.png){kind=logo}
Google’s AI Overviews are causing major traffic losses to news websites, with some publishers reporting up to a 60% drop in clicks.
Smaller news outlets are often excluded from citation in AI summaries, even when their content is used, favoring large publishers.
The tool has a trust problem, frequently showing false or bizarre information, raising serious concerns about accuracy and accountability.
A small news publisher invests hours in creating a well-researched article. It ranks well on Google. But when someone searches for a topic, Google now serves a ready-made summary at the top, borrowing from that content, so the reader never clicks through.
That’s the issue with Google’s AI Overviews. Introduced last year, the feature offers quick answers, but it’s drawing criticism for cutting off traffic to the very sources it compiles from.
Studies show a sharp drop in traffic where AI Overviews appear.
News outlets like MailOnline report up to a 56% drop in click-throughs.
Broader surveys show traffic loss between 15% and 64%, depending on the topic.
For publishers who depend on Google as a traffic source, the impact is substantial.
Even when a site provides original, detailed content, it may remain buried. Major publishers such as BBC, CNN, and The New York Times receive roughly 31% of citations. Smaller outlets, despite offering value, often get left out even when their content feeds the overview. What’s worse, these AI summaries rarely attribute or link back visibly to lesser-known sources, leaving them with no credit and no traffic, despite being the backbone of the answer users read. This imbalance not only affects visibility but also threatens the sustainability of independent journalism.
Beyond visibility, accuracy remains a major issue.
Examples:
One summary advised adding glue to pizza sauce for better cheese sticking.
Another cited the phrase “you can’t lick a badger twice” as a legitimate idiom.
Such hallucinations aren’t rare slip-ups. Data from Hugging Face places the error rate around 1.8%, with some instances reaching much higher.
Google maintains that AI Overviews send traffic to more websites. CEO Sundar Pichai claims a broader range of sources now receives attention. However, without clear data on impressions or referrals from these summaries, publishers are left guessing.
Platforms like Chegg have taken legal action, accusing Google of using content without credit or payment. Media alliances refer to this as digital content theft and demand stronger policies.
In response, content creators and publishers are shifting strategies:
Structure content for precision: Clear, factual answers improve chances of citation.
Deliver in-depth value: Expert analysis, firsthand experiences, and niche coverage offer staying power.
Expand visibility channels: Social media, email campaigns, podcasts, and apps offer safer alternatives.
Demand transparency: Platforms must disclose how summaries affect reach, impressions, and engagement.
AI Overviews make search faster. But they often strip credit and context from those doing the real work. Letting systems reshape how facts are delivered without ensuring source recognition risks turning meaningful journalism into background noise. Accuracy and visibility matter. Original content deserves more than a footnote.
