30-Year SEO Expert: Why AI Search Isn’t Overhyped & What To Focus On Right Now via @sejournal, @theshelleywalsh

Out of many direct conversations I’ve had in the industry, there’s a mixed reaction to how much AI might impact SEO and search. It depends on your business model as to just how much of a catastrophic effect LLM platforms have taken away your clicks and, more importantly, your end business outcomes.

Google still remains the dominant search engine, and right now is still referring the majority of traffic. Although, traffic volumes are significantly reduced, especially for news publishers.

From my conversations, many SEOs believe that despite this Google is not going anywhere and it’s business as usual.

To dig into this topic, I spoke to Carolyn Shelby, who co-founded an ISP in 1994 and has worked in the search industry since for 30 years, working with major brands such as Disney, ESPN, and Tribune Publishing.

Over three decades, Carolyn has seen disruption in the industry many times over, so I asked for her IMHO: Is AI search overhyped?

Her opinion is that focusing on just 1% of a huge share is a good strategy, that we should be focused on technical accessibility and that no one should be ignoring AI search. She also thinks that Google is purposely throttling it’s own progression right now.

The Blogging Economy Is Imploding

Right now, AI and LLMs are dramatically changing search business models and how you can make money online. The biggest impact of this is within blogging for dollars and page views-for-AdSense business models.

As Carolyn said, “It’s not viable going forward as a sustainable business strategy to spin up garbage content sites and slap AdSense all over them and then make enough money to live. Hobby creators or people that are creating out of love will continue to create because they’re doing it for themselves, not for the money. And the amount of money they will make will be enough to maybe buy them coffee every month, but it is not going to be enough to pay their mortgage.

So, the people that are looking for the money to pay their mortgage or buy them a Lamborghini are going to go where there is money to be made, which is over to TikTok and over to YouTube and over to the video platforms.”

This isn’t a temporary disruption. Right now, we’re experiencing a fundamental restructuring of how value is created and captured on the internet.

The influence of TikTok has been building for a few years and is one platform that could be resistant and even flourish in the face of the changes happening in search.

SEO experts I have spoken to cited TikTok as a space where a startup could break into a niche.

1% Of A Trillion Is Traffic Worth Taking

Recently, in a podcast, Carolyn said that less than 1% of traffic comes from AI tools/platforms. On the surface, 1% might seem to be insignificant, but if you consider that 1% of a trillion is 10 billion, that’s a huge amount of traffic.

“If you told me today that if I focused on nothing but ChatGPT and I could guarantee I would monopolize the 1% of traffic, I would jump on that because that is so much traffic.” Carolyn said.

As marketers, we can easily get swept away by the big ‘trillion’ numbers, but if we remember that it can be far easier to gain traction in a smaller niche with less competition than to drown in a crowded space.

For example, SEOs have all been focused on Google because it has so much traffic potential. However, Bing is less competitive and could convert better, so it could be far more beneficial to invest in Bing.

Carolyn believes that the same logic applies to AI platforms. “It’s better to have the traffic from the people that convert, and it’s better to have people coming to your website that are going to convert in general. If you can increase that, increase that.”

Carolyn was clear that in her opinion AI is not overhyped. “I think if you ignore these other opportunities with the LLMs and with AI, then you’re doing yourself a disservice. I wouldn’t call this overhyped. I would call this a shifting mindset, a shift in a paradigm.”

Google Is Holding Back As A Strategic Play

I asked Carolyn if she thought that Google could claw back its dominance, and she has an interesting theory centered on how Google’s Department of Justice battles might be influencing its competitive behavior.

Carolyn explained that during the appeals process, Google needs to prove it’s not a monopoly, which creates an incentive structure.

“They need to prove that they don’t hold absolute control over absolutely everything that happens. Which means they’re going to be inclined to allow other people to encroach on their position because that reinforces their point that they’re not a monopoly.”

Think of it like a driver spotting a speed trap; you slow down until you’re out of range, then floor it again. Google is playing the long game.

Carolyn also identified Chrome data as a critical factor, as it’s Google’s biggest competitive advantage. User signals and behavioral data from Chrome give them insights that drive innovation and performance and forcing the search engine to share this data would fundamentally alter the competitive landscape.

“You take the Chrome data away, that’s a different story. And I think that would be taking the gas out of their engine.” Carolyn commented.

AI Mode Is Here To Stay

We moved the conversation on to AI Mode, and I asked what she thought of the Google AI-generated search results.

Carolyn’s opinion is that Google is not going to roll it back, and it’s here to stay. “I think they’re going to take steps to make sure that we all get used to it and that we all start using it the way they want us to use it to get the best results.”

Carolyn acknowledged that AI Mode creates friction for users conditioned to traditional keyword searches.

“I feel weird asking Google questions like I would ask ChatGPT,” she admitted. “I’m conditioned to interface with ChatGPT in one way and I’m conditioned to interface with Google in a different way and my habits just haven’t changed yet.”

Her belief is that adaptation is inevitable. Google’s dominance means it can guide users toward new interaction patterns.

“They’ll just keep giving us bad answers and we’ll keep trying again because that’s what we do until we figure out how to get the answers that we want out of the machine … together we’ll all keep iterating.”

Google has maintained a position at the forefront of industry development for the last 25 years with constant iteration, and it has wanted to be a personal assistant for years. AI is enabling that to happen.

“It would be ridiculous for Google to say, ‘We’re going to not evolve and we’re going to stay the way we’ve been doing things for 20 years while everyone else is doing AI.’” Carolyn commented. “There’s too much investment in the infrastructure. It’s to everyone’s benefit to learn how to operate within this new environment.”

What SEOs Should Focus On Right Now

My final question to Carolyn was to ask what she thought SEOs should focus on right now.

For me, the actual marketing strategy has been long overlooked in SEO, and Carolyn echoed this in her response to say there are a lot of marketing aspects that have been ignored.

Although in her opinion, the main focus should be on the technical aspects of SEO, not just for search engines but also for LLMs. She emphasized ensuring content accessibility at the machine level.

“I think focusing on the technical fundamentals.” Carolyn explained, “Can the machines [LLMs] traverse your site and retrieve the content and is the content retrievable in the way you need it to be retrievable?”

