Many aviation leaders face growing pressure to invest in digital visibility—but Google’s team just revealed why most companies ask the wrong questions before signing marketing contracts.
Google’s senior representatives involved with search quality, Danny Sullivan and John Mueller, recently addressed a fundamental question confronting business owners on their Search Off the Record podcast: whether hiring specialists in Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) or Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) differs from engaging traditional SEO consultants.
The answer, both Google representatives confirmed, remains consistent with longstanding guidance. Yet aviation companies continue signing contracts with agencies that make promises violating search engine guidelines, track metrics that don’t exist in ranking algorithms, and implement tactics that risk manual penalties capable of eliminating online visibility.
The stakes extend beyond wasted marketing budgets. For aviation businesses where reputation correlates directly with safety perception and regulatory compliance, Google penalties can sever the digital connection to potential clients seeking charter services, maintenance providers, or aircraft sales. Understanding what Google recommends—and what it explicitly warns against—has become a business imperative.
The Fundamental Misunderstanding: Agency Necessity vs. Business Reality
Sullivan’s guidance challenges the assumption that securing digital visibility requires retaining external marketing agencies. The search quality team confirms that SEO consultants, while potentially helpful, are not required for search success. Sullivan noted that numerous websites succeed in search results without considering optimization tactics, following a straightforward philosophy: “I’m just going to think about what I want to write about for people, and I’m going to do that.”
This people-first approach contradicts the complex methodologies many agencies promote. The instruction to write for humans rather than large language models applies whether content targets traditional search results or emerging AI-powered features like Google’s AI Overviews. The principle remains unchanged: quality content serving user needs outperforms content engineered to manipulate ranking signals.
For aviation businesses, this guidance suggests strategic recalibration. The chief pilot explaining safety protocols, or the head of maintenance detailing inspection procedures, produces content with inherent expertise that no external copywriter can replicate. These subject matter experts create material demonstrating experience and authoritativeness—qualities increasingly critical in Google’s evaluation frameworks.
The Education Imperative: Understanding Before Investing
Google will not recommend specific SEO agencies; instead, it directs business owners to review the company’s general guides and documentation on search optimization. Sullivan explained the reasoning: understanding how Google views SEO enables business leaders to ask informed questions when evaluating potential vendors or internal strategies.
The framework requires education before outsourcing. Aviation managers must comprehend fundamental concepts—what search engines can accomplish, which practices violate guidelines, and what constitutes genuinely helpful content—before they can effectively evaluate agencies, purchase optimization tools, or develop in-house capabilities. This knowledge baseline doesn’t mandate handling all SEO work internally, but establishes the guardrails necessary for sound decision-making.
Sullivan clarified that Google neither prohibits hiring third-party SEO consultants nor discourages using specialized tools. The company’s position centers on informed decision-making: understanding Google’s guidance enables businesses to select the most appropriate vendors and tools for their specific requirements. Aviation executives accustomed to rigorous vendor qualification processes for maintenance providers or parts suppliers should apply comparable scrutiny when engaging digital marketing firms.
The critical questions emerge from this educational foundation: Which agency practices align with documented guidelines? Can the consultant explain recommendations in terms of serving customers rather than manipulating rankings? How does the firm stay current with algorithm updates, and what accountability exists if Google issues penalties based on its tactics?
Warning Signals: Violations and Phantom Metrics
Sullivan identified specific concerns that should trigger immediate caution. Some SEO tools and agencies recommend practices that directly contradict Google’s guidance. Implementing tactics against search engine guidelines can result in spam actions—manual penalties that remove websites from search results entirely or significantly reduce their visibility.
The recommendation applies equally to emerging services marketed as AEO or GEO optimization. Despite new terminology, the fundamental evaluation criteria remain unchanged. Claims represent claims regardless of acronyms attached, and no agency can guarantee specific ranking outcomes or visibility in AI-generated summaries.
