GEO Agency vs PR Agency: Which Does Your Business Need?
By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Imagine two agency proposals land in your inbox.
Both promise to help your business become more visible in AI search.
Proposal one talks about technical audits, crawlability, content architecture, entity optimisation, structured data, prompt monitoring and AI citations.
Proposal two talks about media positioning, journalists, expert commentary, original stories, third-party credibility and earned editorial coverage.
They appear to be selling the same outcome.
They are not necessarily selling the same work.
That is one of the biggest problems with the emerging GEO market.
"Generative Engine Optimisation agency" is not a regulated professional category with a universally agreed scope.
One provider may essentially be an SEO agency with a sophisticated AI-search layer.
Another might be a content agency.
Another may specialise predominantly in monitoring and analytics.
Another might combine technical SEO, content, reputation and digital PR.
A traditional PR agency approaches the problem from a different direction altogether.
It works primarily with people and publishers rather than website code.
So the question is not:
Which is better, GEO or PR?
It is:
Which part of my visibility problem am I actually paying somebody to solve?
What does a GEO agency normally do?
There is no universal answer.
That is not me avoiding the question.
A quick look at providers currently marketing GEO services shows substantial variation.
Some describe programmes combining technical SEO, entity optimisation, citation analysis, content optimisation and AI visibility auditing. Others combine on-site work with digital PR and authority building. Some centre their offer around fixed prompt monitoring and measuring where a brand is cited or recommended across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and other systems.
That does not establish which approach works best.
These are the providers' own service descriptions.
But it does verify something important for buyers:
the GEO label alone tells you very little about the actual service.
A genuine GEO programme might involve technical work
Depending on the provider, that may include checking:
whether important pages can be crawled
whether they are indexed
whether website architecture makes sense
whether internal links allow important content to be discovered
whether the site's public information is consistent
whether supported structured data is correctly implemented
whether content actually answers relevant customer questions
whether AI/search crawlers have appropriate access
how the business appears across selected generative-search systems
That work can be extremely valuable.
It is also not PR.
What does a PR agency actually do?
A journalist-led PR agency works primarily on earned media.
At Fair, that means identifying what the client can genuinely become known for.
We develop positioning.
Find useful stories.
Develop expert commentary.
Work with founders.
Use client data where relevant.
Create press material.
Identify journalists who might genuinely care.
Pitch them.
Manage their questions.
Support interviews.
Supply useful evidence and imagery.
And, where journalists independently decide the material is worth using, help create published editorial coverage.
That coverage creates independent public references around the business.
For the full workflow, Blog 24, What Can a PR Agency Actually Do for GEO and AEO?, owns that explanation.
This article is about deciding whether that is actually the work you need.
GEO agency vs PR agency: the practical difference
| Capability | GEO or SEO specialist | Journalist-led PR agency |
|---|---|---|
| Technical website audit | Often central | Usually outside core PR |
| Crawlability/indexing diagnosis | Common | Not normally core delivery |
| Search architecture/internal linking | Common | May advise contextually, but not normal PR remit |
| On-page search content | Frequently | May contribute positioning/editorial thinking |
| AI prompt/citation monitoring | Often included in GEO packages | Only where explicitly agreed |
| Structured data implementation | May be included | Normally not |
| Journalist research and pitching | Usually not unless integrated | Core PR work |
| Expert commentary development | May advise content | Core relevant PR service |
| Earned editorial coverage | May be outsourced or absent | Core objective, never guaranteed |
| Editorial backlinks | May seek them through digital PR/link work | May arise naturally from earned coverage |
| AI recommendations | Cannot responsibly guarantee | Cannot responsibly guarantee |
| Typical reporting | Search, website, citation and AI metrics | PR activity, opportunities and published results |
There are agencies capable of doing both columns.
The table describes specialisms, not legal boundaries.
Which agency should you hire if your website is technically weak?
Probably not a PR agency first.
Imagine you run a consultancy.
You have four service pages.
Two are not indexed.
The homepage barely explains what you sell.
Important information is rendered in a way search engines struggle to access.
There are broken internal links.
Google Search Console has been ignored for two years.
Your address is inconsistent.
And you want to hire Fair because ChatGPT does not recommend you.
PR is not the first problem.
I have sent prospects away before with exactly that kind of advice.
Fix the foundation.
Get somebody competent to understand why important pages are not being discovered.
Make sure your website accurately describes the business.
Establish your measurement.