SEOs should be aware that different LLMs access content differently. Carolyn noted that some platforms, like Anthropic, only capture first-view content, missing anything in toggles or tabs.

“Your job is to figure out what is being found and making sure that the things that the message that you need to have conveyed is in that stuff that is being read. If it’s not, if it’s hidden in something, you have to unhide it.

“There are a lot of different things to do to get to that point, which is what constitutes SEO. Making sure that it’s accessible and it’s the message that you want seen, that if you boil it all down, that is your job.”

The Future Belongs To Those Who Adapt & Adopt

Rather than dismissing AI search as hype, Carolyn thinks we’re witnessing a fundamental transformation that requires strategic adaptation. Business models are changing, and success demands understanding how machines access and interpret content.

“If you ignore these opportunities with the LLMs and with AI, then you’re doing yourself a disservice.”

The future belongs to those who understand that 1% of a trillion is a huge market, who ensure their content is truly accessible to every machine that matters, and who can adopt real marketing.

The professionals who embrace AI will define the next era of SEO.

Watch the full video interview with Carolyn Shelby here:

Thank you to Carolyn Shelby for offering her insights and being my guest on IMHO.

More Resources: 


Featured Image: Shelley Walsh

WP Engine Vs Automattic & Mullenweg Is Back In Play via @sejournal, @martinibuster

WP Engine filed a Second Amended Complaint against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg in response to the September 2025 court order that dismissed several counts but gave WP Engine an opportunity to amend and fix issues in its earlier filing. Although Mullenweg blogged last month that the ruling was a “significant milestone,” that’s somewhat of an overstatement because the court had, in fact, dismissed the counts related to antitrust and monopolization with leave to amend, allowing WP Engine to amend and refile its complaint, which it has now done.

WP Engine Versus Automattic Is Far From Over

In last month’s court order, two claims were dismissed outright because of technical issues, not because they lacked merit.

Two Claims That Were Dismissed

  1. Count 4, Attempted Extortion: WP Engine’s lawyers cited a section of the California Penal Code for Attempted Extortion. The Penal Code is criminal law intended for use by prosecutors and cannot serve as the basis for a civil claim.
  2. Count 16, Trademark Misuse, was also dismissed on the technical ground that trademark misuse can only be raised as a defense.

The remaining counts that were dismissed last month were dismissed with leave to amend, meaning WP Engine could correct the identified flaws and refile. WP Engine’s amended complaint shows that Automattic and Matt Mullenweg still have to respond to WP Engine’s claims and that the lawsuit is far from over.

Six Counts Refiled

WP Engine refiled six counts to cure the flaws the judge identified in the September 2025 court order, including its Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim (Count 3).

  1. Count 3: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
  2. Count 12: Attempted Monopolization (Sherman Act)
  3. Count 13: Illegal Tying (Sherman Act)
  4. Count 14: Illegal Tying (Cartwright Act)
  5. Count 15: Lanham Act Unfair Competition
  6. Count 16: Lanham Act False Advertising

Note: In the amended complaint, Count 16 is newly numbered; the previous Count 16 (Trademark Misuse) was dismissed without leave to amend.

How Second Amended Complaint Fixes Issues

The refiled complaint adds further allegations and examples to address the shortcomings identified by the judge in the previous ruling. One major change is the inclusion of clearer market definitions and more detailed allegations of monopoly power.

Clearer Market Definition

The September 2025 order found that WP Engine’s earlier complaint did not adequately define the relevant markets, and the judge gave WP Engine an opportunity to amend. The amended complaint dedicates about 27 pages to defining and describing multiple relevant markets.

WP Engine’s filing now identifies four markets:

  1. Web Content Management Systems (CMS) Market: Encompassing both open-source and proprietary CMS platforms for website creation and management, with alleged monopoly power concentrated in the WordPress ecosystem.
  2. WordPress Web Hosting Services Market: Consisting of hosting providers that specialize in WordPress websites, where Automattic is alleged to influence competition through its control of WordPress.org and trademark enforcement.
  3. WordPress Plugin Distribution Market: Focused on the distribution of plugins through the WordPress.org repository, which WP Engine alleges Automattic controls as an essential and exclusive channel for visibility and access.
  4. WordPress Custom Field Plugin Market: A narrower segment centered on Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) and similar plugins that provide custom field functionality, where WP Engine claims Automattic’s actions directly suppressed competition.

By defining these markets in greater detail over 27 pages, WP Engine addresses the court’s earlier finding that its market definitions were inadequately supported and insufficiently specific.

New Allegations Of Monopoly Power

The September 2025 court order found that WP Engine had not plausibly alleged Automattic’s monopoly power or exclusionary conduct, and allowed WP Engine to amend its complaint.

The amended filing adds detailed assertions intended to show Automattic’s dominance:

  • Automattic allegedly controls access to the official WordPress plugin and theme repositories, which are essential for visibility and functionality within the WordPress ecosystem.
  • Matt Mullenweg’s dual roles as Automattic’s CEO and his control over WordPress.org’s operations are alleged to enable coordinated market exclusion.
  • The complaint cites WordPress’s scale, powering more than 40 percent of global websites, and argues that Automattic exercises significant influence over this ecosystem through its control of WordPress.org and related trademarks.

These new assertions are meant to show that Automattic’s influence over WordPress.org translates into measurable market power, addressing the court’s finding that WP Engine had not yet made that connection.

Expanded Exclusionary Conduct Examples

The court found that WP Engine framed Automattic’s control of WordPress.org and the WordPress trademarks too vaguely to plausibly show exclusionary conduct or resulting antitrust injury.

The amended complaint addresses this by detailing how Automattic and Matt Mullenweg allegedly used threats and actions involving WordPress.org access and distribution to:

  • Block or restrict WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources and community channels.
  • Impose conditions on access to WordPress trademarks and resources through alleged threats and leverage.
  • Pressure plugin developers and partners not to collaborate or integrate with WP Engine’s products.
  • Establish an alleged de facto tying arrangement, linking participation in the WordPress.org ecosystem to compliance with Automattic’s control over governance and distribution.

Together, these examples illustrate how WP Engine is attempting to turn previously vague claims of control into specific allegations of exclusionary conduct.

