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
Health disinformation on the internet. Diagnosis from an algorithm
Katarzyna Czechowicz
Health disinformation can cause a cancer patient to see a doctor when it is too late for effective treatment. It can also undermine trust in doctors and public institutions. As a result, people may refuse to cooperate even during a real external threat, experts warn.
Feminatives are not a given. How Polish women talk about their professions
SWPS
Polish women still rarely use female job titles. This comes from the latest report by the Center for Research on Social Relations at SWPS University. Women's professional activity proved to be a significant factor in using feminatives.
Who trusts articles written by artificial intelligence? Results of a study from China
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Young readers trust machines more than human writers. When they consume news, they prefer the cool objectivity of algorithms over human emotions. They believe that articles created by AI are objective. As they interact with these texts more frequently, they rarely notice any harmful biases in them.
See articles on a similar topic:
Artificial Intelligence is ALREADY Outperforming Humans in Creativity
Krzysztof Fiedorek
ChatGPT, an AI model based on the GPT-4 engine, achieved better results than the vast majority of students in the standard Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which evaluates creativity. The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Montana.
Greenwashing storms media in Poland. Business feel the impact too
BDw
A surge in media coverage reveals a new reality: ESG isn't just a corporate responsibility buzzword anymore - it's a battlefield. According to the Institute of Media Monitoring (IMM), Polish media mentioned "greenwashing" in 619 publications and "eco-hypocrisy" in another 545 in Q1 2025.
Radio Listenership in Poland 2024: Demographics, Trends, and Statistics
Krzysztof Fiedorek
Why do millions of Poles still choose radio? What drives RMF FM's dominance and Eska's surprising results? The latest "Audio Track" report from the National Media Institute reveals listenership data, demographics, and evolving trends. How does the digital revolution affect traditional stations?
New Technologies in Journalism. PressInstitute Study
BARD
Nearly 39% of journalists use their smartphone or tablet camera to record videos, while over 26% use the built-in camera to take photos that they later publish, according to the "Journalists and New Technologies" study by PressInstitute.




























