Google Says SEO Is Enough for AI Search: Sited vs Scrunch AI

Sited is the better fit for founders and small marketing teams who want a fast, affordable, one-time read on their AI visibility rather than a recurring monitoring subscription. Scrunch AI is the stronger pick if you need continuous, cross-platform monitoring wired into a dashboard for a brand or agency team. That distinction matters more this week, after Google's John Mueller pushed back on the idea that AI search needs its own separate playbook.

What did Google just say about SEO and AI search?

Responding to a question about whether some industries can skip Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO) entirely, Google's Mueller answered that from Google's point of view there is nothing special that needs to be done for AI search. The question, reported by Search Engine Journal, specifically raised sectors where Google still seems to drive most discovery, such as adult content or gambling.

Mueller's framing was blunt: he's watched businesses demanding solutions for ranking in AI-based search, and consultants focused on AI search optimisation popping up, while established SEOs reluctantly began offering those services while also affirming that it's just SEO, according to Search Engine Journal.

A separate write-up of the same exchange from MarketingProfs' weekly AI roundup put it more directly: Google says traditional SEO is sufficient for visibility in AI search, with Mueller saying businesses do not need special optimisation techniques for generative AI responses in search. The reasoning is that Google's AI results draw from its existing search index, including top-ranked pages and additional results surfaced through related query fan-outs, so the same fundamentals that help pages rank conventionally also support visibility in AI-generated results, per MarketingProfs. That view, MarketingProfs notes, challenges the idea that companies need a separate set of GEO tactics or files such as LLMs.txt to appear in Google's AI search experiences.

Why does this matter for your business?

If Mueller is right, a chunk of the GEO industry's advice, special files, bespoke schema, standalone "AI optimisation" retainers, is less about earning citations from Google's own AI systems and more about hedging against everyone else: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Copilot and Claude, which don't share Google's index or crawling logic.

That hedge is not cheap to ignore. The same week's data from Brainlabs, covering 54 advertisers, found that organic search sessions fell 10.5% after Google AI Overviews became common, while referral traffic from AI platforms rose 163%. Crucially, AI-driven key events rose 335%, and users arriving from ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity completed key events at roughly 1.5 times the organic-search rate, according to MarketingProfs. Fewer visitors, but ones further along in deciding.

So the practical takeaway isn't "GEO doesn't matter." It's that Google's own AI surfaces reward the same fundamentals as normal search, while ChatGPT, Perplexity and Copilot run on different indexes, different crawlers and different citation logic entirely. Treating "AI search" as one target and buying one tool or one tactic to cover it is the mistake, whichever side of the SEO-versus-GEO debate you land on.

That's exactly the problem a visibility check needs to solve: not "am I doing GEO" as an abstract label, but "where, specifically, do I show up and where don't I."

Sited vs Scrunch AI: which tool fits this moment?

Scrunch AI is a genuinely capable answer to that problem if you're running it as an ongoing programme. It's a brand AI-visibility platform that monitors how a brand appears across AI engines and serves AI-optimised, machine-readable pages to crawlers through its Agent Experience Platform (AXP). It covers roughly six engines, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity, with coverage of Google AI Mode, Meta and Copilot varying by plan. Where it genuinely leads is in ongoing monitoring, competitor benchmarking and citation analysis over time, backed by enterprise features like SSO, an Enterprise Data API and a dedicated go-to-market team. It has established brand customers and a Series A behind it, which matters if you're buying into a platform you expect to still be supported in two years.

None of that comes free, though. Scrunch AI's plans start at $250 a month billed annually ($300 month-to-month) for Starter, rising to $417 a month billed annually ($500 month-to-month) for Growth, with custom pricing for Enterprise. A 7-day free trial softens the commitment, but it's still a subscription decision, roughly $3,000 or more a year at the entry tier, with a dashboard to set up and run.

For the founder or two-person marketing team this article is written for, that's the wrong shape of tool for the wrong moment. You don't need continuous monitoring and a competitor-benchmarking dashboard before you even know whether AI systems mention your brand at all. Sited answers that first question for a single $50 payment, with a free infographic and a self-serve report generated in minutes, no trial clock, no onboarding call, no seat-based pricing to negotiate. It's a point-in-time audit with prioritised fixes, not a platform you have to keep logging into.

Given Mueller's comments this week, that gap matters even more. Nobody yet knows whether the "just do SEO" advice holds up equally well on ChatGPT and Perplexity as it does inside Google's own AI Overviews. Before committing to a recurring monitoring subscription built for brand and agency teams, it's far more sensible to spend $50 and a few minutes finding out where you actually stand. If you like what a proper audit and fix-list looks like, you can check your own AI visibility with Sited's free audit before deciding whether ongoing monitoring is even something you need.

The verdict, for this reader specifically: Sited wins on price, speed and simplicity, no sales call, no dashboard to maintain, an answer in minutes rather than a subscription in weeks. Scrunch AI is the better choice only once you're a brand or agency team that genuinely needs continuous benchmarking and enterprise controls, and can justify the budget for it.

What should you do now?

First, treat "AI search" as at least two separate problems. Google's AI Overviews and AI Mode likely respond to the same fundamentals as classic SEO: crawlable pages, clear structure, genuine authority. ChatGPT, Perplexity and Copilot run on different citation logic and, per the Brainlabs data, are already sending you fewer but more valuable visitors.

Second, don't buy a monitoring subscription before you've done a baseline check. A one-time audit tells you whether you have a visibility problem at all before you commit budget to tracking it continuously.

Third, keep testing across platforms rather than optimising for one and assuming it covers the rest. Mueller's comments were specifically about Google's systems, not a verdict on how ChatGPT or Perplexity choose what to cite.

Frequently asked questions

Is Sited better than Scrunch AI for AI visibility?

For founders and small teams wanting a quick, affordable read on their AI visibility, yes: Sited costs a single $50 payment against Scrunch AI's subscription from $250 a month. Scrunch AI is the stronger choice for brand or agency teams that need continuous monitoring, competitor benchmarking and enterprise features like SSO.

Does Google's comment mean GEO is dead?

No. Mueller's point, as reported by Search Engine Journal, was specifically that Google's own AI search doesn't need separate tactics beyond good SEO. That doesn't cover ChatGPT, Perplexity or Copilot, which use different indexes and citation methods entirely.

Do I still need an llms.txt file?

Based on Mueller's comments, MarketingProfs reports that Google's guidance challenges the idea that files like llms.txt are needed for its own AI search experiences. Other platforms may still use such files differently, so it's worth checking your visibility on each rather than assuming one file fixes everything.

Why do AI referrals convert better despite lower traffic?

Brainlabs' data across 54 advertisers found organic sessions fell after AI Overviews became common, but AI-referred users completed key events at around 1.5 times the organic rate, according to MarketingProfs. The likely reason is that AI absorbs early-stage browsing, leaving only more decided visitors to click through.

How do I know if I need continuous AI monitoring or a one-off audit?

If you've never checked how AI systems describe your brand, start with a one-off audit rather than a subscription. A point-in-time report from a tool like Sited shows you the gaps first; ongoing monitoring only pays off once you know there's something worth tracking.