Then we can talk about increasing credible visibility outside the site.
Google is explicit that basic search foundations still matter
Google currently says there are no unique technical requirements specifically for appearing in AI Overviews or AI Mode beyond ordinary Search eligibility.
Pages need to be indexable and eligible for Search, important content should be accessible in text, internal links should make content findable, and supported structured data should correspond with what users can actually see. Google also explicitly says there is no special AI schema or machine-readable AI file required for these features.
That is why a GEO agency talking about technical foundations can be solving a very real problem.
Which agency should you hire if the website is strong but nobody knows who you are?
Now PR becomes much more interesting.
Imagine a management consultant with:
a fast, well-built website
excellent service pages
good technical SEO
clear positioning
fifteen years of genuinely useful expertise
But almost every online statement about them comes from their own website.
No journalists quote them.
No respected trade publications reference them.
They have little third-party visibility.
A developer cannot create independent editorial authority for them simply by improving schema.
That is a communications problem.
A PR strategy might identify where their experience overlaps with the news, build a coherent expert profile and begin putting that person in front of relevant journalists.
There is no guarantee those journalists will publish them.
But that is the appropriate route to creating earned editorial visibility.
Sometimes the answer is both
This is not an SEO-versus-PR argument.
In many cases, the best arrangement is collaborative.
If a client already has a strong SEO or GEO specialist, I am perfectly happy for Fair to work alongside them.
In fact, I think that can now be particularly useful.
The specialist may know:
which commercial topics matter
where the website has authority gaps
which terms buyers use
which pages need stronger external reinforcement
where AI visibility is weak
which competing businesses are appearing
what technical work is already underway
That information can improve PR decisions.
What would the ideal split look like?
In a clean arrangement, the GEO/SEO specialist might own:
technical website health
indexing and crawlability
information architecture
on-page search optimisation
supported schema implementation
analytics
AI/search monitoring
technical reporting
Fair could own:
media positioning
expert positioning
journalist-led story development
data-led media opportunities
reactive commentary
press materials
journalist relationships
earned-media outreach
Then the two sides share useful intelligence.
If the GEO team discovers the brand is consistently absent around one important subject, perhaps there is a legitimate PR angle worth exploring.
If Fair notices journalists repeatedly asking the same question, perhaps that reveals a useful customer-content opportunity for the website team.
That is collaboration.
The SEO/GEO agency needs to understand the limitations of PR
This matters enormously.
PR cannot operate like technical implementation.
A developer can be told:
"Add this markup."
They add it.
A journalist cannot be told:
"Please write this exact description of my client, include these eight key phrases and place a dofollow link on our preferred anchor text."
That is not how earned media works.
We can supply correct information.
We can explain the client's positioning.
We can pitch the right story.
We can politely ask for a link.
The publication decides what it publishes.
Any SEO/GEO partner working with a PR agency needs to understand that.
And PR agencies increasingly need to understand SEO and GEO
The responsibility runs both ways.
I think PR agencies need a better understanding of what their clients are actually trying to achieve online.
That does not mean every publicist needs to become a technical SEO.
But if a client says:
"Our priority is becoming associated with financial wellbeing rather than generic personal finance",
that should matter to the PR strategy.
If the SEO/GEO team has identified a critical authority cluster around a topic the client's expert genuinely understands, that is useful information.
If the business has serious AI-discovery objectives, I will naturally place additional value on strong relevant online editorial coverage.
PR should not operate as though the internet ends when the journalist presses publish.
What if your goal is specifically "I want ChatGPT to recommend me"?
Neither provider controls the final outcome.
This is where businesses need to separate six different problems.
Problem one: ChatGPT misunderstands what the business actually does.
That may require clearer owned content and public information.
Problem two: search systems cannot properly access important pages.
That is technical.
Problem three: the website lacks useful material answering customer questions.
That is a content problem.
Problem four: virtually nobody independent references the company or its expertise.
That may be a PR/reputation problem.
Problem five: the company does appear in AI systems but nobody knows how consistently.
That is a measurement problem.
Problem six: the company is visible but still generates no customers.
That may be a commercial proposition, conversion or wider marketing problem.
One agency may cover several.
No provider should pretend all six are the same thing.
Is digital PR the same as GEO?
No.
Digital PR usually emphasises online editorial coverage, often with additional attention paid to backlinks, referral traffic and search visibility.
GEO is broader.
