Visitors arriving via search engines still represent a vital traffic source for publishers. But since the introduction of Google’s AI Overview, concern has grown.

The logic, according to many publishers, is simple: If Google uses the content of articles to answer users’ questions directly, why would people still click through to the original source?

One of the most authoritative publications on the state of journalism, the Digital News Report by the Reuters Institute, summed up these concerns as follows: “This year’s survey highlights emerging challenges in the form of AI platforms and chatbots, which we have asked about for the first time. As the largest tech platforms integrate AI summaries and other news-related features, publishers worry that these could further reduce traffic flows to Web sites and apps.”

INMA has also reported on how the changes at Google, which go beyond the introduction of AI Overviews, are leading to fewer referrals.

Media organisations respond to AI reach

Some publishers have already taken legal or political action against tech companies like Google for training on, or deploying, journalist-created content. For example:

• The New York Times is leading legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft, arguing that copyright is being infringed.
• In Chile, media company Copesa filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing it of “abusing its near-monopoly power by controlling advertising and selecting news content in search results.”
• In Australia, the government proposed a levy on digital platforms, including Google, if it refused to strike or renew commercial agreements with news outlets, following Google’s reduction in such deals.
• South Africa’s Competition Commission recommended Google contribute to a journalism sustainability fund and implement “algorithmic fairness measures to ensure South African media outlets receive equitable representation.”

So, this issue isn’t just about AI Overviews in Google Search. According to TechCrunch, Google has now begun summarising some articles in Google Discover (the curated news feed by Google that comes pre-installed on many smartphones) using AI as well.

That’s a particularly sensitive development because Google Discover has become an increasingly important source of traffic for many publishers.

Diving into the data

Smartocto has examined data from more than 400 news outlets across the world, 70% of which are situated in Europe. So far, there is no clear decline in traffic from Google Search. And even if there is a slight drop, it is more than offset by the growing influence of Google Discover.

That doesn’t mean no declines exist anywhere; I’ll get to that soon enough. But this is what the benchmark shows. We compared different segments of the industry, such as national versus regional news brands. The picture is mixed, but there is no obvious downward trend in search.

To ensure we weren’t overlooking anything, I asked one of our largest clients, DPG Media, to review its Google traffic.

DPG Media owns 80 online media brands in Belgium and the Netherlands, some of which are news sites, while others focus more on service-oriented content.

SEO specialist Femke Simons confirms that, across the board, there has not yet been a major decline since the introduction of Google’s AI Overview. However, the service-oriented brands are already seeing an impact.

“We estimate the maximum impact on total reach at news Web sites to be between one and five percent,” she said. “Google AI Overviews are generally not shown for news-related search queries.

For our news brands, that’s where the majority of Google Search traffic comes from.

“At the level of individual articles, though, we are already seeing some effect, particularly for evergreen and service-driven queries. There’s a noticeable difference between articles that do or do not receive a citation link in the AI response,” Simons said.

Therefore, magazines are already experiencing some influence from AI Overviews, especially in relation to service-oriented searches such as health, society and lifestyle, horoscopes, and food and drink.

She shared a chart from one of the magazines that regularly covers these kinds of topics. What stands out is that the number of clicks is declining in particular, compared to the number of impressions.

Responding to Google’s algorithms

This brings us to a pressing question we hear often from our clients: How should we respond to the changes in the Google algorithms?

Everyone wants their article to appear in that mobile newsfeed (Discover) but influencing that is notoriously difficult. Don’t try, said Natalia Zaba from the Google News Initiative in a smartocto-hosted webinar. Focus on creating strong, original journalism. The algorithm will follow.

But for Google Search, a more active approach still pays off. SEO specialists (often working from within editorial teams) shape articles in ways that help them rank. These teams frequently steer the editorial agenda based on keyword research.But how future-proof is this strategy?

Some are already shifting focus to what’s being called answer engine optimisation (AEO), the practice of structuring content so it can be surfaced directly as an answer in Google. Think featured snippets, “people also ask” boxes, or position zero.

It’s a subtle but important shift from visibility to direct utility. We don’t know if that has a positive or negative influence on traffic.

What we suggest

Our advice? Appoint someone in your newsroom to monitor developments closely, like Simons at DPG Media does. Determine the current ratio of your referral traffic sources and keep track of changes throughout the rest of the year — not just for the Web site as a whole, but also on topic or section level.

Keep investing in strengthening your own platform and direct channels. Newsletters and podcasts allow for direct relationships with your audience — and media organisations retain control of them. You still have to operate within the broader ecosystem, but you can shift some of the power back into your own hands.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .