At a media conference this summer, the Financial Times CEO suggested that rival publishers might form a “Nato for news” alliance to strengthen their position in negotiations with artificial intelligence companies. The idea drew some chuckles from the audience. But the mood quickly turned serious when Jon Slade revealed that his website had seen a “pretty sudden and sustained” drop of 25% to 30% in traffic from readers arriving via search engines, highlighting the real threat posed by the AI revolution.
Since the beginning of online journalism, search queries—especially on Google, which dominates over 90% of the market—have been central to driving traffic. Publishers have long optimized headlines and content to rank highly and attract revenue-generating clicks. Now, however, Google’s AI Overviews, which appear at the top of search results and summarize answers—often eliminating the need to click through to articles—along with its new AI Mode tab that responds to queries in a chatbot format, are raising fears of a “Google zero” future where referral traffic dries up entirely.
“This is the single biggest change to search I’ve seen in decades,” said one senior editorial tech executive. “Google has always felt like a constant for publishers. Now, that foundation of digital publishing is undergoing a transformation that could completely reshape the landscape.”
Last week, the owner of the Daily Mail reported in a submission to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority that AI Overviews have caused click-through traffic to its sites to fall by as much as 89%. DMG Media, along with other major news organizations including Guardian Media Group and the Periodical Publishers Association, has urged regulators to demand greater transparency from Google. They want the tech giant to share traffic data from AI Overview and AI Mode as part of the investigation into its dominance in search.
Publishers, already under financial strain from rising costs, falling ad revenue, the decline of print, and readers turning away from news, say Google is effectively forcing them to either accept deals—including terms on how their content is used in AI features—or risk being excluded from search results altogether, according to several sources.
Beyond the financial threat, there are also concerns about AI’s impact on accuracy. While Google has improved its overviews since earlier versions advised users to eat rocks or add glue to pizza, issues with “hallucinations”—where AI presents incorrect or fabricated information as fact—persist, as do concerns about built-in bias when algorithms, rather than humans, summarize sources.
In January, Apple promised to update an AI feature on its latest iPhones that had incorrectly summarized BBC news alerts—complete with the broadcaster’s logo—falsely reporting that a man accused of killing a US insurance executive had shot himself and that tennis star Rafael Nadal had come out as gay.
In a blog post last month, Liz Reid, Google’s head of search, argued that the introduction of AI in search is “driving more queries and quality clicks.” She dismissed third-party reports of dramatic traffic declines as based on “flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the rollout of AI features.”
However, she also acknowledged that while overall web traffic remains “relatively stable,” the vastness of the internet means user behavior is shifting, redirecting traffic away from some sites and resulting in decreased visits for certain publishers.In recent years, Google Discover has become the main source of click-throughs to content, replacing search. It provides users with articles and videos tailored to their past online activity. However, David Buttle, founder of consultancy DJB Strategies, argues that the service—which is tied to publishers’ overall search agreements—does not deliver the quality traffic needed for long-term strategies.
“Google Discover is of zero product importance to Google,” he says. “It allows Google to redirect more traffic to publishers as search traffic declines. Publishers have no choice but to agree or risk losing their organic search presence. It also tends to favor clickbait-style content, which works against the kind of relationship publishers want to build.”
At the same time, publishers are facing a broader challenge from AI companies that use their content to train large language models. The creative industry is lobbying the government to ensure that proposed legislation prevents AI firms from using copyrighted material without permission. This would protect the £125 billion sector from having its value “scraped” away.
Some publishers, including the Financial Times, Axel Springer, the Guardian, and Schibsted, have made licensing deals with OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT. Others, like the BBC, are taking legal action against AI companies for alleged copyright infringement.
“It’s a two-pronged attack on publishers,” says Chris Duncan, a former News UK and Bauer Media executive who now runs media consultancy Seedelta. “Content is being absorbed into AI products without fair compensation, while AI summaries are integrated in ways that reduce click-throughs. This takes revenue from both ends and represents an existential crisis.”
Publishers are responding on multiple fronts—through deals, lawsuits, and regulatory lobbying—while also adopting AI tools in their newsrooms. For example, The Washington Post and the FT have launched their own AI chatbots, Climate Answers and Ask FT, which draw answers exclusively from their own content.
Christoph Zimmer, chief product officer at Germany’s Der Spiegel, notes that while traffic is currently stable, he expects referrals from all platforms to decline. “This continues a long-term trend,” he says. “It especially impacts brands that haven’t focused on building direct relationships and subscriptions, relying instead on platform reach and generic content. Quality, distinct content, and human oversight remain as important as ever.”
One publishing executive adds that the focus on striking deals to train AI models to aggregate and summarize stories is quickly being overtaken by new developments, as models begin to interpret live news.”The initial focus was on licensing deals to train AI systems, essentially to ‘teach them English,’ but that is becoming less significant over time,” says the executive. “Now it’s more about delivering news, which requires access to accurate, real-time sources. This represents a potentially very lucrative market that publishers are starting to consider for future negotiations.”
Saj Merali, chief executive of the PPA, emphasizes the need to find a fair balance between the tech-driven shifts in consumers’ digital habits and the value of trusted news. “What seems to be missing from this discussion is the consumer’s perspective,” she says. “AI relies on trustworthy content. While how people want to receive information is changing, they still need to have confidence in what they read.”
“The industry has shown resilience through significant digital and technological changes, but it’s crucial that we find sustainable business models. Right now, the AI and tech sectors aren’t showing any signs of helping publishers generate revenue.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions About Existential Crisis Googles AI Pivot Disrupts the Online News Industry
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is an existential crisis in the context of the online news industry
An existential crisis refers to a situation where the online news industry faces a severe threat to its survival often due to major changes like Googles shift toward AIdriven content which could reduce traffic and revenue for news publishers
2 What is Googles AI pivot
Googles AI pivot means the company is increasingly using artificial intelligence to generate or summarize content directly in search results reducing the need for users to click through to news websites
3 How does this affect online news publishers
It can lead to fewer visitors to news sites lower ad revenue and challenges in sustaining journalism as AI summaries may replace the need for reading full articles
4 Why is this considered an existential threat
Because if news organizations lose significant traffic and income they may struggle to operate or even shut down threatening the future of independent journalism
5 Are there any benefits to this change
Yes users might get quicker answers to their questions and AI can help summarize complex topics efficiently However it poses risks to the sustainability of news sources
IntermediateLevel Questions
6 How exactly does Googles AI summarize news content
Google uses AI models to extract key information from articles and display concise summaries or answers directly in search results often through features like Featured Snippets or AIgenerated overviews
7 What are some common problems news publishers face due to this shift
Publishers experience decreased website traffic reduced ad impressions loss of subscription conversions and difficulty in monetizing their content when users dont visit their sites
8 Can you give an example of how this has impacted a news organization
Some smaller news outlets have reported drops in searchdriven traffic by 2040 after Google introduced AI summaries leading to layoffs or reduced coverage
9 Is Google doing anything to support news publishers during this transition
Google has initiatives like the Google News Initiative which offers funding and tools for innovation but critics argue its not enough to offset the negative impacts of AI summarization
