Publishers have been sounding the alarm about Google’s AI Overviews, which they say lowers online traffic and threatens their bottom line. A recent legal complaint lodged with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority alleges that Google is utilizing publishers’ content without fair compensation, thereby diminishing the need for consumers to visit their websites.
With Google AI Overviews, the summary will appear at the very top of search results. This provides commons users the opportunity to access bite-sized pieces of information without having to click through to the original source. This trend adds on top of a decade of progress on the Search Engine Results Page (SERP). Fewer active members has, not surprisingly, led to fewer website visits. As David Higgerson, chief digital publisher at Reach warns, there’s a pattern emerging. He notes that traffic has gone down because of these Google AI Overviews.
Publishers provide the high-quality, timely, trustworthy information that powers Google’s search, for which we hope to be rewarded with a click that Google then continues to monetizes through our subscription offerings,” said Higgerson. In doing so, he pointed to a bigger problem. With AI Overviews, users are less incentivized to click over to the publisher’s site.
“We need to make sure that it’s us being cited and not our rivals,” added Stuart Forrest from Bauer Media. He highlighted the challenge of maintaining traffic levels in an environment where Google continues to enhance its features at the expense of site visits.
The Independent Publishers Alliance, supported by tech justice non-profit Foxglove and the campaign group Movement for an Open Web, has joined the legal complaint against Google. They claim that publishers are being denied appropriate payment for their highly prized contributions. Their argument is that Google is planning and profiting at everyone else’s expense and isn’t recognizing the value of the content it keeps aggregating.
Yet Google’s head of search Liz Reid is undaunted, confidently claiming that the click-through count from Google search to other sites remains “relatively stable” annually. She is unyielding, no matter what the counterarguments are. She emphasized that the metric quality clicks is improving, but only very marginally. This metric involves measuring the cases where a user does not come back right away to the SERPs.
Reid shared how AI Overviews are redefining the search experience. They’re not only questioning more, the questions are longer and more involved. Each query, each set of links, is more chance for a website to appear and be clicked on.
Higgerson challenges this perspective. He argues that while Google claims to prioritize sending traffic to the web, it simultaneously implements features that undermine this goal. This, he claimed, is yet another example of the distributor of information not being the creator, and how that should not be incentivized. Rather, it all gets pocketed by the distributor.
The implications for publishers are significant. Higgerson noted that Reach has millions of subscribers receiving alerts through platforms like WhatsApp, which highlights their efforts to maintain engagement despite external pressures on traffic. We’re already engaging millions of people on WhatsApp with our alerts,” he said. This demonstrates our forward-thinking approach in meeting our audience where they are.
Stuart Forrest commented, “For the majority of the past 10 years, Google has been stuffing more and more features onto the SERP. This pattern decreases the need for users to go to websites, which creates a huge threat to our industry. He also recognized that most publishers are lost regarding what steps to take to adjust their strategies to these changes.
Forrest commented though, that Bauer has not experienced a major loss in web traffic on their sites. This is odd considering the effectiveness of Google AI Overviews. That raises serious concerns about the uneven impact among publishers and industries across our rapidly changing media landscape.
Higgerson raised concerns about how publishers must navigate content optimization without sacrificing the primary purpose of their articles: to inform readers effectively. In other words, “Google doesn’t provide us with an instruction manual on how to accomplish it. We have to run tests and optimise copy in a way that doesn’t damage the primary purpose of the content,” he explained.
With generative AI technology quickly changing how we create and consume information online, this is a pivotal moment. For the first time, publishers have had to weigh protecting their interests with a thoughtful and quality content delivery strategy. The ongoing tensions between tech companies and traditional media outlets may lead to further discussions about fair compensation and traffic generation strategies.