![\"Google](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/1755013152_191_960x0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA – AUGUST 13: The Google logo is displayed during the Made By Google event at Google headquarters on August 13, 2024 in Mountain View, California. Google announced new Pixel phones, watches and AI features during the Made By Google event. (Photo by Justin Sullivan\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n
Getty Images<\/p>\n
Amid evidence of an online catastrophe for publishers both large and small, Google is officially challenging the narrative that its AI Overviews tool is leading people to click into search engine results pages less frequently.<\/p>\n
The rebuttal comes through a now-prominent blog post by Google VP and Head of Search Liz Reid, who is contending that regardless of the numbers, the addition of the AI blurb at the top of a search is leading to more \u201cquality clicks.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOverall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year,\u201d Reid wrote Aug. 6.<\/a> \u201cAdditionally, average click quality has increased and we\u2019re actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don\u2019t quickly click back \u2014 typically a signal that a user is interested in the website).\u201d<\/p>\n Quality Time with Google<\/p>\n So the idea is that users will drill down deeper into things, spurred on by the introduction made by the AI tool. But this misses the point: it\u2019s the loss of aggregate traffic that hurts publishers and those trying to garner attention online, and since Google has had a practical monopoly on search for, well, decades, the impact of fewer clicks is big.<\/p>\n But rather than leave it there, Reid added:<\/p>\n \u201cThis data is in contrast to third-party reports that inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic \u2014 often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the roll out of AI features in Search.\u201d<\/p>\n The reader can assume that \u201cthis data\u201d refers to the first line, the organic click volume remaining \u201crelatively stable year-to-year\u201d and not to the rest of it. However, outside parties are specifically taking aim at the former claim, noting that Google does not provide data to counter studies like those by Pew that definitely show lower levels of click-through traffic.<\/p>\n With Their Own Eyes<\/p>\n In addition to Pew\u2019s research, critics of the Google response point to their own evidence.<\/p>\n \u201cDo the hundreds of thousands of Google Search Console [GSC] screenshots showing impressions remaining flat (or increasing) this year, while clicks dramatically decline \u2013 since AI Overviews were rolled out more broadly \u2013 count as \u2018flawed methodologies\u2019 or \u2018isolated examples\u2019?\u201d writes Amsive Vice President of SEO Strategy & Research Lily Ray.<\/a> \u201cThousands of us are seeing it\u2026 but it must just be some big coincidence?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cGaslighting of the highest order,\u201d adds Florentina Schinteie<\/a>, SEO Strategist for In-House Teams and Former Head of SEO at DesignRush.<\/p>\n The Re-Skilling of the Web<\/p>\n Here\u2019s another bit from the above blog post:<\/p>\n \u201cWhile overall traffic to sites is relatively stable, the web is vast, and user trends are shifting traffic to different sites, resulting in decreased traffic to some sites and increased traffic to others. People are increasingly seeking out and clicking on sites with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts where they can hear authentic voices and first-hand perspectives. People are also more likely to click into web content that helps them learn more \u2014 such as an in-depth review, an original post, a unique perspective or a thoughtful first-person analysis. Sites that meet these evolving user needs are benefiting from this shift and are generally seeing an increase in traffic.\u201d<\/p>\n This seems in some ways eerily similar to the arguments of big bosses bullish on AI in the job market. Old jobs, they admit, will go away, but new jobs, they contend, will also be created. So it\u2019s a wash. Well\u2026<\/p>\n Workers will have to re-skill, then \u2013 what does that look like? The burden, you\u2019d assume, would be on the workers themselves, which is convenient for whoever\u2019s moving the goalposts. The same concept is in play here. Reid suggests it\u2019s on the publishers to quickly add content \u2026 forums? Podcasts?<\/p>\n But all of that aside, that first claim of the \u201cstability\u201d of traffic is under fire. It\u2019s not just Pew, either.<\/p>\n \u201cResearch by AI search and SEO platform Authoritas, submitted as part of a legal complaint to the UK\u2019s Competition and Markets Authority, found that when an AI Overview is present, publishers are seeing a drop of 47.5% in per-query clickthrough rate on desktop, and 37.7% on mobile,\u201d wrote Charlotte Tobitt Aug. 7 at PressGazette<\/a>. \u201cSimilarweb data found that among the top 100 news and media websites globally, the average rate of zero-click searches has gone from 50.5% to 52.7% in the past year. Among a wider dataset, zero-click news searches were said to have increased from 56% when AI Overviews were first launched in the US in May 2024 to almost 69% in May this year.\u201d<\/p>\n Publishers also report huge losses in traffic.<\/p>\n