The Zero Result SERP.

Long time, no speak – Welcome to my first original thought piece in, what, 8 years!?

For those who don’t know me, I despise rage bait titles.

And for those who do know me, you’ll understand why me using such a heading means I’m DEAD SERIOUS about something. And it’s kept me up at night.

I’m coming up to a decade and a half in SEO now, and although I know people with an extra decade on that, I’d say I’m a veteran of the industry. In that time I’ve lived through enough SEO IS DEAD claims to write a book…

• SEO is dead because you can’t spin duplicate content any more
• SEO is dead because you can’t do spammy link building any more
• SEO is dead because of rich snippets
• SEO is dead because of voice search
• SEO is dead because of Google Shopping
• SEO is dead because of TikTok (See also; Youtube – we already did that one before)
• SEO is dead because of the Metaverse (YES REALLY)

All of these claims turned out to be poor predictions, often pushed by someone selling the alternative (occasionally disingenuously).

The reason I point these things out is to make three things clear…

1. My entire income and livelihood is reliant on SEO – I have nothing to sell you in terms of an alternative or a solution.
2. I don’t make bold claims without substantial evidence to back them, and operate on scepticism about most claims until proven otherwise.
3. I’ve been through people ringing the alarm bell for SEO enough times to be wary of crying wolf myself.

In this post I will lay out a scenario I have called “ZERO RESULT SERP”. It somewhat builds on something I’ve seen around the concept of “Google Zero” penned by Nilay Patel and my own thoughts on how to paddle through shit creek.

What is Google Zero?

The idea behind Google Zero is simple – it’s the moment Google no longer sends traffic to ANY third party websites. This is not to be confused with “zero click search results” – something that already happens when a search engine user gets the answer from a rich snippet box or AI Overviews and has no need to click further.

This is a hypothetical future for now, but I see mounting reasons to not dismiss it as something that could never happen.

In this post I will lay out where this threat to SEO has come from, how changes in technology and the tech corporate structure would happily allow it to happen, what we could proactively do about it and how our industry could be impacted.

What is AI Overviews?

Chances are if you are here you are somewhat familiar with search marketing, but for those who aren’t, let’s bring you up to speed…

AI Overviews are the generative text boxes you have probably already seen at the top of Google results.

It was launched in USA Google results in May 2024, to a mostly mixed reaction from users and somewhat embarrassing PR backlash (some of which reached levels of dangerous).

Despite these issues, alongside some roll backs and updates, AI Overviews is here to stay and rolled out globally by May that same year.

How AI overviews has impacted organic search traffic

A recent study by Ahrefs noted that AI Overviews have reduced click through rates on search results by 34.5%, which is no small number when you factor in how many search result pages Google presents a second, let alone over a longer period.

Google however has stuck with the PR line that AI Overviews is driving a higher quality of clicks whilst ignoring concerns from businesses seeing a decrease in clicks.

My question to Google is how they have determined what quality traffic looks like without consulting website owners in the first place, but unsurprisingly, we’re still yet to see what data is backing this claim.

It’s far from an industry secret or falsehood to say it…

Google’s Evolution

We don’t need to look far to the past to see how Google handles frustrations from those who provide them with content to index and therefore profit by displaying alongside adverts.

Google’s Panda and Penguin anti-spam updates were seen at the time as an (arguably deserved) slap down to an SEO industry that was heavily manipulating search results, but many innocent businesses got caught in the crossfire – the businesses who had no idea what their agencies had been doing and weren’t warned of the risks, the businesses who had done nothing wrong but were hit by overzealous targeting, the businesses who never wanted to get into the spam game but took the “can’t beat them then join them” approach out of necessity.

I remember feeling Google’s response to this at the time was a bit dismissive and unfair, like a teacher telling off the whole classroom because a handful of kids at the back have turned all the furniture upside down (yes, I did do that on a few occasions).

Eventually Google did roll out some guidance on recovery via the Disavow Tool and released fresh updates so websites could recover, but until Penguin became a baked-in part of the algorithm it would cause months of needless pain to businesses who deserved better treatment.

The major difference back then however is Google was different. It wasn’t perfect by any stretch, but it was still acting out of quality of results for end users, like it or loath it.

Fast forward 15-or-so years and the roles of search degradation has flipped

It is now the SEOs, who understand what’s going on under the hood more than your average searcher, who flag and push back on issues the they can see. Gisele Navarro is one of the more influential SEO figures I’ve seen doing so but she is not alone as a pocket of our industry.

