New data and a UK CMA probe amplify concerns that AI-generated summaries at the top of search results are siphoning clicks from traditional blue links — a shift that has hit review sites such as Wirecutter and forced publishers to rethink metrics, monetisation and bargaining power with platforms.
A new wave of data and regulatory activity is reframing a debate that until recently lived mostly in tech blogs and marketing slides: is Google’s AI-enabled search transforming the way readers discover content, and if so, what does that mean for publishers whose business models still depend on clicks from traditional search results? The temperature on this question rose sharply this week after a Showbiz 411 post highlighted Glenn Gabe’s warning that Wirecutter’s traffic has tumbled as Google’s AI Overviews increasingly surface at the top of search results. The piece frames Wirecutter, a NYT-owned site known for consumer reviews, as a bellwether for a wider internet ecosystem already contending with AI-generated summaries that can squeeze blue links out of the SERP. At the same time, a Guardian study published in July 2025 echoed broader alarms about AI-driven summaries, noting publishers face steep traffic declines when AI Overviews dominate search results. The regulatory backdrop is also shifting: the UK’s CMA has launched its first broad inquiry into Google’s search dominance under the new digital markets regime that began in January 2025, a move that underscored how policymakers are linking search design, data access, and publisher economics in an AI-enhanced landscape.
Beyond anecdote, independent data sets paint a pattern of growing friction between AI overlays and traditional clicks. Two industry studies cited by SEO outlets show that AI Overviews correlate with meaningful reductions in click-through rates for top-ranking, non-branded informational queries. Ahrefs found an average 34.5% drop in CTR for the leading result when an AI Overview appeared, based on an analysis of hundreds of thousands of keywords. Amsive reported a similar story, with average CTR declines in the mid-teens to around 30% in various conditions, and larger losses when AI Overviews combine with other SERP features. These findings are echoed by new BrightEdge data indicating a year-on-year CTR decline of about 30% for searches featuring AI Overviews, even as impressions rose by roughly 49%. Taken together, the numbers suggest that while AI Overviews may broaden visibility in aggregate, they often dilute the performance of traditional blue-link results and shift where publishers prioritise effort and spend. Wirecutter’s experience, though specific to one outlet, fits within this broader trend and prompts questions about how publishers should measure success as traffic patterns evolve and new SERP surfaces become the norm. The long-running question of how NYT properties have fared in the past—an area highlighted by Similarweb’s analyses of nytimes.com—adds complexity to the story, reminding readers that the online attention economy is both volatile and historically uneven as it adapts to new search dynamics.
The regulatory and strategic response to these shifts is now moving faster than the market can fully absorb. The Guardian’s CMA coverage shows that the UK regulator opened an investigation to determine whether Google holds strategic market status in search and advertising, with potential remedies ranging from data-sharing to new oversight of how publishers’ content is used and monetised in AI-enabled services. The probe is part of a broader Digital Markets Competition regime that moved into force at the start of 2025, and the regulator has signalled it will pursue targeted interventions to ensure competition and consumer outcomes in an AI-forward environment. Google has publicly stated it intends to cooperate, while industry observers argue the outcome could reshape the economics of content, data access, and platform responsibility for publishers. Against this backdrop, publishers are being urged to rethink how they attract and retain readers—exploring licensing, subscriptions, and diversified revenue streams as part of a sustainable response to a search landscape that now prioritises AI-generated summaries over traditional link structures.
The moment is not merely about downward CTR curves or headline traffic numbers. It is about how readers encounter information in a world where AI-curated answers sit at the top of search results, often displacing familiar listing formats. For Wirecutter and similar outlets, the core question is how to sustain audience reach and credible product guidance when the gateway to discovery is increasingly mediated by AI. The data, the regulatory pulses, and the publisher sentiment all point to a future in which traditional SEO metrics may no longer be sufficient to gauge performance or to chart a viable business model. The conversation now shifts to how publishers can retain visibility and trust in an environment where AI summaries and automated correlations are redefining what “reach” means, and how regulators may shape the rules of engagement in what some observers are calling the “end of the traditional search era.”
Source Panel
– Showbiz 411: Warning about Google AI report from expert: see website traffic for NY Times Wirecutter is dropping fast as Google kills the internet. Published August 20, 2025.
– Search Engine Land: New data: Google AI Overviews are hurting click-through rates. Published April 21, 2025.
