.jpg?width=300&name=Preview%20Header%20-%20Preview%20Template%20-%20Gold%20Rush%20-%203%20(1).jpg)
Why the generative engine optimization boom mirrors every tech bubble before it, and what smart marketers are doing instead
Let's be clear from the start: generative engine optimization (GEO) isn't going away. While traditional search still dominates volume today, the trajectory is unmistakable. Over half of U.S. consumers already use AI for shopping research, and that number accelerates monthly. The brands that establish strong AI search presence now will dominate when this channel matures in 12-18 months.
The question isn't whether to invest in GEO. It's whether to pay Silicon Valley's inflated prices for the privilege.
THE ECONOMICS DON'T ADD UP
Let's start with some uncomfortable math. When asked about your brand’s industry, the “top” AI-SEO platforms are charging $2-3 per prompt to tell you whether ChatGPT mentioned your brand. Meanwhile, the actual cost to query the large language models directly? Roughly $1.50 per thousand responses through our data partner.
That's not a typo. We're looking at markups in the neighborhood of 1,000-2,000% for what amounts to automated data collection. To put this in perspective, imagine paying $50 for a gallon of milk because the grocery store claimed it was "AI-enhanced dairy tracking."
The contrast with traditional SEO economics is jarring. The data tells a stark story when we examine entry-level pricing across established SEO platforms versus the new generation of AI-focused tools:
Traditional SEO Platforms vs. AI-SEO Tools: Entry-Level Plan Comparison
|
Tool & Plan |
Price (monthly) |
Included Data |
Unit Cost |
Notes |
|
Traditional SEO Platforms |
|
|
|
|
|
Semrush Pro |
$139.95 |
500 keywords |
~$0.28/keyword |
Comprehensive rank tracking & audits |
|
Ahrefs Lite |
$129 |
750 keywords |
~$0.17/keyword |
Strong backlink & rank data |
|
Moz Starter |
$49 |
50 keywords |
~$0.98/keyword |
Entry-level plan; expensive per keyword |
|
Raven Tools Small Biz |
$49 |
1,500 checks |
~$0.033/check |
Very low cost per data point |
|
AI-SEO Platforms |
|
|
|
|
|
Profound Lite |
$499 |
200 prompts |
$2.50/prompt |
AI visibility across multiple engines |
|
Peec AI Starter |
€89 |
25 prompts |
€3.56/prompt |
AI citation radar; limited geographies |
|
AthenaHQ Starter |
$295 |
3,500 credits |
~$0.084/credit |
Credit system powering AI queries |
|
ChatTrak (Stella) |
Free |
Unlimited prompts |
$0.00/prompt |
In-house GEO tool for clients |
The numbers are impossible to ignore. Semrush delivers traditional search rank tracking for 500 keywords at about $.28 cents each. Ahrefs Lite tracks 750 keywords for $.17 cents apiece. Even Moz's entry-level offering, expensive by traditional standards, clocks in under a dollar per keyword.
Now consider Profound's Lite plan: $499 monthly for 200 prompts. That's $2.50 per data point for information that's fundamentally simpler than traditional rank tracking. There's no SERP complexity, no location variations, just yes/no answers from language models.
FOLLOW THE MONEY: WHY AI-SEO TOOLS ARE SO EXPENSIVE
The pricing insanity becomes clearer when we follow the venture capital trail. These AI-SEO platforms aren't just selling software; they're desperately trying to justify massive funding rounds to impatient investors demanding the next Google.
Consider the numbers: AirOps raised $22.5M to help "win ChatGPT citations." Profound pulled in $23.5M to "reach millions of consumers who are using AI." Scrunch AI secured $19M for brand optimization in the "AI customer journey."
AI SEO Platforms & Funding Amounts (July 2025)
Source
The total? Over $120M in venture capital chasing a market that barely existed two years ago. That's a lot of investor expectations riding on your monthly subscription fees.
This isn't organic market development. It's artificial demand creation fueled by the same "picks and shovels" mentality that drove every gold rush in history. VCs saw the AI boom and decided someone needed to sell tools to the miners. The problem? The miners, in this case, are marketing departments with actual budgets and ROI requirements, not starry-eyed prospectors with gold fever.
THE PRESSURE COOKER EFFECT
When Profound raises $23.5M in a Series A, their investors aren't expecting modest returns. They're banking on approximately 10x multiples, which means the company needs to generate over $200M in value. At their current pricing of $2.50 per prompt, that requires either massive user bases or sustained premium pricing. Guess which strategy they're pursuing?
The same dynamic plays out across every funded AI-SEO platform. AirOps didn't raise $22.5M to offer competitive pricing. They raised it to dominate a market category that their investors believe will be worth billions. Your marketing budget is the bridge between their current revenue and their investors' exit expectations.
THE SHOVEL SELLERS
History repeats itself with remarkable consistency. During the California gold rush, Levi Strauss made more money selling denim to miners than most miners made digging for gold. The same pattern emerged during the dot-com boom, when enterprise software companies charged massive fees to help traditional businesses "get online."
Today's AI-SEO platforms are positioning themselves as the essential shovels for the generative search gold rush.