Abundance Of Evidence

Mullenweg sounded upbeat in his response to the September 2025 ruling:

“Just got word that the court dismissed several of WP Engine and Silver Lake’s most serious claims — antitrust, monopolization, and extortion have been knocked out!”

But WP Engine’s Second Amended Complaint makes it clear that those “serious claims” were dismissed with leave to amend, have since been refiled, and are not yet knocked out.

The amended complaint is 175 pages long, perhaps reflecting the comprehensive scope necessary to address the issues the court identified in the September 2025 order. None of this means WP Engine is winning; it simply means the ball is back in play. That outcome directly contradicts Mullenweg’s earlier claim that the antitrust, monopolization, and extortion counts had been “knocked out.”

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Nithid

The Download: carbon removal factories’ funding cuts, and AI toys

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

The Trump administration may cut funding for two major direct-air capture plants

The US Department of Energy appears poised to terminate funding for a pair of large carbon-sucking factories that were originally set to receive more than $1 billion in government grants, according to a department-issued list of projects obtained by MIT Technology Review and circulating among federal agencies.

One of the projects is the South Texas Direct Air Capture Hub, a facility that Occidental Petroleum’s 1PointFive subsidiary planned to develop in Kleberg County, Texas. The other is Project Cypress in Louisiana, a collaboration between Battelle, Climeworks, and Heirloom. Read the full story.

—James Temple

AI toys are all the rage in China—and now they’re appearing on shelves in the US too

Kids have always played with and talked to stuffed animals. But now their toys can talk back, thanks to a wave of companies that are fitting children’s playthings with chatbots and voice assistants.
 
It’s a trend that has particularly taken off in China: A recent report by the Shenzhen Toy Industry Association and JD.com predicts that the sector will surpass ¥100 billion ($14 billion) by 2030, growing faster than almost any other branch of consumer AI. But Chinese AI toy companies have their sights set beyond the nation’s borders. Read the full story.

—Caiwei Chen

2025 climate tech companies to watch: Pairwise and its climate-adapted crops

Climate change will make it increasingly difficult to grow crops across many parts of the world. Startup Pairwise is using CRISPR gene editing to develop plants that can better withstand adverse conditions.

The company uses cutting-edge gene editing to produce crops that can withstand increasingly harsh climate conditions, helping to feed a growing population even as the world warms. Last year, it delivered its first food to the US market: a less-bitter–tasting mustard green. It’s now working to produce crops with climate-resilient traits, through partnerships with two of the world’s largest plant biotech companies. Read the full story.

—James Temple

Pairwise is one of our 10 climate tech companies to watch—our annual list of some of the most promising climate tech firms on the planet. Check out the rest of the list here.

MIT Technology Review Narrated: How to measure the returns on R&D spending

Given the draconian cuts to US federal funding for science, it’s worth asking some hard-nosed money questions: How much should we be spending on R&D? How much value do we get out of such investments, anyway?

To answer that, in several recent papers, economists have approached this issue in clever new ways.  And, though they ask slightly different questions, their conclusions share a bottom line: R&D is, in fact, one of the better long-term investments that the government can make.

This is our latest story to be turned into a MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we’re publishing each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 How OpenAI and Nvidia are fueling the AI bubble 
Experts fear their circular deals could be artificially inflating the market. (Bloomberg $)
+ OpenAI will pay for AMD’s chips using, err, AMD’s own stock. (TechCrunch)
+ The Bank of England is concerned about AI inflating tech stocks. (FT $)
+ What comes next, that’s the big question. (NBC News)

2 Around 15% of the world’s working population is using AI
And countries in Europe are among the most enthusiastic adopters. (FT $)
+ The EU is keen to get even more of its citizens using it, too. (WSJ $)
+ Meanwhile, America’s public opinion towards AI is souring. (WP $)

3 Three quantum mechanics scientists have won the Nobel Prize for Physics
Two of whom were instrumental in building Google’s working quantum machines. (Bloomberg $)
+ Their work shone a light on behaviors of the subatomic realm. (NYT $)
+ Quantum particles behave in notoriously strange ways. (New Scientist $)

4 The CDC has finally signed off on covid vaccine recommendations
Despite the delay, access looks largely similar to last years’. (Ars Technica)
+ The Supreme Court isn’t sold on medical expertise these days. (Vox)

5 What makes TikTok so ‘sticky’ 
Even its hardcore users can be persuaded to keep scrolling for hours. (WP $)

6 ICE bought fake cell towers to spy on nearby phones
It’s used cell-site simulators in the past to track down alleged criminals. (TechCrunch)
+ Meet the volunteers tracking ICE officers in LA. (New Yorker $)

7 Watermark removers for Sora 2 videos are already readily available
No permission? No problem. (404 Media)
+ What about copyright for AI-generated art? (The Information $)
+ And what comes next for AI copyright lawsuits? (MIT Technology Review)

8 How diamonds can help to cool down chips
They’re remarkably good at transferring heat. (NYT $)

9 Amazon Pharmacy is launching electronic prescription kiosks
For drugs including antibiotics, asthma inhalers and treatments for high blood pressure. (Reuters)

10 Should you limit your smartphone use to two hours a day?
Japan thinks so. (The Guardian)
+ How to log off. (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“OpenAI is building the future of AI on infrastructure it doesn’t own, power it doesn’t control, and capital it doesn’t have.”

—Andrey Sidorenko, head of research at data firm Mostly AI, critiques what he calls the consolidation of the AI ecosystem in a post on LinkedIn.

One more thing

How AI can help make cities work better

In recent decades, cities have become increasingly adept at amassing all sorts of data. But that data can have limited impact when government officials are unable to communicate, let alone analyze or put to use, all the information they have access to.

This dynamic has always bothered Sarah Williams, a professor of urban planning and technology at MIT. Shortly after joining MIT in 2012, Williams created the Civic Data Design Lab to bridge that divide. Over the years, she and her colleagues have made urban planning data more vivid and accessible through human stories and striking graphics. Read the full story.

—Ben Schneider

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ Life lessons from the one and only Ozzy Osbourne—what’s not to like?
+ Did you know that most countries have their own camouflage? Check the patterns out here.
+ These hamsters getting an MRI scan is the cutest thing you’ll see today.
+ Pumpkin chili sounds like a fantastic way to warm up.

You’re Writing a Book. Now What?

