Google reckons that if you’re a website owner and have seen a recent dip in traffic — the kind that normally comes via search engines — it’s got nothing to do with AI Overviews. Company vice president and head of Search, Liz Reid, said in a Google blog post that “third-party reports […] inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic,” claiming that, according to the company’s data, search traffic from Search remains the same as it was last year.
The missive is likely in response to research conducted by the Pew Research Center, which found that AI Overviews and similar summarisation are cannibalising search clicks — a major driver of traffic to websites. This view is shared by some SEO experts, according to a recent report by Ars Technica.
Google where your traffic went
Google Search’s “average click quality has increased and we’re actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don’t quickly click back — typically a signal that a user is interested in the website),” says Reid, adding that “an AI response might provide the lay of the land, but people click to dive deeper and learn more, and when they do, these clicks are more valuable.”
There are no real facts to bolster the claims in Reid’s post, but a rather neat deflection lays the blame for declining traffic on the affected websites themselves without having to show any figures. Reid says users are “increasingly seeking out and clicking on sites with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts where they can hear authentic voices and first-hand perspectives,” while sites that offer “an in-depth review, an original post, a unique perspective or a thoughtful first-person analysis” are supposedly benefiting from AI Overviews.
It’s probably a coincidence that this is the exact sort of content that Google’s Overviews loves to summarise and provide to Search users to ‘add value’ (to its ad revenue bottom line).
The Pew report, which suggests AI is tanking websites, found that internet searches that didn’t have an AI Overview generated more click-throughs than those that did. Google appears to be a direct beneficiary of this changing behaviour, since those searchers spent more time on the company’s search portal, or closed it entirely, having found what they wanted.
Both scenarios may be true. Reid appears to be coming at the situation from the perspective of a Google user (which, incidentally, also benefits the search giant). Finding what you need faster (assuming that is indeed happening) is good, right? However, damaging the traffic numbers of outlets that created the summarised data in the first place actively harms websites. Sites run on advertising, and advertisers don’t typically care about the quality of the clicks to a given website. They’re attracted to bigger numbers. If Google is harvesting those at the expense of a significant chunk of the internet, eventually, everyone is going to lose.
