There is a narrative in publishing that Google traffic will mostly disappear. The real-world data strongly contradicts this. Accepting the narrative is extremely dangerous.
I have been waiting for someone to shoot holes in the Google Zero narrative, especially around Chartbeat data, which has been the source for more false publisher theories in the past 10 years than I can count.
Publishers have a habit of looking at the easily packaged narrative instead of thinking critically about their own brand performance, and then only talking with other publishers... instead of the many other business verticals that primarily exist online. It's an extrapolation of journalists whose only friends are other journalists... at some point in your adult life, you have to expand your worldview by talking to people from different fields in a non-transactional capacity (i.e., outside of building a story).
If there are 30 prominent organic digital strategies across all the industries who are invested in building business online, publishers typically use about 5 of them and ignore the rest. In my view, it's ego more than anything... publishers feel entitled to user attention that they haven't bothered to earn.
I like The Verge, but agree that they're weirdly reticent to acknowledge that organizing and optimizing their content for different kinds of audiences could help their business.
A note on the Chartbeat data as I also messaged that here @ WaPo: the November YoY comparison is a really poor one, given 2024 was a U.S. presidential election. All publishers are going to see relative decline from that huge news moment. If you do a more apropos YTD comparison (Jan-Nov), the delta's more like -15%; not -33%. Context is so important.
Google Trends now also has an API, which probably contributes to fewer searches, and its ubiquity means direct traffic to the URL will replace a lot of searches too. So I think your conclusion lacks factual basis.
if people are searching for trends less because they have it on their system already from the API then the conclusion is that google is circumventing their own search system to get there.
What does the picture look like when you remove the top 100 domains? aggregate data across the entire web masks the reality for independent publishers. Of course Wikipedia and Reddit are fine, but what does the data say specifically about independent, mid-sized blogs?
You're flattening through aggregation the same way I might be skewing through outliers. the difference is nobody's questioning your methodology
I have been waiting for someone to shoot holes in the Google Zero narrative, especially around Chartbeat data, which has been the source for more false publisher theories in the past 10 years than I can count.
Publishers have a habit of looking at the easily packaged narrative instead of thinking critically about their own brand performance, and then only talking with other publishers... instead of the many other business verticals that primarily exist online. It's an extrapolation of journalists whose only friends are other journalists... at some point in your adult life, you have to expand your worldview by talking to people from different fields in a non-transactional capacity (i.e., outside of building a story).
If there are 30 prominent organic digital strategies across all the industries who are invested in building business online, publishers typically use about 5 of them and ignore the rest. In my view, it's ego more than anything... publishers feel entitled to user attention that they haven't bothered to earn.
I like The Verge, but agree that they're weirdly reticent to acknowledge that organizing and optimizing their content for different kinds of audiences could help their business.
Great stuff as always, Barry.
A note on the Chartbeat data as I also messaged that here @ WaPo: the November YoY comparison is a really poor one, given 2024 was a U.S. presidential election. All publishers are going to see relative decline from that huge news moment. If you do a more apropos YTD comparison (Jan-Nov), the delta's more like -15%; not -33%. Context is so important.
check.. https://nathankyoung.substack.com/p/the-last-google-search?r=2kp7ol
Google Trends now also has an API, which probably contributes to fewer searches, and its ubiquity means direct traffic to the URL will replace a lot of searches too. So I think your conclusion lacks factual basis.
if people are searching for trends less because they have it on their system already from the API then the conclusion is that google is circumventing their own search system to get there.
I don't think you understand how Google's ecosystem works. But hey, you do you.
My friends with websites have had all their clicks from users literally siphoned out by the google ecosystem
I’m trying to advocate for people; you’re trying to apologize
I'm not apologising. I'm showing data, not anecdote. Decisions should be based on the former, not the latter.
What does the picture look like when you remove the top 100 domains? aggregate data across the entire web masks the reality for independent publishers. Of course Wikipedia and Reddit are fine, but what does the data say specifically about independent, mid-sized blogs?
You're flattening through aggregation the same way I might be skewing through outliers. the difference is nobody's questioning your methodology