Having decided to add “author” to your résumé, your first task is setting the book up for success. Knowing the subject, audience, and goal is only the starting point. Consider how you’ll prioritize time, quality, speed, and budget. Assess your strengths and skills, and where you might need help.

Then envision the next steps.

This article is the second of my two-part series on publishing a book to benefit your company. Part one, “Can Writing a Book Grow Your Business?,” appeared last month.

Publishing Paths

The three main publishing paths are do-it-yourself, traditional, and hybrid. Each has pros and cons.

  • Self-publishing. If speed is important and budget is tight, DIY publishing in digital formats is the clear choice. Moreover, selling direct means you’ll know the buyers, which is unlikely through a publisher, distributor, or third-party website.
  • Traditional. If the goal is significant print sales, you’ll need an agent and a traditional publisher, though smaller publishers and university presses may accept un-agented book proposals.
  • Hybrid. Generally, with a hybrid publisher, the author pays some or all of the publishing expenses upfront (e.g., editorial, design, marketing) and, in turn, receives a larger share of book sales than with a standard royalty.

It’s unlikely your efforts alone — as a side hustle while running a business — will result in the best possible outcome, regardless of your expertise or writing skills. Casual writers such as your nephew the English major can help in the early stages. But like doctors, plumbers, mechanics, web designers, and digital marketers, editorial pros have much to offer.

Yes, AI tools are terrific aids for research, refining ideas, and organizing notes, but they lack the context, nuance, and judgment of experienced and connected humans.

Roles

Luckily, there are plenty of expert humans! Here are typical book development roles:

  • Researchers and fact-checkers can find information such as case studies, historical trends, and economic data, as well as verify references and quotations.
  • Writing coaches and groups can encourage and motivate, and provide useful, ongoing feedback.
  • Ghostwriters take on most of the composition, working closely to capture your voice, hone ideas, and organize the presentation. Partnering with a public co-author is another way to share the heavy lifting (and profits, if any).
  • Developmental editors and coaches help shape a book’s structure and flow, refine repetitive or unclear sections, and build on your strengths as a writer.
  • Copy editors and proofreaders check for errors and suggest corrections. A good copy editor will detect repetition or confusion and recommend alternatives, as well as fix grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Proofreaders focus on remaining errors as the final step before printing.

You as the author have final say with all editorial professionals over the manuscript. You are ultimately responsible for the book’s content. You may not require a team of cover designers, illustrators, indexers, agents, publishers, publicists, and audiobook narrators, but one or more will almost certainly improve the finished product.

Freelance marketplaces such as Upwork and Reedsy include editorial experts, as do professional membership organizations. The Chartered Institute of Editors and Proofreaders, the Association of Ghostwriters, ACES, the Editorial Freelancers Association, and Editors Canada have directories searchable by service, skills, location, experience, subject, and more. The sites also provide how-to on assessing needs and qualifications. The EFA (I’m a member) offers tips on hiring an editor, as well as descriptions and costs of the various editorial services.

Other helpful resources include publishing veteran Jane Friedman, the Alliance of Independent Authors, and the Authors Guild. Writer Beware alerts authors to potential scams.

Microsoft Explains How To Optimize Content For AI Search Visibility via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Microsoft has shared guidance on structuring content to increase its likelihood of being selected for AI-generated answers across Bing-powered surfaces.

Much of the advice reiterates established SEO and UX practices such as clear titles and headings, structured layout, and appropriate schema.

The new emphasis is on how content is selected for answers. Microsoft stresses there is “no secret sauce” that guarantees selection, but says structure, clarity, and “snippability” improve eligibility.

As Microsoft puts it:

“In traditional search, visibility meant appearing in a ranked list of links. In AI search, ranking still happens, but it’s less about ordering entire pages and more about which pieces of content earn a place in the final answer.”

Key Differences In AI Search

AI assistants break down pages into manageable parts, carefully assessing each for authority and relevance, then craft responses by blending information from multiple sources.

Microsoft says fundamentals such as crawlability, metadata, internal links, and backlinks still matter, but they are the starting point. Selection increasingly depends on how well-structured and clear each section is.

Best Practices Microsoft Recommends

To help improve the chances of AI selecting your content, Microsoft recommends these best practices:

  • Align the title, meta description, and H1 to clearly communicate the page purpose.
  • Use descriptive H2/H3 headings that each cover one idea per section.
  • Write self-contained Q&A blocks and concise paragraphs that can be quoted on their own.
  • Use short lists, steps, and comparison tables when they improve clarity (without overusing them).
  • Add JSON-LD schema that matches the page type.

What To Avoid

Microsoft recommends avoiding these practices to improve the chances of your content appearing in AI search results:

  • Writing long walls of text that blur ideas together.
  • Hiding key content in tabs, accordions, or other elements that may not render.
  • Relying on PDFs for core information.
  • Putting important information only in images without alt text or HTML alternatives.
  • Making vague claims without providing specific details.
  • Overusing decorative symbols or long punctuation strings; keep punctuation simple.

Why This Matters

The key takeaway is that structure helps selection. When your titles, headings, and schema are aligned, Copilot and other Bing-powered tools can extract a complete idea from your page.

This connects traditional SEO principles to how AI assistants generate responses. For marketers, it’s more of an operational checklist than a new strategy.

Looking Ahead

Microsoft acknowledges there’s no guaranteed way to ensure inclusion in AI responses, but suggests that these practices can make content more accessible for its AI systems.


Featured Image: gguy/Shutterstock

Google AdSense Replaces Ad Networks With Authorized Buyers via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google is updating its demand source management by replacing the Ad Networks blocking control with a new Authorized Buyers control in AdSense.

This change affects how you control which demand sources can bid on your inventory. The transition begins on November 6. Existing blocks will remain in place, and new authorized buyers will be enabled by default.

What’s Changing

Google is discontinuing the Ad Networks blocking control within Brand Safety and introducing a new Authorized Buyers control.

As part of this update, the “Automatically allow new Google-certified ad networks” option is being eliminated. Instead, new authorized buyers will be permitted by default.

The Authorized Buyers list excludes inactive ad networks, test ad networks, and Display & Video 360 (DV360) networks.

Google states that the new page allows you to permit or block authorized buyers and offers improved visibility into parent–child relationships among buyers. However, DV360 accounts are not managed within the new control.