It can include site accessibility, content, technical optimisation, public business information, retrieval, citation monitoring, brand understanding and AI recommendations.
Digital PR can contribute to that environment.
It is one component, not a synonym.
What about a GEO provider that also offers digital PR?
That can be entirely legitimate.
Some current GEO providers explicitly describe their service as a combination of technical SEO, content, entity work, external authority and digital PR.
The buyer's job is not to reject that.
It is to understand who actually delivers each part and what it means.
Does "digital PR" mean journalists are genuinely being pitched?
Does it mean link-building outreach?
Sponsored content?
Listicle inclusion?
Directory work?
Guest posts?
Those activities are not identical.
Ask.
Translate "we will improve your AI visibility" into something concrete
I would break an agency proposal into three levels.
Activity
What will the agency physically do?
Audit the website.
Create content.
Change internal links.
Pitch journalists.
Track prompts.
Fix technical issues.
Analyse competitors.
Deliverable
What do you actually receive?
An audit.
Implemented website changes.
Published content.
A reporting dashboard.
Press materials.
A monthly campaign report.
Outcome
What happens externally?
A page is indexed.
A journalist publishes an article.
An AI platform cites the website.
The brand gets recommended.
Traffic increases.
An enquiry arrives.
Activities can be contracted.
Many external outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
That distinction alone eliminates a lot of marketing fluff.
Two hypothetical proposals
Imagine Fair itself were shopping for additional outside support.
Proposal A: technical GEO
The agency offers:
a technical audit
crawlability and indexing review
AI-search baseline
content-gap analysis
authority/topic mapping
internal-link recommendations
implementation of agreed on-page changes
monthly monitoring across selected AI systems.
That proposal could solve problems around technical discoverability, content structure and measurement.
It does not necessarily generate independent editorial coverage.
Proposal B: journalist-led PR
The agency offers:
expert and founder positioning
proactive story development
reactive media opportunities
journalist pitching
press materials
account management
reporting around media activity and published results
That proposal solves a different problem:
building independent media visibility.
If Fair needed both, neither proposal alone would completely solve the wider AI-discovery objective.
That does not make either one inadequate.
It makes scope important.
What would I need to see before hiring a GEO agency for Fair?
I would start with evidence that they understand our current position.
Do not spend thirty pages telling me AI search is growing.
I already know.
Tell me:
Where are we strong?
Where are we weak?
What do competitors have that we do not?
Which commercial question clusters matter?
Are we being retrieved but not recommended?
Are we being misunderstood?
Is the site technically accessible?
What will you change?
And why?
I would want the proposal to distinguish technical work from content work and authority work.
I would want to understand how frequently the important metrics are checked.
I would want to know which systems are being monitored.
I would want to know what counts as progress.
And I would care very strongly about actual enquiries from AI platforms.
Visibility is interesting.
Commercial visibility is better.
I would also expect authority-cluster thinking
One of the things we have learned from developing Fair's own SEO/GEO programme is that it is much more useful to think in coherent areas of authority than simply chase isolated terms.
For Fair, that might include:
small-business PR
expert commentary
founder PR
particular industry sectors
locations
PR pricing
GEO/AI-search questions related to PR
A serious provider should be able to explain how the work fits together.
If the whole strategy consists of:
"Write one ChatGPT page and add some schema",
I would be unconvinced.
Learn enough yourself to judge the provider
I would strongly encourage business owners to learn the basics before outsourcing this.
That is the same advice I give around PR.
Try some PR yourself.
Learn why journalists ignore pitches.
Understand what newsworthiness means.
Then if you hire an agency, you have a much better chance of recognising whether the strategy makes sense.
The same is true with GEO and SEO.
You do not need to become a developer.
You should understand enough to ask:
What is indexing?
What is a citation?
What is a recommendation?
What is a backlink?
What does Search Console tell me?
What does GA4 tell me?
What exactly is this agency promising?
That basic knowledge makes it much harder to be sold old fluff in new terminology.
How much should a GEO agency cost?
There is no credible universal answer.
The category is too broad.
One provider might sell a one-off audit.
Another may have developers implementing technical work.
Another produces several substantial content assets every month.
Another includes specialist monitoring tools.
Another runs digital PR alongside it.
Comparing the monthly price without comparing the scope is meaningless.
I would therefore avoid an industry-average figure unless there is a robust independent dataset behind it.
How much does Fair PR cost?
