“The lack of separate AI Overviews data in Search Console is not an oversight but a deliberate choice: Google wants to prevent a new optimization cycle aimed at manipulating AI results”, Johannes told us
The debate around SEO has a fundamental problem: it is polluted by noise.
Between apocalyptic predictions and miracle recipes fueled by every new Google announcement, genuine reflection has become a rare commodity. In all this din, analysis risks giving way to a picture that is anything but clear.
It is precisely to bring the conversation back onto rational tracks that the SEO Confidential series was born, the space where I talk with the most authoritative voices in the SEO community.
For this seventh installment, I wanted to sit down with a point of reference for anyone looking for concrete studies rather than passing theories. Today I have the pleasure of talking with Johannes Beus, an SEO veteran who has been studying search engines since 2001.
Johannes’s name is inextricably linked to SISTRIX, the analytics platform he founded and now leads as CEO. With him, I wanted to tackle the most relevant topics of the moment — the ones that, to be clear, will matter most to your business.
How do you measure the real impact of AI Overviews?
Which metrics truly matter in a world where data is becoming increasingly opaque?
And, above all, how do you win in a post-click era, where the goal is no longer traffic but becoming the authoritative source that artificial intelligence cites and draws from? Ready to switch off the background noise and focus on the data?
Let’s begin.
“The era of massive organic traffic is coming to an end, and the levels recorded in 2024 will likely represent a historic peak that will not be surpassed”
Is Google about to make publishers superfluous, turning them from long-standing partners into mere costs to be optimized and, ultimately, cut? But wasn’t it the publishers themselves who, with decades of increasingly aggressive SEO optimization, handed Google the perfect manual to understand, replicate and, ultimately, replace their content?
In other words, didn’t they dig their own grave by teaching AI exactly how to do without them?
Yes, I believe that is exactly what is happening. The traditional role of publishers as content intermediaries is becoming superfluous thanks to artificial intelligence, which is able to synthesize information directly.
Publishers are largely responsible for this situation. For years, their focus on SEO created a perfect manual for artificial intelligence. In essence, they taught the machine how to understand, structure and create high-quality content, thereby making themselves replaceable. This is not limited to news, but affects any information aggregator, such as recipe or data platforms.
Ultimately, Google’s priority is technological progress, not historic partnerships. Publishers have become a cost to be managed rather than an essential partner, and Google has no commercial incentive to slow down AI for their sake. They effectively helped build the tool that is now replacing them.
Everyone seems obsessed with Google’s new AI Mode, forgetting the impact of AIOs. Don’t you think the real threat to traffic — silent and relentless — is the daily improvement of AI Overviews answering in place of our websites?
You’re right. The immediate threat to traffic is definitely the existing AI Overviews, not a theoretical “AI Mode”. I see them as a transitional tool. They are already reducing traffic, but their main purpose is to accustom users to a future in which they will get answers without clicking through to websites. So, while AIOs are causing massive disruption now, they are simply paving the way for a full “AI Mode” that will eventually replace the traditional search page.
If Search Console doesn’t distinguish between AI Overviews data and AI Mode data, how can we make informed decisions? And how can we do SEO if Google hides the numbers?
The lack of distinct data for AI-based results in Search Console is not an oversight, but a deliberate strategic choice by Google. The goal is to prevent a new optimization cycle aimed at manipulating AI results. By making performance data opaque, Google forces people to abandon attempts to game the algorithms and to create content with real value for users.
While this situation is frustrating, it’s important to remember that the practice of SEO does not depend entirely on the tools Google provides. SEO existed and was effective long before a tool like Google Search Console offered such detailed data. The industry has always adapted to new realities. This will simply mean a return to analyzing broader trends and correlating SEO activity directly with core business results, rather than optimizing for specific, isolated metrics. It is a significant challenge, but it does not make optimization impossible.
On the one hand, Google is improving artificial intelligence to answer users directly. On the other, it tells creators “not to focus too much on traffic”. Doesn’t that look like a textbook move to psychologically prepare the market for a future with fewer clicks — almost like saying “get used to it, because the world you know is about to end”?
It is without doubt a deliberate strategy to manage the market’s expectations for a future with significantly less referral traffic.
For years, sending users to external websites was not Google’s ideal goal, but a necessary function of its technology. The core mission has always been to provide answers, and the classic list of links was simply the best mechanism available. With generative AI, Google can now fulfill that mission directly within its own ecosystem, making outbound clicks increasingly superfluous.
The advice “not to focus too much on traffic” is therefore a clear signal of this new reality. It is an instruction to the market to adapt because the fundamental model of search is changing. The era of massive organic referral traffic is coming to an end, and the levels recorded in 2024 will likely represent a historic peak that will not be surpassed.
We often ask ourselves who has the best AI technology, but isn’t the real strategic question a different one? Namely, who can afford to integrate AI without threatening their own business model? Perhaps the most lethal competitor isn’t the most advanced one, but the one that, like Meta, has nothing to lose and can afford to give it all away…
The recent Google I/O conference made it clear that Google has now fully understood that this is an existential moment. The path it has taken, moving from AI Overviews to a fully integrated AI Mode, is an impressive and necessary strategy to adapt its business model before it becomes obsolete. Google has clearly recognized that it must risk cannibalizing its traditional search model in order to control the future narrative.
