Today:
The company, which had built on sending you elsewhere, just decided to keep you.
Coffee at the ready…
The Big Sip
Google rebuilt search to answer your question instead of pointing you to the site with the answer.
At its I/O conference last week, the company called it the biggest change to the search box in 25 years (a conversational AI front end with agents that browse for you). The pitch is convenience.
The cost lands on the millions of sites Google used to send traffic to.
And one number from Google's own quarter tells you why it doesn't blink.
Here’s Your Brew
The old deal was simple.
Google indexed the web, you searched, and Google sent you onward, where the site earned a visit and the ad money behind it. Search was a toll booth; everyone paid because the road went somewhere.
The new search keeps you parked.
The receipts are brutal.
When an AI summary sits on top, people click a normal link just 8% of the time — down from 15% — and barely touch the sources inside. Zero-click searches now account for nearly 60% of all queries.
In AI Mode, some trackers put it at over 90%.
Publishers feel it first.
HubSpot reckons it lost 70–80% of organic traffic. Chegg sued Google, blaming AI search for a 49% drop in non-subscriber visits. DMG Media, owner of the Mail, logged falls as steep as 89% on some queries.
NPR called the shift an "extinction-level event" for online news.
Google's defence isn't empty.
It still sends billions of clicks a day and insists the open web is growing. The catch hides in the maths: Google counts clicks to its own turf — YouTube, Maps, News, all climbing — while clicks to everyone else's sites fall.
Both can be true at once, and only one helps the people who write the web.
Which brings us to the number Google won't say out loud.
In the same quarter all of this landed, Alphabet posted record revenue of $109.9 billion, and Sundar Pichai credited "AI experiences driving usage" in search. The open web supplies the answers, Google keeps the visitor, and the firm holding the front door just booked its best quarter.
Convenient.
Two Sides, One Mug
Pro: Users get faster, cleaner answers, and Google says the clicks it does send are higher quality — visitors who stay longer, not bounce.
Con: The sites that supply the answers lose the traffic and the ad money that pays to make them.
Our read: A toll booth that swallows the road kills the thing it was built to charge for.
Receipt of the Day
[Report] Pew Research Centre — "Google Users Are Less Likely to Click Links When an AI Summary Appears"
Users clicked a result 8% of the time when an AI summary was present, versus 15% without, and just 1% clicked a source within the summary.
Why it matters: It puts hard numbers on the click drain publishers have been shouting about for a year.
Spit Take
Google traffic to publishers: down a third in a year.
Extra Curricular Coffee Break Links
The Next Web — Who actually loses when search stops linking out — The clearest map of which publishers are bleeding and why scale makes Google hard to quit.
Tech2Geek — Google scrambles to defend "blue links" — Its own data shows AI Mode doubling every quarter. The defence may already be moot.
Moneywise — Creators say "it just might be over" — The human cost: layoffs, lawsuits, and the freelancers who built the web Google now mines.
Mugshot 📊
When did you last click past the AI answer?
Today — I still click.
Can't remember.
What's a blue link?
You can read all our back issue newsletters for free here.
For the love of coffee, see you tomorrow!
Enjoy your Tuesday, keep it caffeinated.
Read yesterday’s newsletter about NVIDIA’s fall China from grace here.
Thanks for reading!
Are you subscribing?
Join your crew of caffeinated sceptics today.
Be sure to get your daily Curse and Coffee fix by hitting the button below.
Open Monday to Friday.