Google has now long removed DON’T BE EVIL from its mantra and continues to make changes that push search results towards Google’s bottom line over external websites with higher advertising prominence, AI Overviews and Google Shopping listings.

The USA DoJ has ruled in one of many Anti-Trust cases against Google that monopolisation is a matter of legal fact (for now) in some areas of the business.

There has also long been talk among the general population that Google’s ability to return results that please the end user has declined. This general trend was already noted before a partnership with Reddit to train AI Overviews and the misguided idea that user generated content is better than it often really is. The result for most searchers was spending more time seeking answers in non-relevant or inconclusive Subreddits instead of, you know, just getting the expertise you need.

With all this in mind, one could make a good case that the quality of search results or supporting the eco-system of websites that allows Google to exist in the first place probably aren’t high priorities within the higher ups at Alphabet Inc.

The AI industry vs… THE AI INDUSTRY?!

In the aftermath of Panda and Penguin being launched, use of low quality article/directory submission sites and spam link building spent a good decade sat in the naughty corner, whilst SEO matured as an industry. This allowed (in theory and mostly in practice) those who provided a quality web experience and helpful content to flourish as a traffic driver from Google.

It now feels like the Wild West SEO days of 15+ years ago are back, with many marketers pushing LLMs as a way to reduce costs and increase speed of content production within SEO, whilst having no memory of the long term damage this could cause when Google decides the spam is negatively impacting its own product’s usefulness.

Whilst Google has taken some measures against over-zealous use of poor LLM-generated content, the scale and manipulation such technology allows means search results can be again flooded with AI-slop shortly after other sites are taken out. One could argue if LLM-generated content serves it’s purpose then it’s “no harm, no foul”, but its already proven how inaccurate or harmful such copy can be at times.

Not to mention, 72% of a recent poll of 2,000 people said they’d still rather read words written by a human.

In recent years, with heavy investment in AI and data centres by all of Big Tech, Alphabet is desperate to make the AI revolution work because if it doesn’t it will lose A LOT of money whilst crashing a large chunk of the economy. These investments continue despite large investors starting to grow in scepticism about the promises of AI as early as mid-2024 and questions being asked as to what it’s ACTUALLY going to revolutionise.

Google was once a search engine that made us too scared to play with fire for fear of getting burned. This time round I struggle to see how Google can resolve the quality of results with such a conflict of interest between end users and investments in LLMs/AI.

Is this a business that values users or profit?

It’s also not just search itself Google has negatively impacted.

We’ve seen and continue to see real-world harm the actions of Google, such as allowing Youtube’s algorithm to quietly push disinformation, rolling back of diversity commitments, doing a complete 180 on using tech for weaponry and leaning towards authoritarian rulers.

This is on top of a general “enshittification” of the web – a term coined by Cory Doctorow – to describe how tech companies offer a solid initial service before gradually degrading user experience for customers to benefit the bottom line.

Enshittification also ties into Ed Zitron’s wider theory on “The Rot Economy”, which argues a growth-at-all-costs mentality is behind the poor directions technology has taken us in recent years.

Google arguably fits under both of these umbrellas based on its current trajectory.

So, what’s the threat then?

With the prominence of AI Overviews serving Google’s results better than sending a click through to another website, the threat is this..

Does this sound far-fetched as something Google could do based on the above? I personally couldn’t say this WILL happen, but I can’t say it won’t either.

Much of this could be shaped by external factors, such as ongoing copyright battles over the data LLM’s use without any regulations to what is classed as infringement.

But with so many external factors out of the control of the SEO industry, that is the fear playing quietly in the back off my mind.

Why is this a problem?

From a user perspective…

Although search has long been treated as a product over a societal asset for the greater good of knowledge, not much Google has done over the last decade has been in the interests of anyone or anything but the company line.

Imagine if we built libraries and databases this way from day one? Allowing a small handful of elite gatekeepers who own the libraries to determine what the data says rather than giving people access to the full works to learn, conclude and discover things? It would arguably be detrimental to the progression of humanity, technology, history and facts.

This scenario wouldn’t just be bad for SEOs, but also for researchers, journalists, students, academia and freedom of speech to name a few.

