“Communicating consistently across every channel is a form of protection: not against Google, but against the risk that AI models misunderstand you or ignore you”
There is a question that keeps coming back in strategy meetings, in calls with consultants, in the more serious LinkedIn group threads: if Google is losing ground to AI agents, if ChatGPT answers before you can even click on a result, if language models are rewriting the rules of organic traffic… what is left of your investment in content?
The answer is not simple. But it exists, and it is far more concrete than it seems.
This week on SEO Confidential we host Ben Steele, Senior Editor and Content Strategist at Siege Media, one of the most respected content marketing agencies in the English-speaking SEO scene. Ben is not the kind of person who talks about strategy from above. He builds lead generation campaigns that become case studies.
He works every day with experts to help them turn their expertise into content capable of generating trust, authority and measurable results. He knows the rules of the game, he knows when to break them, and above all he knows how to explain why.
In the interview you are about to read, Ben tackles some of the most pressing questions for anyone who wants to build a solid presence in the age of artificial intelligence:
How do you become a source cited by AI agents instead of being ignored?
When is comparative content an asset, and when is it a trap?
Why is the newsletter still the most powerful channel that most brands underestimate?
But there is a common thread running through the whole conversation, and it is worth anticipating: communication consistency is no longer just good brand practice. Now that AI models build your reputation by reading everything you have published online, communicating in a fragmented and inconsistent way is a real risk, not a matter of aesthetics.
If you are an entrepreneur or a professional who wants to understand how to become the answer AI gives, this conversation will offer you more than one practical, applicable takeaway, along with a few uncomfortable truths worth hearing.
Enjoy the read.
“You demonstrate expertise by having it. You build connection with people by talking to them”, Ben told us
Hi Ben, when you work with experts, especially in SEO and digital marketing, how do you strike the balance between making an idea accessible and oversimplifying it? Where does clarity end and the impoverishment of the content begin? And how does your editing approach change depending on the author’s expertise and voice?
Complex ideas become accessible by changing the structure, not the content. It is an important distinction: simplifying does not mean impoverishing, it means finding the right path to take the reader where you want them to arrive.
Experts carry such a rich store of context that they often take it for granted. They skip steps that are obvious to them but essential for the reader. The result is content that only speaks to those who already know, and loses everyone else. That is why teaching is a specialized skill!
The starting point is always to ask two questions. What does the reader need to understand to get to the main concept? And in what order do they need to acquire that information? Answering these questions before writing changes everything: instead of following the expert’s logic, which starts from context and arrives at the conclusion, you build a sequence designed for someone starting from scratch or from an intermediate level.
On top of that comes the need to understand who you are writing for. An expert reader tolerates density and appreciates technical precision. A less experienced reader needs concrete examples, analogies and pauses to absorb. The same concept requires two different structures, but the content, the value, the depth, remain the same.
Logic, flow and clarity are not creative constraints. They are the tools that make content truly useful.
Google is increasingly penalizing comparative content like “best X” or “X vs Y”. Is the problem the format or the intent? What separates a useful comparison from a self-serving one?
The problem is not the format, it is the intent. Comparative content is not wrong in itself. In fact, when a brand publishes it, it is more honest than the affiliate sites, where the recommendations are paid for.
The test is simple: if you cannot identify at least one case where your competitor is the better choice, you are not adding value, you are just trying to climb the rankings. GEO is built on SEO fundamentals, and the further you drift from what users actually want, the more you increase the risk of penalties. It is worth remembering that, according to research by Kevin Indig, Google’s AI Mode does not cite brand sites for comparison queries.
“Show, don’t tell” is a golden rule of marketing, yet a lot of content remains flat and predictable. Where is the most common misunderstanding?
The problem originates in content marketing itself, long before generative AI. For years Google returned the same sources copying each other in different packaging. Many marketers focused on demonstrating value to search engines rather than to people, and the result is content that tells readers who you would like them to be instead of answering what they actually need.