Timeline & Transition

Before launching, you can preview the view-only Authorized Buyers page in AdSense by navigating to Brand Safety → Content → Blocking controls → Authorized Buyers.

These controls will be active after November 6. Any modifications made to Ad Networks prior to launch will be saved and reflected in the Authorized Buyers section.

Once the change is live, control access by navigating to Brand Safety → Content → Blocking controls → Authorized Buyers. Here, you can permit or restrict specific authorized buyers and utilize search or filters to locate particular entries.

Google’s detailed “Allow and block authorized buyers” guide illustrates this process.

Ad Review Center & DV360

You’ll no longer be managing authorized buyers through the Ad Review Center. You can still allow or block Google ad accounts in the Advertiser section, including DV360 accounts, which stay outside the new Authorized Buyers system.

Looking Ahead

This update changes the default setting to permit new buyers, so tighter configurations might need a regular process to review and prevent unwanted buyers.

Preview the interface now to familiarize your team with control locations, then schedule a post-launch review to verify your existing blocks and any new entries. Maintain DV360 workflows in the Ad Review Center, and utilize the parent–child view to see how related buyers influence bidding and revenue.

The 5 Hidden Organizational Forces That Undermine Enterprise SEO via @sejournal, @billhunt

If you’ve read “From Line Item to Leverage” or “Who Owns Web Performance?,” you know I’ve argued that enterprise SEO failures are rarely due to incompetence or lack of effort. The playbook is known. The teams are capable. The opportunity is massive. Yet results often stall or underdeliver.

Why?

Because the real problem isn’t only technical, it’s organizational. The website might be modern, the content fresh, and the SEO team skilled. But underneath the surface, hidden forces are quietly undermining performance: political turf wars, outdated workflows, key performance indicator (KPI) misalignment, and siloed ownership.

These aren’t bugs in the system. They’re features of how many organizations operate. Until we confront them, no amount of tactical SEO or any of the current alphabet soup of AI optimization schemes will produce strategic outcomes.

​​Across hundreds of enterprise search performance audits, I have found these five forces are the biggest blockers of SEO progress, not crawl errors or content gaps.

Force 1: Structural Silos And The Fallacy Of Distributed Ownership

Many enterprises have convinced themselves that “distributed ownership” is modern and empowering. But when everyone owns the website, no one is accountable for outcomes. Product owns UX. Brand owns messaging. IT owns the CMS. SEO owns … what exactly?

The result is fragmented decision-making and reactive prioritization. Optimization becomes an endless round of ticket submission and compromise. Big problems fall through the cracks because no single person is tasked with connecting the dots.

In “Who Owns Web Performance?,” I broke down the dangers of this model – and the alternative: centralized digital accountability with clear authority to align stakeholders and drive performance.

Force 2: Incentive Misalignment And The KPI Trap

Most enterprise teams aren’t incentivized to care about organic search performance. Developers are measured on delivery speed. Content teams are judged on brand tone. Paid media is chasing return on ad spend (ROAS).

This is the classic KPI trap: When each team optimizes for its success metrics, no one is accountable for shared business outcomes. The result? Collaboration stalls, priorities diverge, and high-impact opportunities like SEO fall through the cracks, not because teams aren’t trying, but because the system pulls them in different directions.

This creates massive opportunity costs. Even when teams want to collaborate, their KPIs pull them in different directions. Without shared goals and visibility, SEO becomes a bottleneck rather than a multiplier.

Force 3: Political Gatekeeping And Departmental Turf Wars

Let’s say the SEO team identifies a technical issue that’s hurting crawlability. They submit a ticket. Nothing happens. Why?

Because the dev team has a different backlog and a different boss.

SEO often finds itself in the middle, lacking the priority, budget, or political capital to push changes through. Decisions are filtered through layers of management that prioritize their own fiefdoms over collective outcomes.

This isn’t personal. It’s structural. But it kills velocity.

We need executive air cover. Someone who sees digital performance as a cross-functional mandate that directly impacts the bottom line, and not a side hustle for marketing.

Force 4: Change Aversion Masquerading As Process

How often have you heard this: “That’s not how we do things?”

It sounds like a process, but it’s really fear. Fear of change, fear of accountability, fear of being wrong.

Enterprise inertia is real. Established brands often cling to workflows that were optimized for a different era – print, events, old-school PR. SEO’s iterative, fast-moving nature clashes with these cycles. That friction slows everything down.

If your content takes six weeks to publish and two months to update a template, you’re not playing the same game as Google.

Force 5: The Devaluation Of Web As A Strategic Channel

Too many executive teams still view the website as a marketing brochure. Something the CMO owns and the IT team maintains.

But as argued in “Closing the Digital Performance Gap,” the website is now a strategic revenue engine, support channel, and trust platform. It’s the digital front door and the only channel you fully control.

When leadership doesn’t treat it that way, performance suffers. Investments are piecemeal. Priorities are reactive. And talent leaves because they’re stuck defending the basics.

Case In Point: When All 5 Forces Collide

At Hreflang Builder, I worked with a large CPG company that had identified a $25 million monthly cross-market cannibalization problem across more than a dozen brands. The culprit? Poor implementation of hreflang elements. Due to different content management systems and web structures, hreflang XML sitemaps were the only option for them.

They had tried to solve the cannibalization problem, but the organization’s decentralized structure made it nearly impossible. Regional development teams, a patchwork of digital agencies, and siloed market ownership meant no one had end-to-end control.

The internal process was a nightmare: 60+ days to make a simple XML sitemap change, with hreflang page alternates maintained manually in Excel files. One-third of the URLs were invalid. Markets weren’t notified of new pages. Updates require submitting support tickets to an already backlogged IT queue.

Let’s connect the dots:

  • Silos (Force 1): Each region wanted its own solution, even though this was a global requirement. No one entity owned the problem.
  • KPI Misalignment (Force 2): Despite measurable cannibalization, SEO fixes weren’t prioritized because they didn’t map to short-term KPIs.
  • Political Turf Wars (Force 3): IT didn’t want to license an external solution nor take responsibility for building an internal solution. The global SEO team wanted a commercial solution. Local teams demanded local control or their agency to manage it.
  • Change Aversion (Force 4): Those managing the manual spreadsheet process resisted change. “It works well enough,” they argued, despite overwhelming evidence that it didn’t.
  • Web Devaluation (Force 5): Even with $25 million in monthly loss, there was no executive mandate or budget to solve it. Management views this as a Google issue, not a business problem.