THE FAMILIAR PLAYBOOK OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY
The pricing structure isn't new; it's lifted directly from the venture capital playbook for manufacturing scarcity around abundant resources. The same dynamic played out with early keyword tracking tools in the 2010s, when "premium" rank monitoring commanded hundreds of dollars monthly for data that eventually became table stakes.
The AI-SEO vendors are betting that marketing teams won't notice they're paying boutique prices for commodity infrastructure. Those vendors have wrapped basic API calls and scraping in sleek interfaces and positioned generative engine mentions as exotic, scarce data requiring specialized expertise to obtain. They are not. I never made a SINGLE tool before I vibe coded our first tracker, then our second, then our third. By the fifth tool, I’ll admit I gained experience, but, do you see how this works?
THE BROADER CONTEXT: WHY THIS MATTERS NOW
The stakes extend beyond individual marketing budgets. Internal research from our agency work suggests that over half of U.S. consumers already use generative AI for product discovery, and most of the marketing teams we speak with plan to measure LLM presence in 2025, yet many do not yet have a tool. This isn't a future trend, it's happening now.
The question isn't whether brands need visibility into generative search results. They absolutely do! The question is whether those brands should pay Silicon Valley premium pricing for what amounts to automated data collection, or invest those same dollars in analysis, strategy, and execution that actually moves the needle.
WHAT SMART MONEY IS DOING INSTEAD
Progressive marketing organizations are taking a different approach. Rather than accepting the vendor pricing paradigm, they're building internal capabilities or partnering with agencies that provide GEO tools as part of broader strategic relationships.
The math is compelling. A mid-sized company tracking 1,000 AI prompts monthly through Profound would pay $12,500 annually just for data access. That same budget could fund a dedicated analyst, custom tooling development, or months of strategic consulting focused on actually improving AI search performance.
At Stella Rising, we faced this exact decision 18 months ago. We could either pass inflated AI-SEO tool costs to clients or invest in our own solution. We chose the latter, developing ChatTrak as a proprietary platform that monitors brand presence across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity without per-prompt fees.
The results speak volumes about the true economics involved. Our clients get unlimited prompt tracking, historical data archives, competitive analysis, and custom report generation, all included in strategic engagements rather than metered and monetized separately. The cost savings alone often fund additional months of strategic work.
BEYOND THE PRICING PROBLEM
The overpricing issue masks a deeper strategic concern: most AI-SEO tools optimize for the wrong metrics. They excel at telling you how often your brand appears in language model responses but offer little insight into why those mentions occur or how to systematically improve them.
Traditional SEO succeeded because it connected measurement to action. You could see your rankings, understand the factors influencing them, and implement changes to improve performance. The current generation of AI-SEO tools provides visibility without a clear path to optimization.
This is where the real opportunity lies, not in simply tracking generative search mentions, but in understanding the underlying factors that drive AI citation patterns and developing systematic approaches to influence them. Entity authority, content depth, source credibility, and semantic associations all play roles that extend far beyond traditional keyword optimization.
THE INNOVATION THEATER PROBLEM
Many AI-SEO platforms lean heavily on innovation theater: impressive interfaces, real-time dashboards, and AI-powered insights that often amount to basic sentiment analysis or keyword extraction. Strip away the marketing language, and you're left with automated queries wrapped in business intelligence tools.
The most sophisticated features these platforms offer (competitive analysis, historical trending, geographic variations) are table stakes in traditional SEO tools. Ahrefs has provided competitive keyword analysis for years. Semrush offers historical rank tracking going back months or years. The AI-SEO vendors are repackaging familiar capabilities and charging premium prices because they involve language models.
THE PATH FORWARD
The generative search revolution is real, but the current pricing models around it are not sustainable. Marketing leaders have three options:
- First, they can pay bubble pricing and hope the ROI materializes. This approach works for organizations with unlimited budgets and high risk tolerance, but it's a poor fit for most.
- Second, they can wait for market forces to correct the pricing, which will happen, but may take years as venture capital continues subsidizing aggressive growth strategies.
- Third, they can invest in building internal capabilities or partnering with agencies like Stella Rising that provide GEO tools as part of broader strategic relationships. We think this is the best path.
STOP PAYING THE PREMIUM
While your competitors hemorrhage budget on overpriced AI-SEO subscriptions, you can build competitive advantage. At Stella Rising, we've cracked the code on generative engine optimization without the Silicon Valley markup.
Our offer: work with us on your brand’s GEO strategy, and ChatTrak is included at no additional cost. Zero per-prompt fees. No usage limits. No artificial scarcity pricing. Just unlimited access to a platform that tracks brand mentions across every major language model, plus the strategic expertise to actually improve your performance in AI search results.
The difference? While other agencies will gladly pass along thousand-dollar monthly tool costs, we've built our own infrastructure. Your budget goes toward the work that matters: analysis, strategy, and execution that drives real business results. Not toward enriching venture-backed tool vendors.
The AI-SEO bubble is real. The opportunity cost of waiting for it to burst is even more real. While others debate the pricing, smart brands are already winning in generative search.
Ready to stop funding Silicon Valley's next yacht purchase? Let's talk about what actual GEO strategy looks like when the tools aren't draining your budget.
The clock is ticking. Every day you delay is another day your competitors might figure out what you're missing.
COMMENTS