I’ve written a lot about AI lately, and I’ll admit, most of it is critical. Plenty of you have asked me why I’m so down on the sector. The crux of it is this: I think we’re approaching AI without considering history’s lessons, and because of that we’re failing to ask the questions that will matter as the technology becomes inextricably embedded in our culture.
Perhaps the most important question is metaphorical – what’s the best metaphor for how we interact with AI? We’ve got plenty of examples to chose from. Will our interactions with AI end up being like the PC – a personal device that we own and control? Or will it instead end up like social media or search (or worse, television) – a centralized service that is owned and controlled by large corporations?
Today brought so many stories worth “notes and observations” that I thought I’d try something new – a flash newsletter of sorts, with commentary on stories that pushed my eyebrows up a bit more than usual. Each of these items is worth a full-fledged long-form piece, but it’s Friday, so let’s be brief:
Do You Trust OpenAI? Over the past two years I’ve been warning that when it comes to long promised “user agents” that work on our behalf, AI companies would inevitably adopt the big tech playbook of providing centralized services that they control, ensuring that consumers are dependent on their platforms and by extension, locked into their services. This architecture is anathema to true innovation in a modern data economy, but inevitable given the capital constraints of current AI models. Well, this morning brought news of OpenAI’s “Agent,” which purports to “take over” our computers and take action on our behalf. As I’ve asked, over and over, is this the way we want the future to unfold? Who exactly do we think OpenAI’s agent really works for? Hint: It’s not us, anymore than Facebook, Amazon, or Google ended up working for us.
(This piece is cross-posted from Signal360, where it first appeared)
OK, Google, What’s The Business Model?
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.
“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.” -Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
If you work in marketing, Hemingway’s famous passage about bankruptcy will likely resonate. The launch of ChatGPT in 2022 prompted dire predictions that search’s role as a reliable driver of traffic and sales was coming to a close. For the past three years, however, those predictions seemed overwrought. Despite a slight dip in January, which proved temporary, Google has maintained a steady grip on 90 percent of search activity, and continues to direct a firehose of leads and commerce across the web.
But rather suddenly — in the past two months, in fact — it seems everything has changed. Google announced and immediately shipped “AI Mode,” its answer to OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The company had already implemented “AI Overviews” in 2024, essentially an evolution to its “One Box” feature that provides AI summaries for queries above Google’s familiar list of blue links. According to one study, those summaries are already responsible for a nearly 35 percent decline in outbound clicks — the lifeblood of traditional search engine marketing.
Google knows the question is no longer if AI is replacing search, but rather how quickly. Industry analyst Mary Meeker has an answer: AI adoption, she asserts, represents the fastest change in consumer behavior in the history of digital technology.
With AI Mode, Google has decided to push all in. The company understands that consumers are finding AI chatbots a superior search experience. One recent study found that “more than a quarter of Americans (27%) now use AI chatbots like ChatGPT instead of traditional search engines.” And consulting giant Bain found that “about 80 percent of consumers now rely on “zero-click” results in at least 40 percent of their searches.”
Google knows it’s taking a risk by moving quickly, but no matter what, it must keep its grip on the information-gathering habits of its billions of consumers. That leaves a major question unanswered: If search as we knew it is going away, what will replace search marketing as we knew it? What will supplant the time-honored practices of “SEO” and “SEM”?
If you’ve been exploring this question, you are most likely overwhelmed by a slew of firms, from early stage startups to massive agencies and consulting firms, all claiming an intuitive and familiar answer: “SEO, but for answer engines.”
Some call it “GEO,” short for “generative engine optimization,” and others have dubbed their solution “AEO,” for answer engine optimization. Regardless of nomenclature, the goal is the same: a set of best practices that position a product, service or brand to succeed in the brave new world of AI chatbots.
Chatbots “have been a huge wake up call,” says Pete Blackshaw, CEO of BrandRank.ai, a startup that helps brands adapt to what it calls the “answer economy.” “The trillion-dollar brand marketing industry is being severely disrupted by AI search, and marketers don’t know how to measure it, where to start, or how to win.”
It’s still early, but what’s already clear is that “winning” in AI search means playing a very different game. AI chatbots are the ultimate black boxes – even the companies that run them have no idea how the technology chooses its answers. That means marketers accustomed to precise dashboards of SEM and SEO-driven results must go back to basics. Blackshaw advises his clients to focus on understanding the content ecosystem that informs answer engines’ inputs. The often neglected brand website, for example, “is a fueling station for an AI chatbot,” he says.
Along with similar offerings from companies like Anvil and Profound, BrandRank offers dashboards to help clients understand how their brands are performing inside various answer engines like Perplexity, Claude, ChatGPT, and Google. Once you understand where you stand, you can get to work building out content strategies that might improve your brand’s performance overall.
If that sounds squishy, that’s because in an age of chatbots, it’s harder for brands to hide behind paid marketing. Answer engines scour a massive corpus of data to source their answers, and seem to favor community forums like Reddit or authoritative sites like Wikipedia — neither of which are particularly easy for marketers to influence.
“You can’t control how or when you’re going to be mentioned” in AI answer results, observes Bill Gross, the fabled inventor of paid search, now CEO of ProRata.ai. “There’s no statistics, no reporting.” Gross believes he has a solution: ProRata has developed a platform that builds AI-generated ad units that are contextual to the content of a particular chat. In short, Gross is building AdSense for AI – an approach that allows marketers to buy their way into the AI conversation. But it’s still early days — ProRata has yet to sign a major client like Claude or Perplexity.
In the end, what matters most will be how Google adapts its world-beating advertising services to the emerging experiences of AI chat. For now, Google is treating the various “surfaces” of its AI products as just another channel for its massive AdWords and AdSense businesses. But sometime soon, the company will be compelled to roll out AI-specific advertising units that are purpose built for AI conversations.
What might that look like? On that question, Google has so far remained mute. “Everyone thinks we know the answer to that question,” one source inside Google told me. “We might know more than many,” my source continued, but when it comes to what an AI version of AdWords might look like, an admission: “We don’t have a clue.”
Regardless of whether or not Google has a plan to pivot its $350 billion advertising business toward AI, the fact remains that hundreds of millions of consumers – in particular younger generations – now deploy AI-powered chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude to do everything from work-related research to more traditional search behaviors like comparing product reviews or finding new restaurants to visit. Oh, and on the horizon? AI agents that do the searching and possibly even the purchasing on behalf of consumers.
Given the pace and complexity of change, seasoned experts in search advise brand managers to move to a wartime footing. The rise of AI is likely to be “more impactful than the introduction of the Web in the mid 1990s,” said GoFundMe CEO Tim Cadogan, an industry veteran who ran search at Overture and Yahoo, then helmed OpenX during the rise of programmatic advertising. To win the day, marketers must be “extremely observant and agile,” he continued. “I don’t think any of us know what is going to happen. Whatever happens will happen very quickly. We have to be prepared to throw out the old ways of doing things.”
Cloudflare founders Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn from a 2015 SXSW presentation (image)
There are precious few companies in the tech world that are willing to stick their necks out and “do the right thing,” and even fewer who both operate at Internet scale and enjoy Wall Street’s unabashed fandom.
In fact, I can only think of one: Cloudflare. And today, the $65 billion public company* announced a new policy that has the potential to tilt the balance of the Internet back toward the little guys. Starting this morning, Cloudflare will automatically block AI crawlers from copying the content of every website the company protects. And it’s doing it for free.
Yesterday I wrote a piece about the AI-driven “white collar recession,” which felt to me like a bunch of bullshit marketing. This morning as I perused my morning paper I came across this extraordinary example of exactly what I’m on about. The image above is an ad in The Information’smorning tech news roundup. It’s an undisguised appeal aimed at marketing professionals, playing directly to their fears that they’re about to be replaced by AI. The solution, of course, is … “Head” – the “world’s first AI marketer” which, the company claims, is “not a tool, it’s a new species.”
This kind of claptrap is clogging up any reasonable dialog about the role of AI in our economy. On its home page, Head claims to be “hired” by more than 50,000 companies – hey, that’s a lot! But just a bit of legwork reveals Head is … well, the word “questionable” comes to mind.
This past week, Wall Street caught up with the rest of us and realized that Google has lost its monopoly grip on search. The trigger wasn’t Google losing an anti-trust case – that happened last summer. Nor was it the first ten days of Google’s ongoing search remedies trial. Instead, it was a statement just two days ago by an Apple executive, Eddie Cue, which led to an almost instantaneous panic amongst investors.
Cue told the court that consumers’ preference for using AI agents had led to a decline in search traffic inside Apple’s Safari browser (Google pays Apple more than $20 billion a year to secure that traffic – a major focal point of the government’s case).
Over the past 25 or so years, I’ve argued that Google has built a massive database of intentions – the aggregate result of every search ever entered, every page of results ever tendered, and every path taken (there’s a lot more to it, but that’s the key stuff). I’ve tracked this extraordinary artifact since 2003, and have come to believe that Google’s control over it has become a inhibitor to innovation and flourishing in our society.
The US government – yes, even this one – agrees with me. In the nearly three decades since Google first launched, the company has gone from champion of the open Internet to established monopolist whose principle business is protecting its profits. With the advent of consumer AI, that principle business is imperiled. Google is protecting a revenue stream that it must understand is no longer defensible, either by law or by practice.
Earlier this week I met a fellow who, among very many other things, is a member of a bicycling group based where I live. Given that I live in a pretty small community, I was stunned I’d never heard of the club, which has 900 active members and runs four or five organized rides a week. How’d I miss it?
Well, the fellow told me, it’s a Facebook group. You should join! For the first time in ages, I fired up Facebook with the intention of actually doing something useful. I applied to join the group, then promptly forgot about it. I lost the habit of checking into Facebook more than a decade ago, and I have all notifications from the app turned off.
Chart compiled based on various web sources for both early Twitter and recent Bluesky growth.
I’ve been in the business of making new kinds of media companies, media platforms, and media technologies since before the Web was born, and in every case I’ve partnered with the advertising industry to make it happen – an industry often reviled as the driver of “surveillance capitalism,” the attention-mining, data-driven monster supposedly at the center of the Internet’s enshittification.
So I wasn’t shocked when Bluesky CEO Jay Graber acknowledged last week that advertising might be in the company’s future. The company is growing at a blistering pace, adding tens of millions of users in a matter of months. It costs dearly to service that kind of growth, and the company has investors to appease. Bluesky’s growth mirrors Twitter in 2008 – 9009 – the year that Twitter first raised capital at a billion-dollar-plus valuation. Twitter proceeded to introduce advertising as its core business model one year later, in 2010.
[Second in a series, first post 
