Anastasia Braitsik has carved out a reputation as a leading voice in the digital marketing sphere, particularly at the intersection of SEO, content strategy, and advanced data analytics. As the industry grapples with the transformative shift toward generative search, her work has focused on deciphering how AI-driven results change user behavior and brand visibility. In an era where search engines are increasingly providing answers directly to users, Anastasia’s expertise offers a roadmap for businesses trying to protect their organic reach while embracing technological progress. By blending rigorous data analysis with a deep understanding of consumer intent, she helps organizations move beyond panic and toward a structured, strategic response to the new search reality.
The following discussion explores the nuanced impact of AI Overviews on web traffic, highlighting how these features can cause significant click-through rate fluctuations depending on keyword intent and content type. We delve into the methodologies for identifying which keywords are losing ground, the limitations of current reporting tools, and the specific strategies—categorized as Defend, Adapt, and Depreciate—that allow marketers to regain control of their digital presence in a landscape increasingly dominated by automated answers.
Research suggests that AI Overviews could potentially reduce webpage clicks by as much as 38%, which is a staggering figure for any digital strategist. How should brands interpret this potential loss, and what does it reveal about the changing relationship between search engines and content creators?
It is a number that sends a shiver through most marketing departments, but it is important to look at that 38% figure as a catalyst for evolution rather than a death knell for SEO. When a search engine provides a direct answer, it effectively satisfies the user’s immediate curiosity, which fundamentally changes the value of a click. We are seeing a shift where the search engine is no longer just a doorway but a destination in itself. For brands, this reveals that the old “volume-first” approach is becoming obsolete; we can no longer rely on top-of-funnel informational queries to drive massive traffic that may or may not convert. Instead, we have to look at how our content serves the user’s journey beyond that initial answer. The visceral reality is that while we might see fewer people landing on our pages, the ones who do make it through are often further along in their decision-making process. It’s a transition from being a simple provider of facts to being a provider of specialized tools, unique data, and brand-driven experiences that an AI simply cannot replicate in a snippet.
Given that Google’s recent performance reports for generative features often lack the granular detail needed for deep analysis, what steps can a team take to manually bridge that data gap and identify specific traffic losses?
The frustration with current reporting is palpable because, while the Generative AI features performance report in Google Search Console is a start, it doesn’t tell the whole story of why a user chose the AI over your link. To bridge this, we have to get back to the basics of manual observation combined with smarter tracking. I recommend using a VPN to search your high-priority keywords from different target geographies to see exactly what the SERP looks like for your users. You have to physically see the AI Overview to understand if it’s citing your competitors or if it’s providing a comprehensive answer that leaves no room for a click. Additionally, we have to account for technical anomalies, like the fact that Search Console over-reported impressions from May 2025 through April 2026. If you aren’t factoring that into your year-over-year comparisons, your data will be fundamentally flawed. By creating a custom tracking environment where you monitor which keywords trigger these features and comparing them against your historical click-through rates, you can start to see the patterns that the automated reports are currently missing.
In your experience, what are the most reliable indicators that a specific keyword’s performance is being hindered by an AI Overview rather than a traditional ranking drop or a shift in market interest?
The telltale sign is a very specific data anomaly: your rankings and impressions remain stable or even improve, yet your click-through rate takes a nose dive. In a traditional SEO world, if your CTR drops, you usually see a corresponding slip in your average position, or perhaps a decrease in overall search volume. But with AI Overviews, you might still be sitting at position 2.8, just as you were a month ago, but your CTR has plummeted from 3.2% down to 1.8%. This tells us that the “real estate” above the organic results has become so dominant and helpful that users aren’t even looking at the traditional links anymore. It’s a sensory shift in how we view the SERP; the organic results are being pushed “below the fold” of the user’s attention span. When you see that 1.4% gap in clicks despite a steady 13,000 impressions, you know you aren’t losing the ranking battle—you’re losing the “need to click” battle.
You’ve suggested a framework of categorizing keywords into “Defend,” “Adapt,” and “Depreciate.” Could you walk us through the logic of the “Defend” category and what a high-stakes recovery strategy looks like for those commercially vital terms?
The “Defend” category is reserved for the “crown jewels” of your keyword portfolio—the terms that lead directly to conversions or high-value commercial interactions. If an AI Overview is appearing for a query like “best cat food bowls for wet food,” and that AI is linking to product pages, you are in a fight for your revenue. A recovery strategy here is about proving your “click-worthiness.” You cannot simply provide the same information the AI has. Instead, you need to offer something functional or exclusive, like a feeding calculator that determines optimal portions based on a cat’s age and weight. This provides a tactile, interactive reason for the user to leave the search engine. We also focus heavily on brand loyalty here; if searchers recognize your brand as the authority, they will actively seek out your citation within the AI Overview. The goal is to move from being a passive link to an essential destination, using things like membership gates or proprietary tools to ensure the AI can’t just scrape your value and present it as its own.
For keywords in the “Adapt” category, where clicks might be harder to come by but the brand presence is still essential, how does a content strategy change to prioritize citations and mentions?
In the “Adapt” phase, we have to accept that we might not get the click, but we absolutely must win the “mention.” This is where first-party data becomes your greatest weapon. If you are publishing unique research or proprietary statistics, the AI is more likely to cite your brand as the source of its answer. We shift our content focus to “answering the next question.” If the AI Overview explains what type of food is best for elderly cats, your content should be structured to answer the very next logical concern, such as how to transition a stubborn pet to that new diet. By positioning your brand as the deep-dive expert that handles the complexity after the AI handles the simple definition, you create a secondary opportunity for a click. It’s about building a footprint within the AI’s knowledge graph so that even if the user stays on Google, they are seeing your brand name associated with the most accurate, authoritative information.
There is a certain level of bravery required to “Depreciate” keywords that once drove significant traffic. How do you help stakeholders understand that losing top-of-funnel, informational clicks might actually be a net positive for the business’s resource allocation?
It is a difficult conversation because marketers have been trained for decades to celebrate “traffic up” charts. However, we have to look at the “best way to feed an elderly cat” example. This is high-volume, top-of-funnel traffic, but these users are often in an exploration phase where they aren’t ready to buy anything. Before AI Overviews, they might have clicked your site, read three sentences, and left. By quantifying the low conversion rate and high bounce rate of these specific informational visitors, we can show stakeholders that the “loss” is actually a filtering mechanism. We aren’t losing customers; we are losing “window shoppers” who were never going to engage deeply. By depreciating these keywords, we can take the resources used to maintain that informational content and reinvest them into the “Defend” category where the ROI is significantly higher. It’s about trading “vanity metrics” for “sanity metrics” and focusing our energy where the financial impact is felt.
As we move deeper into this AI-integrated search environment, what is your forecast for the future of organic traffic, and how will the definition of a “successful” SEO campaign change by the end of 2026?
By the end of 2026, the definition of SEO success will have migrated entirely away from “total sessions” and toward “brand influence” and “assisted conversions.” We will likely see a bifurcated search landscape where organic traffic for simple queries continues to dwindle, potentially stabilizing at that 35-40% reduction mark we’ve discussed. However, the traffic that remains will be higher intent and more technically demanding. Success will be measured by how often a brand is cited in generative answers and how well it captures the “follow-up” click. We will see the rise of “Entity SEO,” where the goal is to ensure the search engine’s internal model views your brand as the definitive authority in your niche. The “blue link” won’t disappear, but it will become a secondary support for the brand experiences we build directly into the search ecosystem. The winners will be those who stop fighting the AI and start providing the specialized, first-party data that the AI depends on to remain useful to its users.
