Adapting to the Era of Google’s ‘Search Generative Experience’: Asking ChatGPT How Publishers can Navigate and Thrive

Google unveiled its innovative ‘search generative experience’ in May this year, heralding a new era in online search by incorporating generative AI. While it aims to make search more convenient and interactive for users, following the steps of Bing and Bard’s generative AI, this development poses potentially seismic shifts for online publishers. With the prospect of diminished user traffic and decreased visibility on their sites, the future landscape for these publishers appears challenging. Curiosity piqued on (especially since my own role is that of an online author!), I turned to ChatGPT to have its take on how publishers can not only mitigate these impacts but potentially adapt and thrive in this evolving digital ecosystem.

Among its suggested solutions, I found interesting that it suggested publishers adopt methods that AI cannot replicate, such as fostering community and specializing in niche topics (likely combined with not allowing Google to use material on said topics to generate AI responses). I couldn’t help but envision a near dystopian future where chatbots could emulate said ‘community’, especially when conversations with ChatGPT already seem disturbingly human at times. Additionally, its first solution — to diversify traffic sources — seem very difficult for most publishers to adopt given the dominance of online platforms by a few companies. While I found ChatGPT’s suggestions useful, I could not help but feel that publishers are facing a bumpy road ahead, with the only possible saviours being new legislation or regulations similar to the Writers strike that led to stronger protections against AI-generated works. 

My question to ChatGPT: What are the benefits and downsides of this new generative search experience, and what can publishers do to adapt or reduce the negative impacts?

ChatGPT: The Dawn of Google’s ‘Search Generative Experience’: A Double-Edged Sword
By ChatGPT, Expert on Online Traffic, Online Companies, Internet Law, and AI

In the ever-evolving world of digital search, Google has once again set the stage for a revolutionary change with its new ‘search generative experience’. But what does this shift mean for the users, Google, and, more crucially, the online publishers who have long relied on search traffic?

At its core, the ‘search generative experience’ is Google’s ambitious attempt to transform the way users access information. Instead of merely being directed to third-party websites for their queries, users are now provided with succinct, AI-generated “snapshot” answers right on Google’s platform. By leveraging advanced artificial intelligence, Google aims to distill the vast expanse of the web into direct, article-style responses.

The Benefits: A Boon for Google and Users

For Google, this innovative approach spells numerous advantages. Primarily, it fosters an enhanced user experience. With direct answers, users no longer need to sift through multiple web pages to find what they’re seeking. This streamlined process could amplify user retention, keeping them engaged within Google’s ecosystem. Cost efficiency is another significant gain. By minimizing its reliance on external links, Google can potentially trim operational expenses. Furthermore, this new approach affords Google more control over content quality, ensuring a standardized user experience.

For users, the apparent benefit lies in rapid access to information. The time saved from not hopping between sites can be substantial, especially for quick queries or clarifications.

The Drawbacks: Publishers in Peril

However, this novel approach is not without its challenges, especially for online publishers. The most glaring concern is the potential erosion of website traffic. With Google presenting answers upfront, users might not feel the need to click through to external websites. This could drastically cut ad revenues, an economic lifeline for many publishers. Additionally, there’s an underlying apprehension about Google exploiting publishers’ content to train its AI, all without direct compensation.

Adapting and Thriving: A Blueprint for Publishers

But, as history has shown us, with challenges come opportunities. For publishers willing to pivot and adapt, the following strategies could prove beneficial:

1. Diversify Traffic Sources: A reduced dependency on Google can be achieved by tapping into alternative platforms. Social media, email newsletters, and direct consumer engagements can serve as invaluable traffic streams.

2. Foster Community: In an age of AI, human interaction is still irreplaceable. By nurturing a loyal community through interactive content and discussion forums, publishers can offer what AI simply can’t replicate.

3. Shift Revenue Models: Considering a transition from ad-centric revenue models to subscription-based ones could insulate publishers from traffic fluctuations. Premium, value-driven content can attract dedicated readership willing to pay.

4. Specialize: By focusing on niche topics, publishers can offer depth and expertise that broad AI-generated answers might miss.

5. Strengthen Brand Identity: Ensuring that your brand stands for trust, depth, and community can make it indispensable, regardless of where users initially source their information.

In conclusion, while the ‘search generative experience’ ushers in a new era of digital search, it doesn’t spell doom for publishers. By leveraging their unique strengths and adapting to the changing landscape, publishers can ensure they remain relevant and indispensable in the age of AI.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you found it informative and interesting.

I would love to hear any thoughts from you on my experiment with ChatGPT. If you are interested in discussing more about how ChatGPT can be used in such political contexts, or have any questions, contact me at hello@simplawfy.ca

Disclaimer: This story is only intended to be used for educational or recreational purposes. Responses by ChatGPT, if mentioned in this story, should NOT be relied upon as factual.