As AI-powered search upends the digital landscape, publishers grapple with declining traffic, legal battles, the erosion of interest, and the decline of curiosity.
by: Paul Gerbino
The evolution of search engine technology, specifically the shift from Search Engine Optimization (SEO) to Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), signifies a fundamental disruption in the online publishing ecosystem. The move from a search returning a headline link and 320 characters to a complete article (overviews) derived from sources removing the need to click through. This transition, driven by the proliferation of AI-powered search platforms, presents substantial challenges to content publishers reliant on search-generated traffic for revenue or even to build an audience. The core issue stems from the direct utilization of publisher-generated content to fulfill user queries within AI-driven search results, potentially bypassing the original source and diminishing traffic. This content ingestion and re-presentation model, under the guise of Fair Use, raises concerns regarding sustainability of present publishing models.
Empirical evidence, including legal challenges and reported traffic declines, indicates a tangible impact on publisher revenue and audience engagement. These real-world examples are painting a concerning picture for the future of publishing.
The Chegg Case: A Canary in the Coal Mine (and it’s not Frank Bilotto)
Let us begin with a canary in the coal mine, not Frank Bilotto, our beloved and controversial author who receives calls from publishers in far off lands because of his writings, but Chegg, the online education company.
Recently, Chegg provided a stark illustration of the dilemma publishers are facing. Heavily reliant on Google Search traffic for revenue generated from its original content, Chegg claims Google is using its content without compensation. The company has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that AI-generated search result summaries, or AI Overviews, are directly impacting its traffic and revenue. Chegg has even hired Goldman Sachs to explore strategic alternatives, including a potential acquisition or going private, due to its declining financial performance. This situation highlights the precarious position of publishers who, like many, have become addicted to the “drug” of search traffic, only to now find the rules of the game, the “social contract” between websites and search, has drastically changed. As reported by CNBC, “Chegg is worth less than $200 million, and in after-hours trading Monday, the stock was trading just above $1 per share.” [Source: CNBC – Chegg sues Google over AI-generated information blurbs in searches]
Despite the lawsuit, Chegg is hedging its bets by investing in its own AI capabilities, using models from Meta, Anthropic, and Mistral, and partnering with OpenAI. This reflects a growing trend: even as they fight against the encroachment of AI-powered search, publishers recognize the need to embrace new technologies to remain competitive. While that may be true, there is a risk of the proverbial “deal with the devil” with some of these partnerships as publishers risk selling their souls.
Google, for its part, maintains that AI Overviews actually drive traffic to a wider range of websites, emphasizing the billions of clicks it sends to sites daily. However, Chegg argues that Google has used its vast library of 135 million questions and answers to train its AI models, enabling Google to create competing content within search results without proper attribution. Chegg’s lawsuit also points to a previous court ruling that Google holds a monopoly in the search market, raising questions about fair competition and the use of copyrighted material.
A Growing Chorus of Concerns
Chegg’s case is not an isolated incident. Several other companies and websites have publicly expressed concerns about declining search traffic due to AI-generated answers. HubSpot, the marketing software company, experienced a significant drop in organic search traffic to its blog coinciding with Google’s December updates, suggesting that AI-related algorithm changes are impacting visibility. [Source: Aleyda Solis – Hubspot’s Blog Organic Search Traffic Drop: What really happened?] News publishers and content creators in general have voiced concerns about “featured snippets” and other direct answer formats that pull content directly from websites, reducing the incentive for users to click through to the original source. Specialized content sites, such as B2B publishing, offering in-depth information in their vertical market, are particularly vulnerable, as search engines can easily extract and display key information directly in search results.
Evidence of a Wider Trend
Immediate Media, a UK publisher owning brands like Good Food, has reported drops in click-through rates from search after the introduction of AI Overviews, forcing them to adapt their content strategy. [Source: The Media Leader – Publishers say Google’s AI Overviews have reduced traffic potential] Industry bodies representing publishers have indicated that their members are seeing 5-10% decreases in search traffic since AI Overviews launched, suggesting a wider trend even if individual companies are hesitant to speak out publicly. The Media Leader has reported that many publishers are saying that Google’s AI Overviews feature has been reducing their potential traffic. A publishing industry trade body representative reports that publishers have seen a 5-10% decrease in traffic since the feature was launched – an estimate based on early indicators.
The “Good Enough” Problem
Beyond the immediate impact on traffic, there’s a deeper concern: the potential for AI-generated answers to stifle curiosity and critical thinking. Google and Wikipedia, while valuable resources, have arguably conditioned users to accept the first answer they see as “good enough.” This mindset, combined with the convenience of AI-generated summaries, could discourage users from exploring original sources, engaging with diverse perspectives, and delving deeper into complex topics. The risk is a homogenization of information and a decline in the intellectual curiosity that drives true learning and understanding, as well as traffic.
