How Agencies are Evolving with the AI Search Era
In short: AI Search and how to build your team for it. Three agency leaders from SEO, PR and digital backgrounds agree it works only when SEO, content and earned media pull together. When it comes to hiring for it, the skill they rank highest isn’t technical at all. It’s the ability to explain a channel that changes every six months to clients who are still learning it.
About the panel
Most teams have handed it to SEO, and the panel broadly thinks that’s right. At Idea Grove, the SEO team sets AI strategy and guides PR and content on execution. Kaylee Peterson describes it as “our AI seat at this point.”
Ownership isn’t the same as doing it alone, though. Alex Payne of Golin Ketchum frames AI as a second audience that learns from everything a brand does online. That means one Reddit question might become an FAQ on the site, a social post and an earned pitch all at once. His model is an integrated strategy lead coordinating across teams, rather than a single team carrying it.
“It has to be everyone working together.” Alex Payne
Budgets for AI search are now real line items. The problem is what they’re attached to. Kaylee regularly has PR-only clients asking to buy an AI service, and her answer is consistent: tracking and reporting are possible, but strategy and tactics need SEO and content resource behind them.
“I can’t just throw AI on.” Kaylee Peterson
Danny Gavin of Optidge faces the mirror image. His agency has traditionally covered technical and content SEO but not outreach and link building. In verticals where citations drive AI answers, he now questions whether covering two out of three is enough. The panel’s shared conclusion is that AI search exposes whichever discipline your team is missing.
The panel described a clear progression:
At the most mature end, Alex’s team plays a “marketing engineering” role, connecting data from GEO providers into the client’s own systems.
Two cautions came up. Clients still anchored to top-ten Google rankings need to unlearn old KPIs. And clients who rush into new channels after an audit, Reddit being the usual example, risk backlash from communities that spot attempts to influence search.
Not technical skill. Kaylee’s first screen for any SEO hire is whether she could talk to them for forty hours a week and put them in front of a client. In a channel this new, most of the job is education, and “you almost have to sell what you’re doing while you’re doing it.”
Danny takes it further. If AI handles more of the technical work, the time it frees up should go into talking to clients, and the soft skills become the job. Alex adds curiosity and adaptability, since AI search is nowhere near “set it and forget it.” Kaylee adds inference: hearing “we want traffic” and asking whether the client really means traffic that converts.
The panel leaned firmly toward growing talent. Danny recently promoted someone into his head of SEO role and called it “the best thing ever.” His longest-serving people all started at the bottom.
Alex warns that the mid-level tier is narrowing, “especially with the promise of AI.” That makes a junior pipeline more important, not less. Kaylee’s advice is to keep that early energy by building roles around what people care about, even before the role formally exists.
The panel’s checklist:
Before hiring at all, the panel’s advice is to find your gap first (44:50). That might be a data analyst, account managers who can speak AI, or the missing third leg of technical, content and PR.
The panel was sceptical:
For candidates, Alex’s closing advice (46:57) applies: most job specs list everything a team wants, when they really need about 80% of it. If the core fits, apply.
Usually SEO, according to the panel, with PR and content involved in execution. Alex Payne of Golin Ketchum recommends an integrated strategy lead coordinating all three.
Not effectively. Kaylee Peterson of Idea Grove can offer tracking and reporting alone, but strategy and implementation need SEO and content resource.
Client communication first, then hands-on AI use, a business and data mindset, and curiosity. Technical skills were seen as the most teachable.
The panel favoured it where possible, alongside a strong junior pipeline, as the mid-level talent tier narrows.
For agencies, the panel thinks it usually isn’t. Danny Gavin of Optidge says his agency doesn’t need a $250,000 AI hire, and the panel sees the premium as a short-term market reaction.
Honestly, not much, and all three guests said as much. AEO (Answer Engine Optimisation), GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation), and AIO (AI Optimisation) are all describing the same shift: search is increasingly being answered by AI platforms rather than a list of blue links. The terminology is still settling across the industry. What matters more than the label is what you're actually doing about it, and right now, the fundamentals of good SEO are the same fundamentals that get you cited by AI platforms.
No, and this was the strongest point of agreement across the episode. Anthony from StudioHawk described it as clients "asking for a Ferrari when they need a Toyota." If your website is technically weak, your content is thin, or you have no link authority, optimising for ChatGPT or Perplexity visibility won't move the needle. The agencies seeing results with AI search are the ones who treated it as the cherry on top of a well-built SEO foundation, not the other way around.
All three guests called it an opportunity, not a threat. AI overviews sit at the top of the organic SERP, they're the first thing a user sees after paid ads. For agencies that learn how to structure content that gets cited in them, it's the biggest piece of SERP real estate available right now. Charlie's view: it's about producing content in a way that speaks to user intent and earns inclusion. That skill is worth building now, not later.
By shifting the metric from traffic to revenue. Click volume is declining across the industry, that's not a forecast, it's already happening. The agencies navigating this best are the ones who repositioned SEO as a commercial driver rather than a traffic play. As Charlie put it, "SEO is now being sold as what it was supposed to be sold as, a revenue-driving practice." Customers aren't going to say no to more revenue. They will push back on a traffic report that's trending down.
Significantly. Anthony made the point that two people searching for the same thing, say, a pair of shoes, may get completely different results based on their browser history, past behaviour, and query phrasing. That means targeting a single keyword is becoming less reliable. What works instead is content that gives Google and LLMs enough context to match it to a wide range of query variants: who the product is for, who it isn't for, what problem it solves, and why it's the best answer. Context-rich content wins over keyword-stuffed content in a personalised search world.
The conversation has moved away from static technical checklists. Given how fast the landscape is shifting, new model releases, Google updates, AI platform changes, specific hard skills have a shorter shelf life than they did two or three years ago. What all three guests converged on was the ability to learn quickly and repeatedly. That said, technical SEO foundations remain important, and any demonstrated experience with AI tools, prompt engineering, or building things (even side projects) is a strong signal. The hard skill that's lost relevance fastest is rote keyword research, the kind that doesn't require judgement.
Evidence of the learning pattern, applied to anything. Anthony's framing was clear: past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour. If a junior candidate has built a website, run a side project, completed relevant coursework on their own time, or developed a genuine expertise in any area, that shows the drive and initiative that transfers into SEO. It doesn't need to be polished or finished. It just needs to demonstrate that they've committed to learning something outside of what was required of them.
Because the pace of change means no static skill set stays current for long. Charlie put it directly, a new Claude release or a major model update can shift best practice overnight. In that environment, what matters most is whether someone has the curiosity and adaptability to keep learning. Cultural fit, in this context, isn't about personality match for its own sake. It's a proxy for whether someone will thrive in a fast-moving environment, take ownership, and stay engaged when the playbook changes underneath them.