Admittedly, I'm not a marketer, but as a user, I've noticed a decline in the quality of Google search results. As you point out, this presents an opportunity for creative startups to come up with new methods, that, if successful, will likely end up being acquired by Google anyway. AI is already changing the landscape of online search, and now I believe AI-powered 'Answer Engines' will significantly change the SEO game. However, Google & co. will undoubtedly do whatever it takes to maintain their dominance. Your article was both insightful and thought-provoking. Kudos!
Thank so much I appreciate that! Yes good point about Google acquisitions - I didn't cover that in the article because I'm not sure which way it could go. On one hand, their simplest solution would be to invest in or acquire the answer engines, but it would probably raise a lot of alarm bells competition wise. Not sure they could get away with it.
I opted into the Generative AI results that appear above the box and they're quite good. They also display links more prominently than the answer box and, anecdotally, I've noticed an increase in organic traffic when I've won the answer box in the past. In both cases, I sometimes click through, sometimes don't but I probably wasn't going to be a monetizable session if I didn't need to click through. Eg I'm not going to suddenly buy a course on cooking if all I really needed was the internal temp of pork, whether I got it from Google or somewhere else. I'm simultaneously concerned about the impact on growth strategies and optimistic that solid content will still be valuable!
3 thoughts: 1) maybe SEO dies but Google search advertising does not - I am already seeing this in some searches on Bing - integrated with search is sponsored links or suggestions. - which is a great thing
2) In my usage of Perplexity (I use it a lot) I see a few use cases (10%) where I want a few links to learn more - which are the top 3-5 links on the topic, but I realize after looking at them my question was not precise in the first place
3) The "perfect blend" of ad inventory and content that needs ads is less than 60% - informational + other because only 20% of Google search pages have ads.
So, bottom line, you may be right directionally but not accurate.
1. Yeah I think paid search is easier for them to protect, as it is easier to build a few targeted links into an answer experience, so the inventory will still be there. For advertisers it'll be an assured way to get exposure, though the 1 or 2 spots may be even more disproportionately expensive.
That's why the article focusses on SEO, because it feels that relying on Google for organic traffic is more under threat than for paid.
2. Yes I do the same, mostly when I want to check context or reference. However CTR from the Perplexity SERP is surely much lower than the Google SERP, because most of the question has already been answered
3. I'm not sure I understand. Could you say more on this?
Admittedly, I'm not a marketer, but as a user, I've noticed a decline in the quality of Google search results. As you point out, this presents an opportunity for creative startups to come up with new methods, that, if successful, will likely end up being acquired by Google anyway. AI is already changing the landscape of online search, and now I believe AI-powered 'Answer Engines' will significantly change the SEO game. However, Google & co. will undoubtedly do whatever it takes to maintain their dominance. Your article was both insightful and thought-provoking. Kudos!
Thank so much I appreciate that! Yes good point about Google acquisitions - I didn't cover that in the article because I'm not sure which way it could go. On one hand, their simplest solution would be to invest in or acquire the answer engines, but it would probably raise a lot of alarm bells competition wise. Not sure they could get away with it.
I opted into the Generative AI results that appear above the box and they're quite good. They also display links more prominently than the answer box and, anecdotally, I've noticed an increase in organic traffic when I've won the answer box in the past. In both cases, I sometimes click through, sometimes don't but I probably wasn't going to be a monetizable session if I didn't need to click through. Eg I'm not going to suddenly buy a course on cooking if all I really needed was the internal temp of pork, whether I got it from Google or somewhere else. I'm simultaneously concerned about the impact on growth strategies and optimistic that solid content will still be valuable!
3 thoughts: 1) maybe SEO dies but Google search advertising does not - I am already seeing this in some searches on Bing - integrated with search is sponsored links or suggestions. - which is a great thing
2) In my usage of Perplexity (I use it a lot) I see a few use cases (10%) where I want a few links to learn more - which are the top 3-5 links on the topic, but I realize after looking at them my question was not precise in the first place
3) The "perfect blend" of ad inventory and content that needs ads is less than 60% - informational + other because only 20% of Google search pages have ads.
So, bottom line, you may be right directionally but not accurate.
Thanks for the thoughts - and wow so fast!
1. Yeah I think paid search is easier for them to protect, as it is easier to build a few targeted links into an answer experience, so the inventory will still be there. For advertisers it'll be an assured way to get exposure, though the 1 or 2 spots may be even more disproportionately expensive.
That's why the article focusses on SEO, because it feels that relying on Google for organic traffic is more under threat than for paid.
2. Yes I do the same, mostly when I want to check context or reference. However CTR from the Perplexity SERP is surely much lower than the Google SERP, because most of the question has already been answered
3. I'm not sure I understand. Could you say more on this?