I recently spoke with an SEO who, along with his entire team, had just been laid off. The company was quickly lose organic trafficleaders were frustrated and, from their perspective, nothing was being done about it. SEO saw it very differently. They had submitted more than 1,400 tickets over the previous 18 months, each documenting an issue and emphasizing the importance of what needed to be done. The delay was significant, detailed and, in their minds, proved that the SEO team was working hard to reverse the decline. The problem was that none of the requested actions had been implemented. Engineering time had been systematically redirected to CEO initiatives, product launches, and other internal priorities that seemed ever more important. From an SEO perspective, the work existed. From a business perspective, nothing has changed. Traffic decreased, visibility decreased, and ultimately, the decision was made to eliminate this underperforming team.
Backlog is not progress. This is an unrealized intention.
This is the uncomfortable reality that many practitioners struggle to accept. Submitting tickets is not the job. Implementing them is. If your recommendations never make it into production, they don’t exist in any meaningful way. They don’t drive traffic, improve visibility, or protect the business as Google continues to evolve. And now, this shift is accelerating, making the gap between activity and impact even more dangerous.
Align with what already matters
You can see how organizations react frantically to the pressure to perform in AI researchalbeit subtly. Work that has sat untouched for months as “SEO improvements” suddenly becomes a priority when reframed as AI readiness, Generative Engine Optimizationor content structuring for AI discovery. Nothing about the underlying work changes, but the framing changes because it matches what leaders believe is important at that time. This may seem frustrating, even cynical, but it reveals a deeper truth.
At IBM, we struggled to prioritize many SEO initiatives. A report later came out that our on-site search experience was poor and negatively impacting sales of our own search product. The improvements required were largely the same as those we recommended for external SEO. By renaming them “on-premises search fixes” as part of this new mandate, we were able to accelerate implementation and improve internal and external search performance. Work is not a priority because it is the right thing to do. This is a priority because it aligns with current impact discourse and Executive priorities. To understand why so much SEO work fails to cross this threshold, you need to look at where decisions are actually made.
The line you don’t see until it stops you
After selling my agency, I took on a project for a company that was already successful in organic search. Then Google launched paid search and everything changed. Big advertisers began reallocating their budgets because buying search traffic directly from Google suddenly seemed more effective than advertising on websites that simply arbitrage organic traffic to generate the ad impressions they purchased. The response from the board of directors was immediate and direct. They wanted to dominate every aspect of their category and be in the top three in every area, and they were willing to provide me with all the resources necessary to achieve that.
So I went to engineering with my plan and list of activities for total domination, expecting full alignment and momentum. Instead, the CTO led me to a whiteboard and showed me a faint dotted line. Anything beyond that limit, he explained, could be implemented during this fiscal year. Anything below would not. There was no debate or negotiation. Every idea, no matter how strategic, had to either fit above that line or move something that was already there. It was a simple constraint of available resources, and it made one thing clear: what already existed mattered. He told me that these initiatives had also been blessed by the same leaders who green-lighted mine. These existing initiatives were directly linked to revenueothers to compliance or security, and some were simply protected by stakeholders with enough influence to keep them in place.
That’s when reality became clear. This line, invisible in every audit and absent from any SEO tool, determines what is actually built. I call this the “IT death line.” Your mission as an SEO or GEO manager is to find creative ways to integrate or replace your activities in one of these high-end projects.
Tasks with contribution value
Most SEO Recommendations Don’t Fail because they are wrong. They fail because they are not competitive in this area resource allocation system. This means that everything is a compromise. Engineering does not evaluate your recommendation in isolation; they evaluate it against everything else competing for their time and resources. Revenue-generating features, compliance requirements, infrastructure improvements, and existing commitments all carry weight. And so does the plaintiff. When SEO presents itself as a collection of disconnected fixes, it struggles to compete because it lacks clearly articulated cost, ownership, and relative impact.
This awareness requires a change in the way SEO should be approached. It is no longer enough to identify problems. You need to justify why they deserve to exist above the line and are as important, or more so, than another activity. This means translating work into effort, impact and compromise. This means moving from tasks to contribution value. Audits, tickets, and delays describe the activity, but engineering teams do not fund the activity. They finance the results. If you can’t explain why your recommendation is worth more than another team’s request, it won’t get done.
This is where many SEO programs get stuck. They are information-rich but poorly prioritized, and this gap becomes even more visible when looking at how the work is actually implemented. It’s often difficult to directly tie SEO activities to revenue or basket size, but that doesn’t take away the responsibility to try.
Fix the systems, not the symptoms
Once you understand your organization’s IT death line, the question becomes practical. How to implement work in an environment where everything is in competition? The answer is not to insist more, but to work differently within the system. In most organizations, the quickest path to implementation is not to create new work but to align with work already in progress. Engineering teams are constantly updating templates, rethinking page structures, migrating platforms, or refactoring components. These initiatives are already above the line. They already have a budget, attention and momentum. When SEO is introduced as a separate request, it must fight for priority. When it is integrated into an existing initiativehe inherits this priority. Some of the most impactful SEO changes are implemented this way, integrated into larger projects rather than presented as standalone efforts.
This becomes even more effective when you focus on scale. Isolated fixes rarely warrant prioritization, unlike changes that act as force multipliers. Updating a template rather than a single page can affect thousands of URLs. Adjusting CMS logic can eliminate entire categories of problems. Navigation correction Or internal mesh can reshape the way the entire site is understood and explored. These are the types of changes that combine a relatively modest effort with large-scale impact, making them much more competitive down the line.
Even then, success depends on understanding the problem at its source. One of the most common failure points in SEO is diagnosing symptoms rather than causes. High numbers create urgency, but they can also be misleading. Thousands of redirects, tens of thousands of 404 errorsAnd duplicate pages on a site often triggers major remediation efforts, but they are often just the visible result of a much smaller problem.
I worked with a company that generated pages from a product feed daily, with URLs based on the product name and its first attribute. This seemed logical, but the attribute was not stable. Every time it changed, the URL changed with it. This single design decision created a cascade of problems. New pages were constantly being created, old URLs turned into 404s, and the site was effectively generating its own index. The Search Console error log reflected this chaos, filled with tens of thousands of issues to resolve. But none of these were the real problem. The solution wasn’t to clean up the errors; it was about stopping creating them. By realigning the URL structure to a stable identifier such as an SKU, the entire system became more stable. The errors have disappeared because the mechanism that produced them has been removed. A single change replaced thousands of remediation tasks.
It’s the difference between work that stays below the line and work that crosses it. The first treats the symptoms, the second resolves the system that generates them. This dynamic is not unique to a single company or a single moment. It appears consistently across organizations, industries, and levels of research maturity. Whether it’s constraints related to technical bandwidth, compliance requirements, or competing product priorities, the result is the same. Work that cannot be justified on the line does not take place. We explored this in more detail in a podcast episodedemonstrating how this pattern repeats itself and why so many well-intentioned initiatives fail before even reaching production. The conclusion was consistent. Most SEO jobs don’t fail because they’re wrong; it fails because it doesn’t formulated in such a way that the organization can act.
Once you understand this, the role of SEO changes. You no longer just identify problems; you shape decisions. You define what’s worth doing, why it’s important now, and what impact it will have versus whatever else is getting attention. This is what moves work from delay to implementation.
In the end, nothing is done because it is good practice. This is done because it is worth it.
More resources:
Featured image: Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock
