Google Is a Parasite — And Everyone Else Is Paying the Price

" I'm going to do another "Shimmy Says, Part Two" tomorrow. But today, I wanted to talk to you, and it's a follow-up to an article I wrote on Techstrong AI, as well as I wrote a LinkedIn article behind it as well. " But before I get into Google being a parasite and what I wrote, I got to tell you what happened after I wrote it.

I wrote that article on Monday, Tuesday, ready for it for Thursday. I wake up this morning though, and sometimes the news has the decency to just show up at the right time and prove your point for you when things go right. Not that often.

But, the European Union just announced that they're fining Google 890 million euros, about a billion dollars, for violating their Digital Markets Act. Part of that fine is for favoring Google's own shopping, hotel, transportation, and sports services inside a Google search. The rest is for restricting app developers from steering customers towards cheaper offers outside the Google Play Store.

That's important by itself. But for me, and the part that's really part of this story is the conversation of what the European regulators said next. The European Commission said that Google may need to apply the same fair treatment principles to AI overviews and AI mode.

In other words, the regulators see the same fence I did. They see the same things happening that I pointed out. They understand that Google cannot claim it is merely organizing the web, which is something they've been doing all these years back to before they were public, while it uses everyone else's information to turn Google into the preferred and all too often final destination.

It's that zero click out policy. The current fine does not compensate publishers, unfortunately, and it does not establish that Google must pay for the reporting, research, and analysis its AI consumes. But let's not pretend the regulators have solved the whole problem.

But they've built the bridge. This is the opening of the legal aspect of this argument. Because you see, Google's a gatekeeper, and a gatekeeper cannot use control of the gateway to favor its own services.

AI overviews and AI mode are Google services. They're Gemini. They use information created by third parties like me to answer the query while reducing the need to visit those third parties, also like me.

You can see where this is going. Google's defense may be even more revealing than the fine, though. Google says forcing it to treat competing services fairly will strip away useful real-time search features and degrade the product.

Just think about that for a second. Let it swirl around in your mouth a little bit. Google's saying its product becomes worse when it cannot take information and services produced by other people somewhere else and then package them inside Google and keep the customer there.

That's the height of hypocrisy, man. That's balls. I'm sorry.

That's not a rebuttal to what I'm about to tell you because here's what I say. I say when I called Google a parasite, I meant it. This is no longer merely one publisher waving his arms and complaining about lost traffic.

Regulators are beginning to examine the same underlying behavior. Google controls the gateway, favors the experience it owns, and keeps more of the value generated by everybody standing on the other side. The European Union has not torn down Google's fence, but it has to put up a sign saying the fence may violate the rules.

With that breaking news update, let me jump into what I originally wrote about and why the rest of us are playing this price. Excuse me. " I published a shorter version on LinkedIn.

But today I want to talk it and say it out loud to you all. Because this isn't just another story about Google changing its search algorithm. We've all lived that life and jumped to that beat for too long.

It's not another publisher warning, as I said, about traffic going down, and it's not a nostalgic plea to please bring back the web of 2012. It's not what it's about. This is about Google breaking the economic bargain, the covenant, that helped create the whole entire open web and forcing everyone else to renegotiate their relationships that were built on top of that bargain.

Who am I talking about? I'm talking about publishers. I'm talking about marketing and PR agencies.

I'm talking about vendors, people who want to reach audiences, the audiences themselves, readers, listeners, viewers. All of us are now dealing with the consequences of this decision that Google made unilaterally. Google is taking my content, your content, their content, everyone's content, and keeping the click.

And yes, there's a word for that. There used to be a symbiotic relationship. What they are now, parasite.

Now, before everybody up in Mountain View gets their Google-colored panties in a bunch, let me explain what I mean. For the past several years, the world has been arguing about whether AI companies stole the material they used to train their models. It's pretty ironic.

They actually now claim the Chinese did the same thing to them. But in the meantime, authors sued, artists protested, newspapers demanded compensations. The Congress held hearings, and the Senate, I believe, as well.

Publishers have been able to negotiate licensing agreement with the various model makers. AI companies responded with arguments about fair use, transformative technology, and the supposed impossibility of building these systems without ingesting enormous amounts of human-created work. Not just human-created work, our created work, your created work, all of our created work.

The lawyers, they've been arguing about it, whether or not it's stealing. God knows, at the end of the day, they're the ones who are making the money because they'll be happy to keep billing while they keep arguing and trying to figure it out. But the underlying complaint here is simple, guys.

Somebody created something valuable. All of us who created content and IP have created something. And these AI companies took it.

The company used it to make its own product more valuable. Not just Google, all of the AI companies. The person or organization that created the original work received little or nothing.

So now I ask you, if what the AI companies did was wrong and they've been held liable in court, and they've had to settle out of court for billions of dollars, is what Google doing with AI overviews and AI mode fundamentally, in search, is it fundamentally any different? Hell no. It's exactly the same thing.

Google consumes our reporting, our research, our interviews, reviews, analysis, videos, expertise produced and paid for by me and you and all of us. It then synthesizes that material, and it presents the answer as Google's answer inside of Google and not, as they used to do, sending the click to the person who created the content. That was the bargain.

Google could use our content. They sent clicks our way. But if the system works the way Google designed it to work, the user no longer needs to visit the original source.

They don't get the click. They don't do the click. We don't receive the click.

The publisher like me, I pay reporters to write the news. I pay editors. We pay video producers.

We pay for travel, equipment, hosting, software, and all the people who keep the lights and keep the wheels turning here. Google takes this finished product, turns it into a raw material for its AI, and keeps the audience and captures the commercial value. It's not right.

If doing that to train an AI model was stealing, putting the answer at the top of a Google results page does not magically turn it into some sort of public utility. It's still stealing. The old Google mostly had a symbiotic relationship with the open web and publishers.

We created information, Google indexed it and organized it. People searched Google, and they clicked through to publishers' sites like ours at Techstrong. Google sold advertising around the search results.

They made a fortune. They became one of the most popular, profitable, biggest companies in the history of the world. Publishers were able to monetize the resulting traffic, though, too.

Look, a small pittance compared to what Google made, but it helped make the advertising, the sponsorships, the subscriptions, and the other products available free to you. It was never an equal relationship, as I say. Google owned the lion's share of it.

They owned the intersection. They controlled the traffic lights, and they collected most of the toll. But enough value trickled through in both directions that the system worked.

Old Google was the road to the destination. New Google wants to be the destination. And it's not just me saying this.

The "Times" had an article just this week, an excellent examination of what Google's AI strategy is doing to the open web. Publishers are now openly preparing for something we call Google Zero. This is a future in which Google sends little or no meaningful traffic to our websites, whose content it then uses to answer people's searches and questions.

And this isn't some paranoid fantasy dreamed up by a bunch of old grumpy publishers like me either. Traffic has already fallen sharply in heavily crawled sectors, as much as 40% to 70%. Research shows that people are far less likely to click an organic search result when Google provides their AI overviews.

And of course, they're providing them. The entire point of the AI overview is to make the click disappear. Google says it will send billions of clicks to websites.

I'm sure it does. Out of trillions and trillions of searches that get done, a pittance. Google says its AI products can introduce users to new sources.

I'm sure sometimes that happens, few and far between. But we're really avoiding the real question. The question is not whether Google still sends any clicks our way.

The question is whether Google returns enough value to sustain the people and organizations producing the information its AI requires. Because you can't indefinitely summarize the reporting That was never funded. You can't quote experts that weren't interviewed.

You can't synthesize original ideas that you can't afford to develop. Because that's the life of a parasite. It eventually kills its host.

That's why it's parasitic. A parasite that weakens its host too much eventually runs out of food. Let me give you a different version of this.

I'm going to give you what I call my Brooklyn version. Imagine you're a guy standing outside of the deli on the corner over there making heroes. The deli owner pays the rent, the staff, the ovens.

He buys good boiled head meat, makes beautiful semolina bread, everything else required to make a great hero sandwich. Then there's a guy standing outside. He grabs the sandwiches as they come out of the kitchen.

He takes your wrapper off, he cuts them into pieces, and he hands out pieces to all the people, everybody on the sidewalk. And then he sells advertising for the crowd that's gathered around the sidewalk to see while they're eating the samples of your sandwiches. Nobody has to enter the deli anymore to eat.

They eat their sandwiches while they're watching the advertising. And when the deli owner complains to the guy, the guy points and says, "Look, I sent three people in through the door this afternoon. What are you complaining about?

" Well, you know what the deli owner says? "B******t. No, you're not.

" So let me dispense with any pretense that I'm a disinterested observer here. I have a horse in the race. I am a deli owner.

Techstrong operates a network of specialized technology publications. We publish more than 500 articles and produce more than 100 videos every month. We pay our writers, our editors, our video producers, the whole lineup of Techstrong to make that happen.

We go to industry events. We fly there. We have to stay in hotels.

We bring equipment. We interview executives and practitioners to bring you the latest. We analyze companies, products, technology to protect trends.

None of this is free. All of it costs money. Google's building its AI experience on content produced by Techstrong and those like us, thousands of other publishers and creators, while simultaneously reducing our traffic and economic return that enabled us to produce it in the first place.

People in the media business have been reluctant to say this too loudly because Google's powerful. Google still supplies a share of the traffic most of us receive. But the comfortable strategy to whisper about it in the hallways is a problem because you keep feeding the machine and hope somebody else complains first.

If I got to be the first person to complain, here I am. " I thought it was kind of my Jerry Maguire moment. But in retrospect, no, it wasn't.

This is the Jerry Maguire moment because what Google is doing doesn't end with me losing search traffic or any publisher. The damage moves through the entire technology media ecosystem. This is changing the relationship between publishers, agencies, technology vendors.

It's a ripple effect of Google. For years, I've been in this business 12, 15 years. Publishers can devote editorial research and resources to a large number of announcements that we would get pitched.

Executive interviews, company briefings. If it was newsworthy, we did it, even if it wasn't the biggest story of the day. We were able to deliver people to those stories through Google.

That traffic created advertising inventory, brand reach, and commercial opportunity. But as we get less traffic, I have less traffic-supported editorial capacity. That means there's less space for your stories, for earned media, for the kind of public good, the kind of knowledge, the kind of learning you come to expect from publishers.

This means less favorable coverage. It means more coverage is for sale. Because let me make it clear, independent reporting has to be independent, hence the name.

News judgment, criticism, editorial opinion cannot depend on whether a company paid for a sponsorship. Paid content should be labeled paid content. Commercial relationships, you have to be transparent.

It's what I was taught from day one here. The editorial firewall matters more now, not less. But editorial independence cannot mean unlimited professional production or demand for free.

Every day, agency contacts our publications by the dozen, offering a pitch, a CEO, an announcement, a new survey or something. And there's legitimate editorial value. But we don't have the money to produce and distribute that content because it costs money.

And when we're not getting the traffic, we don't have the money. In turn, I'll make suggestions about sponsorships, advertising, webinars, video packages, or anything to help monetize the business model in lieu of the loss of the Google traffic. A lot of you agencies out there, I know you're just earned media.

You can't discuss budget. We don't want to go around the agency and go right to the editorial, make your editorial pitch, turn it into a disguised sales lead. We need my agency friends out here to bring the opportunity back to the client.

The vendor receives little or no coverage otherwise. You know what, guys? Everyone walks away frustrated The process was designed for a media economy that Google is now dismantling.

It's not the agency's fault, it's not the publisher's fault. We all operate within the mandate that we've existed in. The vendors, they frequently separate PR from advertising, from AR and content demand gen events.

They're all in different silos. Sometimes these groups behave as though they work for different companies. Sometimes they do.

And no, it's not evidence that publishers like me are suddenly greedy. We just don't have the search-supported capacity to say yes to every legit request anymore. Never mind some of the mediocre stuff that gets dressed up as pitches today.

Vendors need to broaden the mandates they give their agencies. Agencies need to be able to identify legitimate commercial media opportunities to bring back to their clients without pretending every valuable form of exposure fits inside the earned media box. Publishers have work to do, yeah.