Everyone acknowledged the cannibalization. Everyone intuitively knew the external solution was cheaper than the losses. But no one wanted to cede control to a centralized fix. This is what happens when no one owns the whole picture.

Why This Matters: These Forces Compound

Each of these forces is dangerous on its own. But together, they form a silent killer of enterprise SEO:

  • The SEO team lacks authority.
  • Other teams lack incentive.
  • Decisions are slow and political.
  • Execution is trapped in a legacy process.
  • And the web isn’t treated as strategic.

In the era of AI-powered search, these organizational flaws are no longer just speed bumps; they’re structural liabilities. AI Overviews and generative engines reward sites that are fast to update, intensely structured, and unified in message. When SEO is hindered by bureaucratic lag, misaligned priorities, or outdated processes, you not only lose rankings but also become invisible in the results entirely.

Web effectiveness now demands real-time coordination across content, data, tech, and performance. That’s not possible when decisions are stuck in silos and SEO is treated as a reactive service ticket.

And here’s the shift no one’s talking about: SEO’s value isn’t just in rankings, it’s in data structure, discoverability, and serving the buyer’s journey. Generative search surfaces answers. If your content isn’t connected, structured, and licensed, or can’t answer fundamental questions, it will be skipped.

Even internal site search, untouched by AI results, is often neglected. We’ve helped clients unlock millions in value by optimizing internal search data, which is frequently the clearest signal of what users want but can’t find.

In this new world, treating SEO as a patchwork of technical fixes is organizational malpractice. It’s time to treat it like the infrastructure for digital visibility it truly is.

A Better Path Forward

Fixing this doesn’t require heroics. It requires leadership.

Executives must:

  • Designate accountable ownership of web performance.
  • Align KPIs across content, dev, and marketing teams.
  • Fund SEO as infrastructure, not just a channel.
  • Remove structural bottlenecks and reframe SEO as a strategy.
  • Govern with outcomes, not outputs.

This is a mindset shift as well as an organizational shift.  Organizations need to move from just optimizing pages to redesigning the organizational systems that enable performance.

Because the real search problem isn’t the algorithm, it’s the org chart.

And that’s fixable.

More Resources:


Featured Image: Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

How To Build SEO Strategies Around Real Customer Behavior via @sejournal, @AdamHeitzman

What if your SEO strategy could predict what customers want before they even search?

The shift from keyword-centric to behavior-driven SEO is important. When you understand why people search, not just what they search for, your content naturally becomes more relevant and your performance more sustainable.

Google processes over 5 trillion searches annually, and many of those queries are completely new. This means traditional keyword research tools miss a massive chunk of actual search behavior. Your customers use language that feels natural to them, not how marketers think they should search.

Here’s how to tap into real customer behavior to build an SEO strategy that actually converts.

Why Customer Behavior Trumps Keyword Volume

Your customers aren’t randomly clicking through Google results; they’re following predictable patterns based on intent, device, and context. Understanding these behaviors is the difference between traffic that bounces and traffic that converts.

Consider this scenario: Two people search for [project management software]. Person A searches at 9 A.M. on desktop, spends 8 minutes reading comparison articles, then bookmarks three vendor pages. Person B searches at 6 P.M. on mobile, skims for 30 seconds, then closes the tab.

Same keyword, completely different intent and behavior. Person A is researching for their team; Person B probably got distracted during a meeting and needs a quick answer.

When you analyze “project management software” in the SERPs today, Google reveals three distinct user intents:

Screenshot by author, August 2025
  • Comparison seekers want comprehensive feature-by-feature analysis of multiple tools.
  • Budget-conscious users specifically need free options and pricing information.
  • Tool researchers are investigating specific platforms like Trello or Microsoft Project.

This split intent validates creating separate content pieces rather than trying to serve everyone with one page. You might develop:

  • “15 Best Project Management Software Tools Compared (2025)”
  • “Free Project Management Software: 8 Tools That Don’t Cost a Dime”
  • Individual tool reviews like “Trello Review: Features, Pricing & Best Use Cases”

Each piece targets the same root keyword but serves a specific behavioral intent that Google is already rewarding with page one rankings.

The Psychology Behind Search Patterns

Search behavior follows cognitive patterns that smart marketers can leverage. Anchoring bias means the first piece of information users see heavily influences their decisions. If your search snippet promises “complete guide,” but your page starts with a sales pitch, you’ve broken their mental model.

Social proof bias drives local search behavior especially hard. When someone searches [best pizza near me], they’re not just looking for pizza; they’re probably also looking for validation that others think it’s good, too. Your content should acknowledge this psychological need.

Screenshot from search for [best pizza near me], Google, August 2025

Understanding these patterns helps you create content that feels intuitive rather than forced.

How To Collect Customer Behavior Data That Actually Matters

The best behavior insights come from combining quantitative data with qualitative feedback. Here’s a systematic approach:

Start With Your Existing Analytics

Google Analytics 4 Path Exploration shows how users navigate your site. Look for patterns like:

  • Which blog posts lead to product page visits.
  • Where users drop off in your conversion funnel.
  • What content keeps visitors engaged the longest.
Screenshot from support.google.com, August 2025

Google Search Console can reveal the gap between what you optimize for and what people actually search. Export your query data monthly and look for:

  • Long-tail variations of your target keywords.
  • Questions you haven’t answered yet.
  • Seasonal shifts in search language.

Pro tip: Sort queries by impressions, not clicks. High-impression, low-click queries (aside from highlighting a dominance of SERP features, or AI Overview summaries) often reveal content gaps where you’re visible but not compelling.

Add Heat Mapping And Session Recording

Tools like Hotjar or Microsoft Clarity (free) show you where users actually click, scroll, and abandon pages.

I once worked with an ecommerce client whose heatmaps revealed users repeatedly clicking on product images that weren’t linked to detail pages. We added those links and saw a 23% increase in product page visits within two weeks.

