Should You Optimize Your Website for AI or for People? 

Somewhere in your website rebuild, the conversation splits. 

Leadership wants the site found by AI, surfaced in ChatGPT, marked up with schema, and crawlable by every engine that matters. 

Marketing and design want the site to explain the business, hold the brand, and turn a visitor into a lead. 

Both are right, and the two goals start pulling against each other the moment someone asks where the budget and the attention should go.

We had that exact split when we rebuilt the Big Pixel website this year. We build software for a living, and we still spent more meetings than we would like to admit arguing about our own homepage. 

We took AEO seriously. 

We added an llms.txt file, refined our robots.txt, put JSON-LD schema across the site including dynamic fields on our CMS pages, and rewrote our meta and Open Graph descriptions. 

The site performs well for a marketing site on the AEO side now. The work also made something plain: a website built only to be crawled is built too narrow. 

A website is business infrastructure, and infrastructure has to serve the people who depend on it as much as the machines that index it.

‍

What does a business website actually do now?

For a growing company, a lot of the business happens on the website before anyone talks to you. 

Before a prospect ever sends an email, the site is already doing several jobs at once:

• Generating and qualifying leads
• Explaining your services
• Validating you through case studies
• Supporting hiring
• Answering the questions a prospect would otherwise email
• Giving partners and vendors their first read on whether you are credible

When the site does that badly, the cost does not disappear, it moves. Unclear services mean your sales team spends the first call explaining what the page should have said, and forms that qualify no one send your team chasing leads that were never a fit. 

When the content is thin, the AI systems now reading your site have nothing real to pull either. 

A weak website shows up as operational drag in every team that has to cover for it, and the prospect who could not find a straight answer does the math and moves on to the competitor whose site gave them one.

‍

Why does everyone say your website has to be AI-ready?

Because discovery genuinely changed, and the numbers are hard to argue with:

• Google's AI Overviews cut organic click-through for the top result by about 58% by the end of 2025 (Ahrefs).
• Only 8% of people click a link when an AI Overview is present, against 15% when it is not (Pew Research, March 2025).
• By 2026, fewer than a third of Google searches send a click anywhere at all (SparkToro).

People ask a question and read the answer the machine assembles for them, so if your content is not structured for those systems to read and trust, you can be missing from the answer entirely.

The instinct to make the site machine-readable is correct. The trouble starts when it becomes the whole brief. 

Google's March 2024 core update, paired with new spam policies against scaled content abuse, was built to cut low-quality content by roughly 40%, and it removed more than a thousand sites that had leaned on mass-produced, search-first pages. 

Those sites were technically optimized and still got wiped, because they were built for the crawler and had nothing underneath for a person.

‍

What did we change on our own site, and did it matter?

Here is what we actually did on our rebuild:

• Added an llms.txt file to give AI systems a clean summary of what we do.
• Tuned robots.txt to direct crawler access.
• Added JSON-LD schema across the site, with dynamic fields so our CMS pages carry structure too.
• Rewrote meta descriptions for search clarity and Open Graph descriptions so pages look right when someone shares them.

All of it helps a machine interpret the site, and all of it was worth doing.

Now the honest part. llms.txt is a community convention, not a standard anyone enforces. 

Roughly 10% of 300,000 domains studied have one, Google has said outright that you do not need it, and OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity have not committed to reading it. In other words, we carefully prepared a document for an audience of robots that has not exactly RSVP'd. We added ours anyway, because the cost is small and the upside is real if adoption grows. 

But we did it knowing the truth: none of that markup does anything if the content it describes is vague, the positioning is unclear, or the page gives a human no reason to trust us. 

The schema tells a machine what a page is about. It cannot make the page worth reading.

Being read by machines is winnable, and it is winnable on human terms. When a page does get cited in an AI Overview, it earns roughly 35% more organic clicks than a page that is not cited at all. 

The engines reward what a buyer rewards, which is content specific and credible enough to be worth pointing to. 

Earning a citation and earning a lead turn out to require the same thing, a page that actually says something.

‍

What does a website still have to do for people?

Custom software is a trust-heavy purchase. A CEO choosing a firm is handing over messy operations and betting that someone can understand them, make sound technical calls, and stay accountable long after launch. 

No amount of schema closes that gap, and we say that as people who genuinely enjoy a clean schema file. 

A person lands on your site and needs a few things answered before they fill out anything:

• What does this company do?
• Have they solved something like mine?
• What makes their approach different?
• Can I trust them with this?

That is where a website earns its keep, and it is why we hold to one idea in everything we build. We believe that business is built on transparency and trust, and that good software is built the same way. 

A site built only for extraction works against that, because it flattens your voice and repeats the same search-friendly phrases until a real buyer has nothing specific to believe. 

Good structure helps a machine find your message. 

It should never stand in for it.

‍

What does a balanced website strategy look like?

The way through is to stop treating design, content, SEO, and AEO as rivals for the same budget and give each a defined job. A website that works holds a few things at once:

• Business clarity. The site says what you do, who you help, and the problems you solve, in language specific enough to be useful.
• Human trust. It gives a prospect enough evidence and specificity to take the next step with confidence.
• Technical structure. It hands crawlers and AI systems clean, honest signals through schema, metadata, and sane crawl paths.
• Operational usefulness. It supports the real work: inquiry, qualification, scheduling, and the sales conversations your team can actually point to.

When those have distinct roles, AEO stops competing with the message and starts carrying it further. 

The technical layer makes strong content easier to find. It was never going to make weak content worth finding.

‍

How do you know if your website is doing its job?

When you look at your rebuild, "can AI crawl our site" is a small question wearing a big coat. 

The ones that decide whether the site earns its cost are harder to answer honestly:

• Can the right buyer understand us fast?
• Can our team use this in a sales conversation?
• Does the content reflect what we actually believe?
• Does the structure help machines read the business correctly?

A site that answers those reduces friction for every team that touches it, instead of being a polished dead end.

AEO is part of responsible website work now, and companies that want to be understood by search engines and AI systems should take it seriously. But a website cannot be built only to be read by machines. 

It has to help people decide, trust, and act. The strongest sites manage both at once, structured enough for a machine to understand and clear enough for a person to believe. Build for that, and the AI layer takes care of itself.