We need simpler products, clearer prices, transparent labeling, and fewer proposals that require a Rosetta Stone and a finance degree. Nobody should be able to buy favorable editorial coverage, though. But nobody should expect a publisher to produce a guaranteed executive interview, an event floor video, a webinar, or a custom program distributed to the audience and absorb the cost.

Google hasn't just disrupted the vendor-agency-publisher relationship, though. It's also forcing a change with you, our readers, our consumers, and that's really uncomfortable for me as a publisher. Because we never put anything, very little, behind a reg wall.

Everything was out there. You could come in through Google, read any of our articles, never return. You didn't have to register to read it.

You didn't get the pop-up that said you had to register. You could come once a month, once a year, or every day. If you didn't want to register or subscribe, it was okay.

We had enough traffic. But that system's now disappearing, guys. It's done.

If Google no longer sends the people, publishers have to build direct relationships with you. Because if you value our work, we're going to ask you to register, subscribe to our newsletters, memberships, premium content, video events, and communities. Some publishers may even ask you to pay for their content.

Can't help it. We've got to put more of this content behind these reg walls. I know a lot of you, especially people in tech, you don't like that.

I don't blame you. I don't like it either. Technology and cybersecurity audiences especially understand what happens when you give out personal information.

Too many companies already have our email addresses, our titles, and our phone numbers, and everything else. We've all endured the spam, the breaches, the retargeting, the well-timed but helpful sales calls that we all seem to get with a spam risk warning. Your reluctance to fill out the form is completely rational, I get it.

But we don't have another way. I need you to. Here's the uncomfortable truth of it: Google broke the exchange that allowed people to consume professionally produced content anonymously while somebody else paid the bill.

So if you value independent technology media, publishers, people like me, we're increasingly going to need something directly from you. It might just be your email address, might be signing up for a newsletter. It might be registering for that event, becoming part of the community.

At some point, it might be a subscription. It creates a responsibility for us that we have to deliver value. We have to honor your information, guard it securely, and we have to deliver value.

Can't treat every registered reader like a wounded gazelle that wandered into the funnel. We have to provide continuing value. So, my friends, let me wrap it up here.

The answer is not to replace Google's fence with a publisher's hostile maze of pop-ups, forms, and paywalls. If a website wants your resume, your blood type, and the name of your firstborn before showing you at least the second paragraph, that's not a relationship. That's an obstacle course.

The new deal has to have a real exchange. We provide credible reporting, informed analysis, specialized expertise, worthwhile communities. Audiences provide identity, engagement, participation, and in some cases, financial support.

Nobody gets to keep every advantage of the old system. Publishers cannot expect guaranteed Google traffic. My agency, PR agencies, you can't expect a lot of earned coverage.

Vendors can't demand professional media products without providing budget. Readers cannot expect an endless supply of expensive, specialized content catered to your needs without remaining permanently anonymous and unreachable. And Google?

You know what we'd say in Brooklyn what Google can do. But they cannot continue using the open web as free raw material while starving the people who create it. And that's what makes this my real Jerry Maguire moment.

I'm not just calling out Google. I'm telling agencies that their model must change. I'm telling vendors that their budgets and processes must change.

I'm speaking for publishers, including here, that we must build better products, earn direct relationships, and cultivate them. And I'm telling our audience that keeping independent technology and media alive may require something from you, too. I don't expect you all to applaud.

I won't get the pretty girl like Jerry Maguire. Well, I got a pretty girl, but not Jerry Maguire. And I don't want to leave the room with a standing ovation, but somebody has to say it.

The old Internet gave us all a comfortable arrangement. Google broke that arrangement. It took our content and kept the click.

And now the rest of us have to build a new deal, one based on transparent value exchanged among publishers, vendors, agencies, and the audience. Google may exist, the open web exists to feed its AI. Vendors may believe the media exists to amplify their announcements for free.

Readers may believe professionally produced information can remain unlimited, anonymous, and costless. But none of those are going to pay for the next article to keep the lights on here. Google built a fence, and it's up to us now to find out, are we the ones who end up trapped behind it?

Because Google's going to be standing outside, handing out pieces of our sandwiches. That's what Shimmy says. I'm done.

We'll see you next week. Shimmy says, Shimmy says, Shimmy, Shimmy, Shimmy says, ask me almost anything!