately represented and credibly cited within AI-generated responses, that may reflect something much bigger than simple visibility. It may indicate the strength of the broader information ecosystem surrounding that brand.
GEO is less about rankings and more about reputation. Visibility Is Not Impact
That said, we need to be careful not to overclaim. One of the strongest themes from both the PRCA discussion and AMEC's latest guidance is that visibility alone should never be confused with success. Just because a brand appears in an AI-generated answer doesn't mean it has influenced awareness, built trust or changed behaviour. We've learned this lesson before. Most communications professionals moved beyond measuring success through advertising value equivalents because they rarely demonstrated meaningful outcomes.
The same principle applies to AI. A shiny new metric is still just a metric. The real question is whether communications activity is contributing to reputation, relationships, trust and organisational objectives. Every organisation is different and there is no single measurement framework that works for everyone.
However, GEO can provide a useful indicator that long-term investment in communications, reputation management and brand building is gaining traction.
As communications professionals know, strong reputations rarely happen by accident.
Reputation Still Sits at the Centre
One of the most valuable aspects of the AMEC guidance is its focus on the wider information environment and the role it plays in shaping what GEO platforms surface and recommend.
AI tools do not create information from nowhere. They draw on media coverage, expert commentary, thought leadership, websites, reviews, public records and stakeholder conversations.
In practical terms, that means the foundations of good communications remain unchanged.
Building credibility. Creating useful content. Developing trusted spokespeople. Earning authoritative media coverage. Strengthening stakeholder relationships. These activities help shape the public record that both people and AI systems rely on when seeking information. Far from making PR less relevant, AI arguably reinforces the value of trusted communications.
Measure the Whole Picture
AMEC recommends evaluating three connected areas together:
The wider reputation and information environment
Search and content readiness
AI outputs and visibility
That feels like a sensible approach. Understanding how your organisation appears within GEO responses is useful, but it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Communications leaders still need to understand whether trust is increasing, stakeholder relationships are strengthening and communications activity is supporting wider organisational goals. That's where meaningful evaluation has always lived. And that's unlikely to change.
My Final Thoughts
What comms leaders need now is the confidence to apply rigour, curiosity and professional judgement to understanding what truly influences reputation, trust and action.
The most successful organisations won't be those chasing GEO scores. They'll be the organisations creating credible information, earning trusted media coverage, building stakeholder relationships and investing consistently in reputation over time. GEO doesn't replace those activities. It gives us another way to see the results. And for communicators who have spent years arguing that brand and reputation matter, that's an opportunity worth paying attention to. The real opportunity with GEO isn't simply being found in AI search results. It's using GEO as another indicator that years of investment in brand, reputation, credibility and stakeholder relationships are paying off. Strong GEO performance is rarely the result of a single campaign. More often, it's the product of consistent communications, trusted content and a reputation built over time
Further Reading
AMEC: Rethinking PR Measurement in the Age of Generative AI