A study in Big Think adds to these concerns, highlighting the potential for AI to erode critical thinking skills. [Source: Big Think – Is AI eroding our critical thinking?] The study found a negative correlation between AI usage and critical thinking scores, especially among younger participants. This raises the alarm that over-reliance on AI tools could diminish our ability to analyze information and form independent judgments – skills crucial for navigating an increasingly complex information landscape.
Furthermore, the convenience of AI-generated answers may discourage users from seeking diverse perspectives. If users become accustomed to receiving information that confirms their existing biases, they may be less likely to explore alternative viewpoints and engage in critical discourse. This could lead to a narrowing of intellectual horizons and a decline in the kind of open-mindedness that is essential for true learning and understanding and often fuels the curiosity that takes them to different websites.
For publishers, this “good enough” problem presents a double-edged sword. While AI can drive efficiency and engagement on the one hand, it also risks creating a passive audience that is less likely to actively explore and engage with diverse perspectives. This, in turn, could lead to a decline in the value of original, in-depth content and a homogenization of the information landscape.
This issue can be a whole new article! But I digress…
Legal Battles and Industry Predictions
The News Media Alliance (NMA), on behalf of Condé Nast, McClatchy, and a coalition of publishers including The Atlantic, Forbes Media, The Guardian, and others, has sued AI firm Cohere for copyright infringement, alleging unauthorized use of their content to train AI models. [Source: TV News Check – Media Companies Sue Cohere AI For Copyright Infringement] News Corp has also sued Perplexity for similar reasons. These lawsuits highlight the growing tension between publishers and AI companies and the fight to protect intellectual property.
Gartner predicts in a 2024 report that users will increasingly seek answers from generative AI tools rather than traditional search engines, leading to a 25% drop in search engine traffic by 2026. [Source: Search Engine Land – Will traffic from search engines fall 25% by 2026?] While Gartner’s predictions are not infallible, they echo the anecdotal evidence and raise serious concerns about the long-term viability of relying solely on search traffic.
When Niche Becomes Nil: The Crushing Weight on Smaller Creators
While the big boys duke it out with AI giants, let’s not forget the little guys, the niche creators, the vertical B2B publishers, the ones who pour their passion into their content. They’re the ones who truly feel the pinch of this AI-driven sea change. Many of them are not just addicted to the “drug” of search traffic; they live on it.
These folks, the experts in obscure hobbies, the purveyors of hyper-specialized knowledge, the passionate ones for their industries, they built their digital businesses on the promise of search, the social contract that was struck allowing Google and others to crawl their pages. Now, that foundation is cracking, that social contract is broken. Their content, the very fuel for these AI engines, is being siphoned off, presented as a “good enough” answer, leaving them with crumbs.
Imagine: you’ve spent years building a site dedicated to vintage car repair, meticulously documenting every sparkplug and gasket. Suddenly, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini, or both spits out a detailed summary, pulling directly from your hard-earned knowledge, and users never bother to click through. Your traffic plummets, your voice as the standard bearer of your industry withers and disappears.
These are not merely businesses; they are passionate individuals, deeply invested in their specialized fields, often operating with limited resources.They don’t have Goldman Sachs on speed dial, or the legal muscle to tangle with tech titans. They rely on the fairness of the system, a system that’s now tilting not in their direction.
The result? A chilling effect. Why bother crafting in-depth guides, sharing hard-won expertise, if an algorithm will simply pilfer it? We risk losing those unique voices, those quirky corners of the internet that make it so vibrant. The web becomes a bland, homogenized landscape, where “good enough” reigns supreme. And that, dear readers, is a loss for all of us.
AI’s Day in Court: A Counterpoint
Now, lest I be accused of painting an entirely one-sided picture that AI is as solely a disruptive force, it is crucial to acknowledge the other side of the argument, the opportunity and advancement that this technology also brings. I need to give AI its day in court and examine its potential for good. I recognize the potential for AI to be a powerful tool for progress, even for those very same publishers that are being negatively impacted.
At the recent RevvedUP conference produced by Heather Holst-Knudsen, CEO at H2K Labs and Kerry Gumas, Founder and CEO of Metacomet Advisors, the positive potential for AI was on display. AI as a tool for good can handle many tedious and time-consuming tasks associated with content creation, freeing up writers, editors, and other creative professionals to focus on the more strategic, creative, and deeply engaging aspects of their work. Imagine being able to offload the initial drafting, the mundane fact-checking, or the tedious SEO optimization to an AI, allowing you to dedicate your energy to the truly innovative and insightful content that only a human can produce. Not to mention AI as a tool to analyze data and provide readers with better content as well as advertising experience.
