The ROI of AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) remains the big blind spot for everyone selling it

For months, we've been selling AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) to businesses. And for months, we've been hitting a wall that the industry surprisingly doesn't address much. No one can truly quantify AEO's returns.

We can produce audits, demonstrate that a brand doesn't appear in ChatGPT or Perplexity's responses, and most importantly, explain how to fix it. But as soon as an executive asks the only question that truly interests them, "what's the ROI?", silence falls. Nevertheless, the value of AEO is very real. Leads generated from citations in LLMs convert 6 times better than those from traditional SEO, according to Graphite. So we have a very high-value channel without knowing how to properly quantify it. This is the paradox we decided to delve into.

Everyone says the same thing, and it's not enough

When looking for how to sell AEO, the answer is always the same. Don't sell "the method," sell "the result". Don't talk about optimization for answer engines, talk about being cited when a customer queries an AI. That's fair, and we've been applying this logic for a long time.

The problem is, this advice only goes halfway. Framing AEO as a benefit helps open the conversation rather than conclude it. We've seen executives perfectly grasp the stakes, agree with the demonstration, then do nothing. The awareness was there. Urgency, no.

This is the clearest observation that emerges from a discussion we started on Reddit (in the r/aeo community) with other industry practitioners. We all know how to create understanding. Almost no one knows how to create urgency. And without urgency, a budget is never approved.

The real barrier isn't explaining, it's the lack of figures

Showing a problem isn't enough to make it painful. A leader deals with dozens of potential problems and constantly makes trade-offs. What tips the scales in a decision isn't knowing a problem exists, it's knowing what it costs.

That's the crux of the matter. For the vast majority of decision-makers, invisibility on AI remains an abstract state. As long as you tell someone they're not being cited, you're describing a situation. The day you tell them this absence is costing them X amount each month, you're describing a hemorrhage. The difference in reaction is stark.

However, no one provides this figure because it's genuinely difficult to establish. And it's precisely this blind spot that hinders the democratization of AEO.

Why this figure is so difficult to establish

Upon closer examination, three obstacles consistently emerge.

1. Volume : A Google search is measured in a few clicks. A question posed to an LLM, not so much. No public data indicates how often a buyer asks an AI which provider to choose. Without this volume, it's impossible to gauge the potential.
2. The nature of presence : Being mentioned, being cited with a link, generating a visit – these are three distinct things that are too often conflated. A brand can be named without a link, and therefore without traceable traffic. The value exists, but it eludes traditional tools.‍
3. Attribution : A prospect discovers you in a Perplexity answer, then types your brand into Google, and returns directly a week later. Their conversion will be credited to direct traffic or the brand, never to the AI that initiated everything. AEO operates at the top of the funnel, where attribution is almost always lost.

The framework we are testing to estimate the cost of invisibility

Let's be clear, no method measures the ROI of AEO down to the last cent today. We are ourselves in the midst of reflection, and what follows is a proxy-based approach we are experimenting with, not an accounting truth. It has only one merit, but it is decisive. It transforms a vague feeling into a defensible order of magnitude.

The idea is to reverse the question. Rather than trying to find out what AEO brings in (which we don't yet know how to measure), we estimate what invisibility costs. This is more accessible and much more impactful for management.

The logic involves five variables. The volume of a target query, approximated by its Google equivalent. The portion already shifting to AI. The rate of queries where the brand does not appear. A realistic consideration rate. And the value of a lead in the sector. Their product provides an estimate of the monthly shortfall.

This result is not exact, and it doesn't have to be.. It's a directional estimate. Its strength isn't its precision; it's that it makes it tangible what was abstract. A manager who sees several thousand euros slipping away each month reacts very differently than to a simple 'you're not ranking'.

The limitations are real, and we acknowledge them. Google volume is only an imperfect proxy; rates remain assumptions. But a debatable ballpark figure is better than cautious silence, especially when dealing with someone who needs a number to make a decision.

Selling a cost, not a condition

By comparing this approach to others, a conviction has grown stronger. The shift from observation to cost is probably the real key to making AEO take off as a market. As long as we sell a state of 'invisibility,' we'll remain comfortable demonstrating without converting. The day we sell a cost, we'll create the urgency that's missing.

This is also what separates an agency that explains SEO/GEO topics from an agency that makes it actionable. Showing a brand where it stands in AI responses is the first step, one we already facilitate with our AEO audit. Attaching a credible cost estimate to it is the next building block, the one we are currently working on.

We don't claim to have solved the issue. This framework is a first step, not a final point. It will evolve with our tests and with the objections raised against it, and that's how it will gain solidity. If you're working on this topic on your end and see it differently Let's talk. The first to accurately quantify this channel will gain a significant lead in the market.