However, the challenge is twofold. While Google defends its lucrative search territory, it is also trying to catch up in the parallel AI chatbot market, where OpenAI currently holds a dominant market share of over 80%. This means Google is fighting a war on two fronts: it must defend its core business from disruption while simultaneously launching an offensive to gain ground in a new paradigm where it is not the leader. The company’s future dominance depends entirely on its ability to execute this complex pivot.
OpenAI was the pioneer that showed the world what was possible. But don’t you think it risks becoming the classic victim of its own success? On one side, a giant is integrating its idea into the most widely used product in the world; on the other, a colossus like Meta can give it away to billions of users without cannibalizing its own business. Isn’t that a perfect trap, squeezed between those who own the market and those who own distribution?
As the pioneer, it has the advantage of name recognition, but it faces enormous pressure from incumbents who own the critical layers of market integration and user distribution. This puts the company in an incredibly delicate phase. The fundamental question is whether it will be able to convert its explosive initial growth into a sustainable global brand, on the same level as Google, Microsoft or Meta.
There are very good reasons to believe in its success. OpenAI’s greatest asset is its brand: for much of the public, “ChatGPT” has become synonymous with generative AI. This, combined with its current dominant market share, gives it a solid foundation to build on.
However, the margin for error is now practically zero. Being squeezed between giants means that any strategic mistake or product misstep will be immediately exploited by competitors like Google, which are investing massively to close the gap. OpenAI’s challenge is to leverage its brand and first-mover advantage to build a lasting ecosystem before the giants, with near-unlimited distribution and integrated products, make their advantage insurmountable.
This battle between chatbots and AI search isn’t just about business, but about the very philosophy of information. Are we heading toward a future in which AI gives us The Answer — a single, almost dogmatic synthesis — or toward a future in which it remains a tool for exploring The Answers, a gateway to multiple sources?
The future is not a choice between one “Answer” or many, but a convergence in which the boundary between a chatbot and a search engine dissolves completely. The current, sometimes clumsy, layering of AI on top of classic search results is simply a temporary bridge. It is a clear signal that the old model is being phased out, not elegantly combined for long-term use.
We are heading toward a single intelligent interface that will understand user intent. It will provide a definitive, unambiguous “answer” for concrete questions and a guide for exploring “answers” from multiple sources when the user’s needs are more complex or subjective.
If no one is incentivized to create original content, where will artificial intelligence find up-to-date information? On social media? From smart devices like smart glasses? And how will brands make themselves known? Fine, let’s keep calling it SEO and not GEO, AEO (or whatever else you want to call it!), but don’t you think all of this needs to be adapted to the times, regardless of new acronyms?
First of all, it is essential to remember the history of the web. The foundational content Google first indexed — from universities, enthusiasts and forums — was largely created without a direct, click-based commercial incentive. The era of mass commercialization came later, and it is debatable whether it truly raised the average quality of information. Content creation will continue because the incentives will shift back to building authority, disseminating research, brand building and community engagement. Companies, institutions and individuals will still need a place to host their primary information.
This directly changes the function of SEO. The focus will shift from accumulating clicks to achieving influence and “AI visibility”. The new key metrics will not be traffic, but rather how often a brand is mentioned or cited by AI and how much its perspective influences the synthesized answers delivered to users. It becomes a discipline focused on ensuring that a brand’s data, products and point of view are embedded in the AI’s knowledge base. It is a significant change, but change is the only constant in this industry.
With the rise of AIOs, AI Mode and AI-powered answer engines, what future do SEO tools have (if any)? Will they retain a central role in performance analysis and monitoring, or not?
Historically, SEO has often been a siloed, standalone discipline with an unclear direct impact on the business. This has prevented it from being fully integrated into the broader marketing structure. The current shift to AI-based search and answers gives SEO the opportunity to finally become a “normal” marketing channel — focused on brand and communication, and deserving of a comparable budget.
The future of SEO tools is to facilitate exactly this transition. They will retain a central role in performance analysis, but the nature of that analysis will have to change. Tools must deliver insights that are relevant to brand managers and communication teams, not just SEO technicians.
This is the clear direction of the industry. At SISTRIX, for example, work is already underway on the next generation of AI analytics designed to support this new brand-focused approach to SEO. If I may, let me mention that SISTRIX customers can access the beta version for free at https://ai.sistrix.com.
The future of SEO is not in clicks, but in the influence a brand exerts on artificial intelligence
If there is one thing this interview makes clear, it is that there are no shortcuts.
The data Google hides is not a bug, but the new rule of the game. The era of traffic as a vanity metric is over, and the reason is simple: the click was never Google’s goal. Its mission has always been to provide answers; links were merely a necessary technical means.
Today, AI allows it to fulfill that mission directly, making websites less and less indispensable.
This is where the new, true function of SEO emerges: moving from accumulating clicks to influencing AI. The goal is no longer to get traffic, but to achieve measurable “AI visibility“. The key metrics become how often your brand is cited and how much your perspective influences the generated answers. It becomes the art of embedding your data and your point of view in the AI’s knowledge base.
The sense of disorientation is understandable. Working without the reassuring dashboard of the past feels like a step backward.
But this is where the perspective flips. SEO must not limit itself to deciphering numbers and reports — it must analyze a system.
Don’t optimize for a click; build a brand asset so solid that it wins over the AIs.
The dividing line has been drawn.
On one side, those who will mourn the traffic of 2024.
On the other, those who will build the authority of 2025 (and beyond).
Stop chasing algorithms, AIs and LLMs. Start building a reputation that algorithms, AIs and LLMs are forced to recognize.
#fullsteamahead