Fair's current Standard PR service is:
£797 per month in the UK
US$997 per month in the US
CAD$1,497 per month in Canada
There is an initial three-month term followed by one full billing cycle's notice.
That buys Fair's actual journalist-led PR service.
It does not buy an advanced technical GEO audit, website engineering or specialist citation-monitoring software.
That distinction should be completely clear.
What should a GEO contract make explicit?
I would want clarity around:
the sites and markets included
the platforms monitored
the technical access required
who implements changes
how content is approved
what tools are being used
whether tool licences are included
what work happens monthly
what is excluded
what data belongs to the client
what happens when the contract ends
If the agency builds a valuable prompt-monitoring dataset, can you export it?
If it creates content, who owns it?
If it makes code changes, are those documented?
If the relationship ends, does the client still understand what was done?
Those are practical buying questions.
What questions should you ask before signing?
The most useful ones are:
What precise problem have you diagnosed?
Which parts of the website will you actually change rather than merely report on?
Which AI/search systems are you measuring?
How do you distinguish citation, mention and recommendation?
Which work is technical, which is content and which is external authority building?
If PR is included, who is actually pitching journalists?
What evidence supports your case studies?
What do we keep when we leave?
Which outcomes are outside your control?
How will we know in three or six months whether continuing makes commercial sense?
If the answers are vague before you sign, the reporting is unlikely to become magically precise afterwards.
Can the two agencies blame each other if results do not improve?
They can.
That is why responsibilities need to be agreed.
The GEO agency should not say:
"We did all the technical work, so the PR agency must be why ChatGPT does not recommend you."
The PR agency should not say:
"We got you newspaper coverage, so any lack of AI results is the GEO agency's fault."
AI visibility has too many inputs for that sort of convenient attribution.
Each supplier should report honestly on the work and results it actually controls.
When is Fair PR a good fit?
Fair is appropriate where there is genuine media potential.
That might mean:
credible professional expertise
a founder with useful experience
original data
a consumer product
a service
a real-life story
substantive business news
We help turn those assets into material journalists can actually use.
If your main requirement is:
technical SEO
analytics engineering
advanced schema implementation
website development
specialist AI-search software
guaranteed ChatGPT recommendations
Fair's Standard PR service is not the answer.
Sometimes telling someone that is the most useful advice we can give.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a GEO agency and PR agency?
A GEO agency may focus on technical search, AI visibility, website content, entity information and monitoring. A PR agency primarily develops stories and expertise and pitches journalists for earned editorial coverage.
Can a PR agency provide GEO services?
Some agencies may offer both. At Fair, we understand the GEO implications of PR but Standard PR is a journalist-led PR service rather than a complete technical GEO programme.
Is GEO another name for SEO?
There is substantial overlap, particularly around technical accessibility and useful content. However, GEO places additional emphasis on how generative systems retrieve, understand, cite and recommend information.
Do I need a GEO agency to appear in ChatGPT?
No. Public websites can potentially appear in ChatGPT Search without hiring an agency, provided they are accessible to the system. Placement is not guaranteed.
Can a GEO agency guarantee AI rankings?
A responsible provider should not guarantee how an independent AI platform will rank, cite or recommend a business.
Is earned media included in a normal GEO retainer?
Not necessarily. Check the exact scope.
Can PR improve AI visibility without technical SEO?
It can create independent public information and authority around a business, but serious website-access or indexing problems may still need technical work.
Should small businesses hire PR or SEO first?
Fix serious technical and positioning problems first. If the website is solid but third-party visibility is weak, PR may then address a different gap.
What should I look for in a GEO proposal?
Clear diagnosis, defined implementation, platform-specific monitoring, transparent metrics, ownership of deliverables and honest limits.
Can one agency provide both?
Yes. Some agencies genuinely combine technical SEO, content, monitoring and digital PR. Verify that they have real capability in each area rather than assuming the label proves it.
Looking for journalist-led PR rather than a technical GEO package?
Fair Public Relations specialises in earned media.
We help businesses work out what journalists may actually care about, develop the material, position credible experts and take relevant stories to appropriate publications.
We understand why clients increasingly care about SEO, GEO and AI discovery.
We can factor those goals into the PR thinking.
But we will not pretend a PR retainer includes technical work it does not include.
If independent editorial authority is the gap you need to address, explore Standard PR and How It Works.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of PR experience. He writes about agency selection, earned media, AI search, GEO, PR strategy and how small businesses can decide which specialist they actually need.
View Jordan Baker's media expert profile