Beyond the publisher, the advent of AI-powered search holds the promise of democratizing information access on an unprecedented scale. No longer will valuable knowledge be buried deep within the digital archives and pages rarely exposed by traditional search and accessible only to those who know precisely how to search for it. AI can sift through the vast expanse of the internet, unearthing hidden gems of information and making them readily available to anyone with a query. This can be particularly empowering for individuals and communities lacking the digital literacy or technical know-how to navigate the complexities of online information retrieval.
Efficiency, too, is a key advantage. AI can significantly increase the speed and ease of sifting through terabytes of data providing users concise, targeted analysis and answers to their questions in a fraction of the time. This is not merely a matter of convenience; in many cases, it can be a matter of critical importance, such as in time-sensitive situations where quick access to reliable information is paramount.
And let us not forget the potential for personalized learning. AI-powered tools can adapt to the unique needs and learning styles of individual students, providing customized feedback, resources, and pathways for exploration taking adaptive learning platforms to the next level. Imagine a future where education is tailored to each individual, where every learner receives the support and guidance they need to thrive.
Finally, AI can be a powerful engine of content discovery, introducing users to new and relevant information that they might never have found on their own. This serendipitous exploration can lead to a more diverse and enriching experience, broadening horizons and fostering a greater appreciation for the vast tapestry of knowledge.
So, while the challenges posed by AI are undeniable, it is equally important to recognize its transformative potential for good. It is a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how we choose to wield it. The future of content publishing will undoubtedly be shaped by AI, but that future is not predetermined. By understanding both the risks and the opportunities, and by working collaboratively to navigate this new landscape, we can ensure that AI serves as a force for progress and enlightenment, rather than one of disruption and decline. One that respects copyright.
Adapting to the AI-Powered Future
As I have shared in previous articles, my wife often says to me, while my articles help frame the problem, what are the solutions? In this case, how can publishers help themselves? The list of solutions below are pulled from the many solutions provided in Content Licensing Brief articles, This summary for your convenience:
Engage with AI Companies Now: Make deals with AI companies for unrestricted use of content to monetize archives and capture new sustainable cash flow while AI is preparing to pay for premium content1…. The longer you wait, the less your content will be worth.
Upfront Flat Fee Deals: Pursue upfront flat fee agreements with AI companies for archive content and fees for each article produced in the future in exchange for unlimited and unrestricted content use. This is the only model where a potential fair payment is certain.
Limit AI Risks: Limit risks associated with AI by allowing machine learning technology access, but restrict AI use to enhance search functionality….
Explore Payment Models: Consider upfront licensing fees, revenue sharing, subscription-based models (with substantial upfront fees for archived content), and usage-based fees for AI content use6….
Transparency and Verification: Evaluate the credibility, reputation, and financial stability of AI companies. Negotiate detailed agreements outlining terms, conditions, and timelines for usage, dissemination, and future royalties. Demand transparency regarding the use of machine learning technologies.
Long-Term Partnerships: Consider long-term collaboration with AI companies beyond the initial agreement for future royalties, based on trust, transparency, and shared goals.
Form Alliances: Small to midsize publishers should collaborate to bundle content, increasing its value for AI engines and users.
Licensing AI Technologies: Instead of licensing content to AI companies, publishers should license AI technologies for their own use to generate articles and books.
Develop AI In-House: Publishers should develop their own AI technologies to maintain control over content use, create new revenue streams, gain a competitive advantage, and ensure ethical content creation….
Diversify traffic sources: Invest in channels beyond search, such as social media marketing, email newsletters, direct traffic, and community building.
Embrace AI strategically: Explore using AI for content creation tools, personalized recommendations, and audience engagement.
Protect content: Use technical measures, negotiate licensing agreements, and pursue legal action to protect content from unauthorized AI use.
Focus on quality and unique value: Produce high-quality, original content with unique insights to differentiate from AI-generated content.
Collaborate and advocate: Work with industry associations, lobby for regulations, and share best practices to address AI challenges.
The future of online publishing in the age of AI is uncertain. However, by diversifying their strategies, embracing innovation, and protecting their content, publishers can increase their chances of survival and success in this new landscape.
Paul Gerbino is the President of Creative Licensing International. He is an expert in digital, content strategy, licensing, product development, advertising, and copyright protections. His expertise is noted with an exemplary track record of transforming low-performing projects into highly profitable revenue streams. Evident in creating and launching innovative digital media products and advertising programs for B2B, B2C, STM, and academic publishers. Paul is passionate about helping publishers improve their performance, productivity, and profitability in the evolving digital landscape.
