illustration: DALL-EGoogle has been dealing the cards in the attention game for years, but in 2024, it changed the rules - to its advantage. The launch of AI Overview, automated summaries generated by artificial intelligence, gave the zero-click search phenomenon a whole new dimension. It’s no longer just quick answers to quick questions. Now it`s full-featured articles shown without visiting any website.
We’ve seen this before. ChatGPT, Perplexity and other AI models are right behind the giant, offering fast, concise answers without digging through dozens of links. It’s a new quality in information searching - faster, simpler, and less distracting. To keep users from leaving, Google is now playing the same card. Convenient? Yes. But is it fair?
AI Overview. A new face of no-click searching
What is zero-click search? It’s when a search engine gives you the answer on a silver platter before you even click anything. You type in a question, and the engine shows a definition, a conversion, a map, or - more and more - a full summary. Google no longer settles for showing a snippet. Now it builds out the full answer. AI Overview is a module that generates a summary of a user’s question based on multiple sources. No click needed. The user gets what they came for - and the content publisher gets nothing.
Rand Fishkin from SparkToro warned last summer that out of every 1000 searches on Google, only 360 clicks in the EU and 374 in the US go outside Google’s ecosystem.
| Google Searches 2024 | USA (%) | EU (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Clicks | 41.5% | 40.3% |
| No Action (Session Ends) | 37.1% | 37.4% |
| New Search | 21.4% | 22.3% |
| Zero-click searches | 58.5% | 59.7% |
This isn’t just about technology. It’s a paradigm shift. Information is no longer tied to its source. Even when Google shows links, they’re subtle - and users often don’t feel the need to visit. Because they feel they "already know".
Classic zero-click was already a problem. But AI Overview raises the stakes. It removes the user from the whole clicking process. Before they even look through the results, they’re given a ready-made dose of knowledge. No visits, no sessions, no revenue for publishers. It’s like running a restaurant where Google sends people, shows them a photo of the menu, lets them smell the food - but doesn’t let them in. In an industry where every click is a potential customer or reader, that’s like cutting off the air supply.
New SEO. Optimizing for AI, not humans
We used to fight for the top spot in search results. Now the goal has shifted - you need to show up in the AI summary field. The problem is, the rules aren’t clear. Google doesn’t say what determines which sources are chosen. That means traditional SEO is no longer enough.
We have to write content not only for users, but in a way the AI algorithm can "understand". Think structure, clarity, definitions, and direct answers. The more "textbook-like" your content appears, the more likely it gets into AI Overview. Is this still journalism - or just content farming?
AI Overview doesn’t match keywords directly. It analyzes the user query as a whole and identifies intent. That’s why your texts need to be not just accurate, but contextual. You need to anticipate what the reader is really looking for - even if they can’t phrase it clearly.
This is a big change for content creators. It’s not enough to write "how to cook pasta". You need to know if they want cooking time, calorie count, or gluten-free options. AI will figure it out. If you don’t, your content disappears. Zachariasz Kijak, SEO expert at digital agency Verseo, explains it well in the guide How to optimize for LLMs.
Vanishing brand and AI mistakes
When Google creates AI Overviews, it pulls from specific sites. But users rarely know which. Sometimes there’s a link, sometimes a name - often, nothing. The content is "generated", as if it created itself. But someone wrote it. Someone is responsible. Someone wants credit. This isn’t just an ethical issue - it’s a business problem. Because:
- if users don’t see the brand, they build no loyalty;
- they won’t return or remember;
- and that kills brand communication through content.
Worse still, AI can do a lot - but it’s not flawless. AI Overviews sometimes include mistakes, misrepresentations, or entirely made-up facts. Yet to the average user, it’s still a "Google answer" - something trustworthy.
That’s the trap. When AI is the source, there’s no clear accountability. If an article contains an error - you know who wrote it. When AI gets a summary wrong, no one feels responsible. But the consequences can be serious - from bad health advice to political misinformation.
Who’s really getting paid?
At the end of the chain lies the question that’s being asked more and more: who should profit from content? Google - for displaying it? Or the author - for creating it? AI Overview is a perfect example of a model where the middleman profits, and the creator gets nothing.
Publishers are starting to push back. There are calls for licensing fees, revenue sharing, new partnership models. If Google uses others’ work to increase ad profits - fairness demands that it shares.
If AI Overview becomes the standard - and it looks like it will - the internet will undergo a major shift. On one side: user convenience. On the other: the death of organic traffic as we know it. And the question the industry keeps asking: do we really want an internet where Google eats the whole cake - and leaves everyone else the crumbs?
COMMERCIAL BREAK
New articles in section Media industry
Who really controls the news on the internet? A study from Spain
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Analysis of more than thirteen thousand articles reveals behind-the-scenes mechanisms of spanish digital media. Left-wing portals are responsible for 50.33 percent of texts on lobbying. The energy lobby generates 63.41 percent of publications. Only one daily newspaper evaluates pressure groups positively.
Children and artificial intelligence. The generation of a global experiment is growing
Joanna Sokołowska, UNICEF Polska
A UNICEF analysis based on new data from 10 countries shows that at least 20 million children have already used artificial intelligence (AI). Many of them are ahead of adults, adopting these technologies at a pace more than three times faster.
New generations and the end of traditional news. Reuters Institute report
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Traditional news media are losing touch with the youngest generation of audiences, who grew up in a digital environment. Young people aged 18 to 24 spend time online continuously and expect publishers to take a fresh approach to presenting reality, according to a report by the Reuters Institute.
See articles on a similar topic:
Journalism in the age of AI. Why people prefer humans over machines
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Only 12% of people accept news created solely by AI, while 62% prefer those written by humans. At the same time, only 19% notice labels indicating the use of artificial intelligence, while younger audiences ask AI to explain the content to them. These are the findings of the Reuters Institute report on artificial intelligence in media.
User Generated Content. A minefield for journalists and media
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Over 40% of internet users judge information credibility by likes and views. Only 20% use traditional news channels as a main and first source. A Reuters Institute report highlights the scale and risks of User Generated Content and offers advice on how media can avoid falling into its trap.
Most influential women in polish marketing and business
Arkadiusz Zbróg, IMM
Joanna Malinowska-Parzydło, Dagmara Pakulska, Natalia Hatalska, Anna Ledwoń-Blacha, Monika Smulewicz, and Dominika Bucholc. This is the top of the list of the most influential women in marketing and business, developed by the Widoczni agency in cooperation with the Institute for Media Monitoring (IMM).
New Individual Mass Media (Mass Self Communication)
Grzegorz D. Stunża
In the latest issue of "Le Monde Diplomatique," there’s an article by Manuel Castells titled "Individual Mass Media." The author points out that media, once subjective and often party-affiliated (as with newspapers), only briefly moved away from one-sidedness when under various pressures.




