– Search Engine Land: Google AI Overviews: search clicks fell. Published (late April 2025).
– The Guardian: AI summaries causing devastating drop in online news audiences study finds. Published July 24, 2025.
– Similarweb: NYTimes.com Traffic Dropped 27.4% in Q2. Published July 21, 2023.
– The Guardian: Google investigated UK search dominance CMA data. Published January 14, 2025.
– Gadgets360: End of the Search Era. Published June 2025.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
4
Notes:
Findings: The narrative is not original to this August 20, 2025 post — nearly identical claims and data appeared weeks to months earlier. Earliest substantially similar published items located include Ahrefs’ analysis (Apr 21, 2025) and Search Engine Land coverage of that data (Apr 21, 2025), followed by BrightEdge reporting (covered 15 May 2025) and The Guardian’s study summary (24 July 2025). ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-hurt-click-through-rates-454428?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds)) Assessment: ‼️ The Showbiz411 piece (20 Aug 2025) largely re‑frames and amplifies prior reporting rather than publishing new empirical results. Multiple prior publishes are more than seven days earlier — highlight: 🕰️ Ahrefs (Apr 21), SE Land (Apr/May), Guardian (24 Jul). Discrepancies across earlier versions: Ahrefs reports ~34.5% drop in P1 CTR, Amsive reports mid‑teens to ~30% depending on conditions, BrightEdge cites ~30% YoY CTR decline, and Authoritas (covered by The Guardian) reports case‑specific losses up to ~79% — these differing magnitudes should be flagged as inconsistent figures drawn from different methodologies. ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-hurt-click-through-rates-454428?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds)) Republished / low‑quality spread: the narrative has been carried by major industry outlets and mainstream press (Search Engine Land, TechCrunch, Guardian, WSJ/others) as well as opinion/syndicated blogs; Showbiz411’s sensational framing looks like republication and commentary rather than original research. ✅ Where the post reuses a clear press/industry data thread (Ahrefs/BrightEdge/Authoritas/Pew), that typically lowers ‘freshness’ — the presence of an underlying industry study means the freshness of the reporting is low, even if the commentary is new. ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-search-clicks-fell-report-455498?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
Findings: The Showbiz411 text contains paraphrase and commentary (e.g. “Glenn Gabe noticed…”) rather than distinct, attributable verbatim quotes. I found earlier, original commentary from Glenn Gabe on his GSQi blog and social posts discussing AI Overviews and site traffic (June–July 2025) which are the likeliest origin for the referenced warning. ([showbiz411.com](https://www.showbiz411.com/2025/08/20/warning-about-google-ai-report-from-expert-see-website-traffic-for-ny-times-wirecutter-is-dropping-fast-as-google-kills-the-internet), [gsqi.com](https://www.gsqi.com/marketing-blog/june-2025-google-core-update/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) Assessment: ✅ No identical direct quotes from Showbiz411 appear to be original—the claim about Gabe’s warning matches prior public commentary from Gabe (so the piece is reusing his observation). If Showbiz411 had presented previously unseen, verbatim quotes from Gabe, that would raise originality — it does not. ⚠️ Because the article relies on paraphrase of an expert’s public posts rather than published exclusive quotations, treat the wording as reused/commentary rather than exclusive reporting. ([gsqi.com](https://www.gsqi.com/marketing-blog/june-2025-google-core-update/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
Source reliability
Score:
5
Notes:
Findings: Mixed reliability. Strengths: the underlying empirical claims cited in the narrative are traceable to recognised industry analyses and mainstream coverage — Ahrefs (detailed methodology and 300k‑keyword study), Search Engine Land (industry reporting), BrightEdge (visibility/CTR data), Pew/Authoritas as reported by The Guardian — all lend credibility to the general pattern being described. ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-hurt-click-through-rates-454428?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds)) Weaknesses: the immediate piece under review (Showbiz411) is an entertainment/opinion site with a history of sensational headlines and is not a specialist tech/industry data publisher; its framing (“Google kills the internet”) is hyperbolic and not supported by new, verifiable primary data in the post itself. ([showbiz411.com](https://www.showbiz411.com/2025/08/20/warning-about-google-ai-report-from-expert-see-website-traffic-for-ny-times-wirecutter-is-dropping-fast-as-google-kills-the-internet)) Additional uncertainty: the Wirecutter‑specific traffic assertion appears anecdotal (based on an expert’s observation and third‑party traffic tools) and is not accompanied by an on‑record confirmation from Wirecutter / The New York Times in that post. I could not find an official NYT/Wirecutter statement in direct response to this claim in the public record. ([similarweb.com](https://www.similarweb.com/website/wirecutter.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) Verdict on origins: the narrative draws on reputable studies but is repackaged by a lower‑reliability commentary outlet — treat key claims as plausible but requiring primary validation (NYT/Wirecutter statements or raw GSC data) before accepting the Wirecutter‑specific conclusion. ⚠️