It would be an authoritarian block on information access that benefits no one but those who control the flow and decided by what the AI determines as fact – despite often being wrong. We’ve already seen this in practice recently when Elon Musk decided his Grok LLM product was too woke and had it tweaked to a point where it started posting antisemitism and declaring itself “MeccaHitler” (which also isn’t the first time a LLM Bot has gone full Nazi).

And from an SEO’s  perspective…

Well, it goes without saying – if a source of traffic is no longer available to capitalise on, then the ramifications for our industry are DIRE.

So is SEO dead or dying, really?!

For now, no, but for the future I think it’s time to consider a real SWOT analysis of our industry for the worst case scenario.

Whilst I long term remain convinced LLMs are not what they are sold as, nor show much of a future beyond a useful aid in some smaller use cases, I see the evolution of delivery of search results on a worrying course whilst big tech continues to convince itself a glorified regurgitation software will result in AGI.

What should the SEO industry do?

So, what exactly can we do about it, now or in the future? Here is a list of things I have considered in response based on my own thoughts and what I’ve seen from the wider SEO industry…

Keep doing SEO as you were

Quality and presentation of information is still a big part of what drives traffic. Schema still helps to gain more prominent rankings via Rich Snippets and AI Overviews is utilising the same signals. Local SEO and gaining map prominence hasn’t changed a great deal in the last decade. Despite regular claims that “XXX is replacing SEO” appearing with virtually every new digital trend, very little has actually changed in SEO for years. When it comes to “AIO” – no one’s discovered anything new for sustained rankings – and anyone claims they have I’d be very sceptical.

Keep an eye on the news

Be vocal and support those who are standing at the front to call this stuff out. A few journalists I recommend are Ed Zitron, Brian Merchant and the previously mentioned Nilay Patel who have all laid down a gauntlet against the tech giants of our modern world. Staying informed helps to plan, explain to clients the risks of AI and may put a bit of fire in your belly.

Divest SEO efforts out of Google

Could Bing make a comeback? Could DuckDuckGo or Ecosia, two search engines with strong USPs, take traffic away from major players the future? Although ChatGPT has seen growth, it’s clear many searchers don’t want AI injected into everything they use. One upon a time Myspace was the biggest site on the planet, but as other social media sites evolved it was left to rot. Don’t assume the Kings of today will be the Kings of tomorrow.

Fight for open source and transparency

What is Google doing and why? Who’s informing these choices? How do these algorithms work? We need to know for society at large. I’ve long said if competition is good for innovation, as Capitalism often sells itself, then why is so much protected by Intellectual Property? Surely a truly competitive market would have open access to code to build better search engines? Granted I am aware of why IP exists and its pros as well as the cons so this answer is quite a broad suggestion, but it’s something I regularly debate.

Collective the digital industry

Could some form of collective bargaining power in place be a good preparation to fight back information war against corporations? Petitions and boycotts can add pressure if they pick up enough public interest, as well as unionised action.

External influence on Google

With something like the above and a core mission statement, we could sign declarations and petitions to mount pressure and change things from within. At present this influence seems further away than ever as big tech does harmful actions like removing fact checkers and becoming cesspits for hate speech.

That’s not to say any of the above is easy work nor likely to see overnight success, but if a collection of bitter nostalgic online nerds with too much time on their hands can get a production company to entirely redesign a 3D rendering of Sonic the Hedgehog, then anything is possible in my view.

Conclusion?

I’ve struggled to think about how I close off this think piece, mostly because I don’t have an actual answer nor a crystal ball, which has looped me back round to the fundamentals… what am I trying to achieve here? What’s the goal?

Right now, I’d say just opening up discussion to possibilities is enough. Who knows where it may lead?

But between LLMs causing chaos to our information infrastructure and the ever-self-serving/dangerous direction Silicon Valley steers our online experience, something eventually has to give.

The other challenge we face is SEO’s reputation is more in the dirt than I ever remember it being in the pre-Panda days. The rise of LLMs has opened the door to the same spammers of yesteryear, promising big results with less work/money without fully understanding the need for long term impacts.

I am willing to go on record and say this however…

I may be wrong, but if I’m correct I hope it’s called “Pelican” because they are cool birds and also a great Instrumental Doom band.

But when it comes to AI Overviews, I can’t see this change to search doing anything but becoming more prominent, at the detriment of businesses that have provided Google with the content it needs to exist in the first place.

Will we let SEO (and wider societal peace) die the slow death it arguably deserves or are we going to stand up and build something better?

It’s our choice if we allow it to be. Maybe.