You demonstrate expertise by having it. You build connection with people by talking to them. Content marketers should spend far more time with in-house experts, listen to sales and account managers, and stop optimizing only for search engines.
The newsletter is one of the few channels brands can truly control. What are the real advantages and the risks? How does the relationship between brand and audience change over the long run?
When you publish on Instagram, LinkedIn or Facebook, you are a guest in someone else’s house. The platform decides who sees your content, when and how. It can change the algorithm overnight and wipe out your visibility. With a newsletter, on the other hand, you have direct access to the people who chose to hear from you: no algorithm in between, no platform deciding for you.
The problem is that this opportunity has been abused. Inboxes are full of brands asking for attention, almost always to sell something. People know it and have raised their defenses.
That is why a newsletter only works if you start from a different logic. Not “how do I use this channel to convert?” but “what can I give these people that they cannot find anywhere else?” It can be an in-depth analysis, an original point of view, information that takes time and expertise to gather. Something genuinely worth your readers’ time.
A newsletter is a slow process of building trust. Subscribers are inviting you into their daily routine, often the morning one with their coffee. The first goal is always to give value, not to sell. Every time you open someone’s inbox and give them something useful, you deposit a small credit. Over time that credit becomes a real relationship, and that relationship is far more solid than any social media follower. But it takes patience: it does not work in three weeks.
If AI agents ignore ads and build recommendations from organic sources, isn’t it short-sighted to measure SEO only on human traffic?
Traffic has always been a misleading indicator. The sites hit hardest in recent years had built advertising models on pure volume, publishing content far from their area of expertise. But the ultimate goal remains influencing human decisions.
AI platforms are powerful recommendation engines, and you need solid SEO foundations to be there. That said, search engines and LLMs also respond to authentic third-party content. The most direct way to get cited is to be worth citing. If AI were to intercept all organic traffic, communication consistency across every platform becomes a defensive measure against the models’ misinterpretations.
Let me explain: imagine an extreme scenario in which AI intercepts nearly all organic traffic: people stop clicking on websites and get their answers directly from the models. In that world, what matters is no longer how many visits you receive, but how AI models describe you and recommend you.
Models learn from what they find online. If your brand communicates inconsistently, with different messages on LinkedIn, on your website, in interviews and in your content, the AI builds a confused or distorted picture of who you are. You risk being cited incorrectly, or not being cited at all.
Communicating consistently across every channel is therefore a form of protection: not against Google, but against the risk that AI models misunderstand you or ignore you.
And in the end, even in that scenario, the goal does not change: convincing a real person to choose you. AI is an intermediary, not the end customer. That is why human impact remains the measure that truly counts.
“The most direct way to get cited is to be worth citing”
Rereading this conversation with Ben, one thing struck me more than anything else: the problem is never the tool. It is not the format of comparative content, it is not the newsletter itself, it is not SEO as a discipline. The problem is always the intent with which these tools are used, and the consistency with which you communicate over time.
For anyone running a company or a professional brand, the practical message is just one: stop asking yourself how to climb Google’s rankings and start asking yourself how you would want to be described by an AI model that does not know you and has to decide whether to recommend you or ignore you.
That question changes your priorities radically. Publishing quality content on your website is no longer enough. What you say in interviews, in LinkedIn posts, in the podcasts you appear on as a guest, in the newsletters you send, all of it counts. The models learn from all of this, build a picture of you and hand it back to people, often without you knowing anything about it.
Reputation is no longer managed with a good editorial plan alone. It is managed through the consistency of who you are, on every channel, over time.
I very much agree with Ben when he says: “the most direct way to get cited is to be worth citing”. No technical shortcut will save you if what you say in one place contradicts what you say in another.
Thank you, Ben, for the clarity, the concreteness and the generosity with which you shared your point of view.
This is exactly the kind of conversation SEO Confidential wants to keep having.
Don’t miss the next episode. We will be back with a new international guest, a voice coming from a different market with a perspective worth listening to.
See you there.
#avantitutta