Mine Your Customer Service Data

Your support team handles the questions your website doesn’t answer. Export tickets from the past quarter and categorize them by topic. Common support questions often represent high-value, low-competition search opportunities.

If you’re getting 20 tickets per month about “how to integrate with Slack,” that’s content your competitors probably aren’t creating yet.

Listen To Social Conversations

Monitor industry hashtags, Reddit threads, and LinkedIn discussions in your space. Social media language is usually more casual and authentic than what people type into search; it’s where people complain about real problems using the exact words they’ll later search for solutions.

Reddit is particularly valuable because users share unfiltered frustrations and solution requests. Tools like GummySearch help you cut through Reddit’s noise by surfacing curated content themes like “Pain & Anger” and “Solution Requests” within your target audience communities.

Instead of manually scrolling through thousands of posts, you get direct access to the exact language your customers use when they’re frustrated.

Screenshot from GummySearch by author, August 2025

These authentic conversations reveal content opportunities that traditional keyword research misses.

When someone posts “I can’t believe there’s still no simple way to sync data between these platforms,” that frustration will likely become search queries like “easy data sync tools” or “simple platform integration” within weeks.

Translating Insights Into SEO Opportunities

Raw data means nothing until you turn it into actionable content strategies. Here’s how to connect behavior patterns to search opportunities:

Map Content To Customer Journey Stages

Your behavior data reveals different intent patterns that map to specific journey stages:

Awareness Stage Consideration Stage Decision Stage
Broad, educational searches Comparison and evaluation searches Specific product/vendor searches
“Why do small businesses need CRM software?” “HubSpot vs. Salesforce for small teams” “HubSpot pricing plans 2025”
Focus on educational content with minimal promotional elements Create detailed comparisons with pros/cons Optimize for conversion with clear CTAs
Internal links should guide toward mid-funnel content Include pricing, features, and use case scenarios Address common objections directly

Identify Content Gaps Through Competitor Analysis

Use Ahrefs or Semrush to analyze competitor content, then cross-reference with your customer behavior data. Look for topics where:

  • Competitors rank well, but their content doesn’t match user intent.
  • You have unique customer insights they’re missing.
  • Your support data reveals questions they don’t address.

For example, if competitor articles about “email marketing automation” focus on features but your customer interviews reveal people struggle with setup, create implementation-focused content instead.

Optimize For Behavior-Based Keywords

Traditional keyword research starts with seed terms and expands outward. Behavior-driven research starts with customer language and searches for gaps.

  • Instead of: “Best email marketing software”
  • Try: “Easy email marketing setup for non-technical founders”

The second phrase has lower search volume but higher intent alignment. Someone searching for [easy setup] has different needs than someone searching for [best software].

Create Dynamic Content Formats

Your analytics reveal format preferences by device, time, and topic:

  • Mobile users during commute hours: Scannable lists and quick tips.
  • Desktop users during work hours: Detailed guides and tutorials.
  • Weekend browsers: Visual content and case studies.

Don’t create one piece of content and hope it works everywhere. Adapt format to behavior patterns.

Measuring What Actually Moves The Needle

Behavior-driven SEO requires different success metrics than traditional approaches. Rankings matter less than engagement and conversion alignment.

Track Engagement Quality, Not Just Quantity

Traditional SEO celebrates traffic volume, but behavior-driven strategies focus on how well that traffic matches customer intent.

Average session duration becomes a strong indicator of content relevance. When someone spends 8 minutes reading your guide instead of bouncing in 30 seconds, you’ve aligned content with search intent. The key is tracking improvements over time rather than hitting arbitrary benchmarks.

Bounce rate tells a different story when you segment by traffic source. A high bounce rate might be terrible for targeted organic traffic, but completely normal for broad brand searches.

Compare your targeted organic bounce rate against your own baseline rather than industry averages. If you’re seeing consistent improvement month over month, your content is becoming more aligned with user expectations.

Pages per session reveals engagement depth and site navigation effectiveness. Users who visit multiple pages during a session are actively exploring your content ecosystem, suggesting strong topical authority and effective internal linking strategy.

Goal completion rates vary dramatically by industry and funnel complexity, so focus on your own conversion trends rather than external benchmarks. A B2B software company’s “good” conversion rate looks completely different from an ecommerce site’s performance.

Monitor Search Query Evolution

Your target keywords evolve as customer language changes, industry trends shift, and new problems emerge. Set up monthly Search Console exports to track these patterns systematically. New long-tail variations often appear before keyword tools catch them.

Seasonal language shifts reveal opportunities that competitors miss. B2B software searches change dramatically between the Q4 budget planning season and the Q1 implementation periods. Ecommerce terms shift from “best products” in research phases to “deals” and “discounts” during purchase windows.

Pay attention to emerging competitor terms appearing in your query data. When people start searching for “[competitor name] alternative” or “[your product] vs. [new competitor],” you’re seeing market shifts in real-time.

A/B Test Based On Behavior Insights

Your behavior data generates testing hypotheses that go far beyond traditional “red vs. blue button” experiments. Test different content depths for mobile and desktop users; mobile visitors often prefer scannable summaries, while desktop users engage with comprehensive guides. Experiment with heading structures based on user scanning patterns revealed in your heatmap data.

I recently helped a SaaS client test two versions of their pricing page. Version A used traditional feature comparisons organized by product tier. Version B addressed specific use cases revealed through customer interviews, such as scenarios like “growing startup needs better lead tracking” and “enterprise team wants advanced reporting.”

Version B increased conversions by 34% because it matched how customers actually think about solutions rather than how the product team organized features.

Set Up Feedback Loops

Customer behavior evolves constantly, so your measurement strategy needs systematic review cycles.

Create a monthly rhythm where Week 1 focuses on analyzing Search Console and Analytics data for new patterns. Week 2 involves reviewing customer service tickets and social media mentions for emerging language trends. Week 3 is for testing new content approaches based on fresh insights, while Week 4 handles planning next month’s content calendar around discovered opportunities.

This cycle keeps you responsive to behavior changes rather than reactive to ranking drops. Economic shifts, social trends, and industry developments all impact search patterns faster than traditional SEO tools can track them.

The Bottom Line

Behavior-driven SEO isn’t about abandoning keywords; it’s about understanding the humans behind every search query. When you align your content strategy with actual customer actions and intentions, engagement improves naturally and conversions follow.

