Liz Reid, head of Google search, said on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast that AI overviews reduce “bounce clicks” from publisher sites, continuing an argument she has made in public appearances since last year.
Reid appeared on the April 23 episode of Odd Lots. Moderators Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway asked how AI overviews impact publisher traffic and advertising revenue.
What Reid said
Reid described what she called “bounce clicks” as the category of clicks that are becoming smaller and smaller in AI overviews.
She said users who quickly click and return to search no longer need to visit the page because they see the facts from the overview. If you want to read longer, click through anyway. She acknowledged that some searches saw fewer ad clicks, but said higher search volume compensated for this. The argument is consistent with Reid’s arguments in other public appearances.
The pattern
Reid published a Google blog post in August explaining that organic click volume from Google Search on sites was “relatively stable” year-over-year and that “quality clicks,” defined as visits where users don’t quickly click back, were increasing.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in October, she specifically used the phrase “bounced clicks” and said that advertising revenue with AI Overviews had remained relatively stable.
The Bloomberg appearance made essentially the same arguments as Reid in August, describing some lost clicks as low-value visits where users would have quickly returned to search.
What Reid didn’t say
In none of these three appearances did Reid provide supporting data.
Her August blog post did not include any charts, percentages, or year-over-year comparisons. On Bloomberg, she told Weisenthal and Alloway that one of its key signals Google tracks is whether people search more often without providing numbers.
Weisenthal and Alloway asked about traffic and monetization, but the interview did not include follow-up questions asking for evidence to support Reid’s explanation.
Google has not released data that would allow outside observers to test this distinction.
What independent data shows
Chartbeat data published in the Reuters Institute’s “Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026” report found that Google search traffic from global publishers fell by about a third. Google Discover referrals fell 21% year-over-year across more than 2,500 publisher sites.
Seer Interactive’s analysis found that the organic click-through rate for searches with AI overviews fell from 1.76% in 2024 to 0.61% in 2025, a decrease of 61%. Seer found that these searches are typically informational searches, which have historically had lower CTRs.
The Pew Research Center study of 68,000 real searches found that users clicked on results 8% of the time when AI overviews were displayed, compared to 15% when they were not.
Digital Content Next, a trade organization whose members include The New York Times, Condé Nast and Vox, reported an average 10% year-over-year decline in Google search referrals across 19 member publishers between May and June 2025. DCN CEO Jason Kint said at the time that member data provided “fundamental truth” about what was happening to publisher traffic.
Why this is important
Reid’s “bounce clicks” description answers a question the data raises, but answers it without any data of his own. This is something to keep in mind when evaluating public claims from a platform that controls measurements.
A business owner cannot verify whether AI overviews only reduce low-value clicks or all query types based on Reid’s Bloomberg appearance. The independent data measures total clicks and click-through rates, not the subset of clicks that Reid describes as low-value. If Google has internal data separating the two, the company has not shared it in the eight months since the August blog post.
Looking ahead
Reid said Google measures how often people return to search. This signal tracks Google’s retention. Publishers require a traffic metric, but Google hasn’t shared one. Until then, “bounce clicks” should be treated as an assertion, not a statement.
Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube
WPAP (907)