Sullivan acknowledged understanding why tools often focus excessively on ranking factors rather than on content usefulness to humans. The evolution of optimization software has created sophisticated measurement capabilities, but concentrating on individual technical elements often diverts attention from the comprehensive picture of serving user needs effectively.
Mueller specifically referenced metrics like “spam grade” and “domain grade” as examples of measurements that mislead businesses. These third-party scores, while widely tracked by companies and agencies, don’t reflect Google’s actual ranking systems. Sullivan illustrated the disconnect with a revealing anecdote: business owners frequently express confusion about poor search performance despite high domain scores, stating “I have domain score 89. How am I not doing better?”
Sullivan’s response captured the fundamental problem: “Well, it’s not our domain score. We don’t have that.” The metric doesn’t exist within Google’s evaluation framework. Aviation businesses tracking these phantom measurements are monitoring indicators disconnected from actual search performance—comparable to optimizing aircraft operations based on instruments not installed in the cockpit.
The AI Optimization Paradox: New Labels, Same Standards
The proliferation of services marketed as AI optimization tools or AEO/GEO specialists introduces additional complexity without fundamentally altering evaluation requirements. Sullivan confirmed that whether engaging traditional SEO consultants or specialists claiming expertise in generative engine visibility, business owners must apply identical scrutiny.
Tools promising superior content generation through artificial intelligence warrant particular skepticism. No vendor can guarantee specific outcomes in AI-generated summaries or featured positions in conversational search results.
The guidance to write for people rather than algorithms extends explicitly to large language models. Aviation companies attempting to optimize content specifically for ChatGPT, Claude, or similar systems fall into the same trap that generated penalties in previous optimization eras—prioritizing algorithmic manipulation over genuine user value.
Sullivan’s fundamental message cuts through emerging terminology: focus on creating genuinely helpful content addressing customer needs. Whether that content appears in traditional search results, AI Overviews, or conversational AI responses becomes secondary to its core utility for human readers seeking aviation services, safety information, or technical expertise.
Aviation Industry Implications
Numerous aviation businesses face particular vulnerability in digital marketing decisions due to limited in-house expertise in rapidly evolving search technologies. The technical sophistication required for aircraft operations doesn’t automatically transfer to digital visibility strategies, creating opportunities for agencies to leverage information asymmetry.
The financial stakes extend beyond wasted marketing expenditures. Aviation companies pursuing phantom metrics or implementing tactics contrary to Google’s guidelines risk manual actions that eliminate online visibility for charter bookings, maintenance inquiries, or parts sales. Recovery from search penalties often requires months of remediation work while competitors capture market share.
The competitive landscape rewards companies that internalize Google’s fundamental guidance. Businesses educating leadership teams on search basics can make superior vendor decisions compared to competitors accepting agency recommendations without qualification. Many aviation marketing requirements—particularly content creation explaining technical services or safety protocols—benefit from in-house subject matter expertise rather than outsourced copywriting.
The trajectory over the next three to five years, as AI-powered search features expand, suggests that companies building authority through genuinely helpful, expert-driven content will maintain visibility advantages over those chasing optimization tactics. The fundamental principles Google articulates—transparency, user focus, and expertise—align naturally with aviation industry values of safety, precision, and reliability.
Key Takeaways
- Google’s search quality leadership confirms that SEO agencies and optimization tools are not required—numerous websites achieve search success by focusing on creating valuable content for human users rather than pursuing ranking manipulation.
- Aviation business owners must understand SEO fundamentals from Google’s official documentation before hiring agencies or purchasing tools, enabling them to ask informed questions and distinguish legitimate guidance from practices violating search engine policies.
- Warning indicators include agencies promising guaranteed rankings, emphasizing phantom metrics like “domain authority” that don’t exist in Google’s systems, or maintaining secrecy about methodologies—tactics that can trigger manual penalties, eliminating online visibility.
- The same evaluation standards apply to emerging services marketed as AI optimization, AEO, or GEO specialists—no agency can guarantee visibility in AI-generated summaries, and the core principle remains creating content for people rather than algorithms or large language models.