Start by really listening to your customers through data, support interactions, and direct feedback. Your most successful content will come from solving real problems using language your audience actually uses.

Your customers are already telling you what they want; you just need to pay attention.

More Resources:


Featured Image: tadamichi/Shutterstock

How AI is Helping Brands Convert More Customers [Webinar] via @sejournal, @hethr_campbell

Turn insights into smarter conversions and higher ROI.

AI is changing how customers convert. Are your landing pages and CRO strategies keeping up? 

Each missed lead is lost revenue. 

Relying on traditional tactics is no longer enough.

Join Laura Beussman, CMO of CallRail, and Ryan Johnson, CPO of CallRail, for a live webinar where you’ll learn how top marketing leaders are using AI to prioritize leads, optimize funnels, and drive measurable growth.

What You’ll Learn

  • How to automatically prioritize and convert your best leads.
  • How to spot funnel drop-off points that are costing revenue.
  • CRO tactics to make your marketing funnel work smarter, not harder.
  • How to identify the exact messaging that boosts conversions and ROI.

Why Attend

This webinar will give you the tools to capture more leads, surface actionable insights from interactions, remove friction slowing conversions, and automate your CRO playbook for ongoing growth.

Register now to gain actionable strategies for faster, smarter conversions with AI.

🛑 Can’t attend live? Register anyway, and we’ll send you the full recording.

The three big unanswered questions about Sora

Last week OpenAI released Sora, a TikTok-style app that presents an endless feed of exclusively AI-generated videos, each up to 10 seconds long. The app allows you to create a “cameo” of yourself—a hyperrealistic avatar that mimics your appearance and voice—and insert other peoples’ cameos into your own videos (depending on what permissions they set). 

To some people who believed earnestly in OpenAI’s promise to build AI that benefits all of humanity, the app is a punchline. A former OpenAI researcher who left to build an AI-for-science startup referred to Sora as an “infinite AI tiktok slop machine.” 

That hasn’t stopped it from soaring to the top spot on Apple’s US App Store. After I downloaded the app, I quickly learned what types of videos are, at least currently, performing well: bodycam-style footage of police pulling over pets or various trademarked characters, including SpongeBob and Scooby Doo; deepfake memes of Martin Luther King Jr. talking about Xbox; and endless variations of Jesus Christ navigating our modern world. 

Just as quickly, I had a bunch of questions about what’s coming next for Sora. Here’s what I’ve learned so far.

Can it last?

OpenAI is betting that a sizable number of people will want to spend time on an app in which you can suspend your concerns about whether what you’re looking at is fake and indulge in a stream of raw AI. One reviewer put it this way: “It’s comforting because you know that everything you’re scrolling through isn’t real, where other platforms you sometimes have to guess if it’s real or fake. Here, there is no guessing, it’s all AI, all the time.”

This may sound like hell to some. But judging by Sora’s popularity, lots of people want it. 

So what’s drawing these people in? There are two explanations. One is that Sora is a flash-in-the-pan gimmick, with people lining up to gawk at what cutting-edge AI can create now (in my experience, this is interesting for about five minutes). The second, which OpenAI is betting on, is that we’re witnessing a genuine shift in what type of content can draw eyeballs, and that users will stay with Sora because it allows a level of fantastical creativity not possible in any other app. 

There are a few decisions down the pike that may shape how many people stick around: how OpenAI decides to implement ads, what limits it sets for copyrighted content (see below), and what algorithms it cooks up to decide who sees what. 

Can OpenAI afford it?

OpenAI is not profitable, but that’s not particularly strange given how Silicon Valley operates. What is peculiar, though, is that the company is investing in a platform for generating video, which is the most energy-intensive (and therefore expensive) form of AI we have. The energy it takes dwarfs the amount required to create images or answer text questions via ChatGPT.

This isn’t news to OpenAI, which has joined a half-trillion-dollar project to build data centers and new power plants. But Sora—which currently allows you to generate AI videos, for free, without limits—raises the stakes: How much will it cost the company? 

OpenAI is making moves toward monetizing things (you can now buy products directly through ChatGPT, for example). On October 3, its CEO, Sam Altman, wrote in a blog post that “we are going to have to somehow make money for video generation,” but he didn’t get into specifics. One can imagine personalized ads and more in-app purchases. 

Still, it’s concerning to imagine the mountain of emissions might result if Sora becomes popular. Altman has accurately described the emissions burden of one query to ChatGPT as impossibly small. What he has not quantified is what that figure is for a 10-second video generated by Sora. It’s only a matter of time until AI and climate researchers start demanding it. 

How many lawsuits are coming? 

Sora is awash in copyrighted and trademarked characters. It allows you to easily deepfake deceased celebrities. Its videos use copyrighted music. 

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that OpenAI has sent letters to copyright holders notifying them that they’ll have to opt out of the Sora platform if they don’t want their material included, which is not how these things usually work. The law on how AI companies should handle copyrighted material is far from settled, and it’d be reasonable to expect lawsuits challenging this. 

In last week’s blog post, Altman wrote that OpenAI is “hearing from a lot of rightsholders” who want more control over how their characters are used in Sora. He says that the company plans to give those parties more “granular control” over their characters. Still, “there may be some edge cases of generations that get through that shouldn’t,” he wrote.

But another issue is the ease with which you can use the cameos of real people. People can restrict who can use their cameo, but what limits will there be for what these cameos can be made to do in Sora videos? 

This is apparently already an issue OpenAI is being forced to respond to. The head of Sora, Bill Peebles, posted on October 5 that users can now restrict how their cameo can be used—preventing it from appearing in political videos or saying certain words, for example. How well will this work? Is it only a matter of time until someone’s cameo is used for something nefarious, explicit, illegal, or at least creepy, sparking a lawsuit alleging that OpenAI is responsible? 

Overall, we haven’t seen what full-scale Sora looks like yet (OpenAI is still doling out access to the app via invite codes). When we do, I think it will serve as a grim test: Can AI create videos so fine-tuned for endless engagement that they’ll outcompete “real” videos for our attention? In the end, Sora isn’t just testing OpenAI’s technology—it’s testing us, and how much of our reality we’re willing to trade for an infinite scroll of simulation.