Plausability check
Score:
6
Notes:
Findings: The central technical claim — that Google’s AI Overviews / AI Mode have materially reduced click‑throughs to traditional blue links in many cases — is supported by multiple independent analyses and industry reporting (Ahrefs, Amsive, BrightEdge, Pew/Authoritas reporting in The Guardian, Digiday/DCN surveys, TechCrunch/WSJ coverage). These show consistent directional effects (fewer clicks in many informational queries) though the magnitude varies by study and methodology. ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-hurt-click-through-rates-454428?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds), [digiday.com](https://digiday.com/media/google-ai-overviews-linked-to-25-drop-in-publisher-referral-traffic-new-data-shows/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) Red flags / caveats: 1) Methodologies differ (keyword samples, timeframe, GSC vs third‑party estimates), producing divergent estimates (from mid‑teens to ~79% in case studies) — treat precise percentages with caution. 2) The Showbiz411 piece extrapolates industry trends to dramatic, universal conclusions (“kills the internet”) — that rhetorical jump is not substantiated by the cited studies and is a plausibility concern. 3) The Wirecutter claim remains anecdotal in the article — plausible given broader traffic trends, but unverified absent direct GA/GSC disclosure or an NYT/Wirecutter response. 4) Regulatory context (CMA investigation under the UK digital markets regime) is real and relevant — this strengthens plausibility that outcomes may change platform behaviour over time. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/14/google-investigated-uk-search-dominance-cma-data?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) Overall: plausible (directionally supported) but exact figures and dramatic framing are overstated and need primary verification; treat piece as hypothesis + commentary rather than definitive empirical proof. ⚠️✅
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
Summary: The core technical claim — that Google’s AI Overviews / AI‑driven search surfaces are reducing click‑throughs to traditional results — is supported by multiple independent industry studies and mainstream reporting (e.g. Ahrefs Apr 2025, Search Engine Land Apr/May 2025, BrightEdge May 2025 coverage, and The Guardian’s 24 Jul 2025 coverage of Authoritas/Pew findings). ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-hurt-click-through-rates-454428?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds)) However, the specific framing and alarmist language in the reviewed post (Showbiz411, 20 Aug 2025) appears to be repackaged commentary rather than new empirical reporting — it amplifies an expert observation about Wirecutter without primary dataset disclosure or an on‑the‑record confirmation from Wirecutter / NYT. ([showbiz411.com](https://www.showbiz411.com/2025/08/20/warning-about-google-ai-report-from-expert-see-website-traffic-for-ny-times-wirecutter-is-dropping-fast-as-google-kills-the-internet), [gsqi.com](https://www.gsqi.com/marketing-blog/june-2025-google-core-update/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) Major risks: ‼️ recycled reporting (much of the empirical work was published weeks/months earlier); ⚠️ inconsistent reported effect sizes across studies (Ahrefs ~34.5% P1 CTR reduction vs Amsive mid‑teens to ~30% vs Authoritas case studies up to ~79%); and 🟠 reliance on anecdote for the Wirecutter‑specific claim (no direct NYT/Wirecutter confirmation located). ([ahrefs.com](https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-overviews-reduce-clicks/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [searchengineland.com](https://searchengineland.com/google-ai-overviews-hurt-click-through-rates-454428?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/24/ai-summaries-causing-devastating-drop-in-online-news-audiences-study-finds)) Recommendation for editors: Treat the post as commentary that fairly reflects an industry debate backed by multiple prior studies, but label the Wirecutter assertion as unverified anecdote (OPEN) until primary traffic data or an authoritative response from Wirecutter/NYT is provided. 🕵️♀️✅
