articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/240523-credit-faq-u-s-digital-publishers-have-cause-for-concern-over-google-s-ai-overviews-13118837 content esgSubNav
In This List
COMMENTS

Credit FAQ: U.S. Digital Publishers Have Cause For Concern Over Google's AI Overviews

COMMENTS

Private Markets Monthly, December 2024: Private Credit Trends To Watch In 2025

COMMENTS

Sustainable Finance FAQ: The Rise Of Green Equity Designations

COMMENTS

Instant Insights: Key Takeaways From Our Research

COMMENTS

CreditWeek: How Will COP29 Agreements Support Developing Economies?


Credit FAQ: U.S. Digital Publishers Have Cause For Concern Over Google's AI Overviews

This report does not constitute a rating action.

On May 14, Google LLC announced it would begin rolling out AI Overviews to all users of its search platform in the U.S., with more countries coming soon. AI Overviews is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model that, in response to a search query, provides users with quick overviews of topics searched with links below the overviews for users to learn more. Hundreds of millions of users received access to AI Overviews last week, and Google expects it will reach over a billion users by the end of the year.

Here, S&P Global Ratings answers some questions about how the rollout could potentially affect digital publishers and our ratings on them.

What could the rollout of AI Overviews mean for digital publishers?

Publishers generate revenue by selling advertising against the content created on their websites. Websites with greater user traffic and page views (and therefore ad impressions) provide advertisers with a wider audience of potential customers to buy their products. The rollout of AI Overviews could reduce traffic to these websites if Google's AI engine provides an overview that fully covers the searched topic and therefore negates the need for the consumer to directly access the data on the publisher's website (see table 1). If website traffic declines, it would be more difficult for publishers to sell their advertising inventory and monetize content.

How are publishers positioned to adapt to the rollout?

Rated companies with more organic traffic (e.g., Red Ventures Holdco L.P., Dotdash Meredith Inc., College Parent L.P., and Ziff Davis Inc.) are better positioned than those with predominantly paid traffic (e.g., Digital Media Solutions Inc., Centerfield Media Parent Inc., and System1 Inc.) that generate traffic primarily by paying third parties such as Google. Websites with greater brand recognition are more likely to have consumers navigate to them, either directly via the website's URL or by being prioritized in search engine queries, without the need for paid links or referrals. Google is the largest search platform, with an estimated global market share of more than 90%. As such, companies that rely more on paid traffic from Google than other search or social media platforms are more exposed to the rollout. Most, if not all, publishers rely on Google in some form, given its dominant position in the global advertising ecosystem. Some companies noted that changes in Google's search algorithm over the past year reduced traffic to some websites leading to lost revenue, demonstrating the risk of overrelying on Google for traffic. Often, it also takes companies time and money to update their websites and ad code in response to Google's algorithm changes, magnifying the already costly impact of any lost user traffic.

While some companies are predominantly publishers that create and monetize their own content, other companies (e.g., Taboola.com Ltd. and Red Ventures LLC's Red Digital business) primarily partner with publishers to help them run their advertising campaigns and monetize their content. These companies tend to operate either on a revenue share basis by taking a percentage of advertising revenue from publishers or by charging them a fixed fee. We believe companies that primarily partner with publishers could be better positioned over the next year or two, as they could continue to grow their business by adding additional customers to offset potentially declining revenue per customer should traffic decline on their existing customers' websites. However, they wouldn't be immune because the ability to add new customers may not be sufficient to offset the drop in their existing revenue base. New customers may also come with lower profit margins if reduced traffic becomes harder to monetize.

Table 1

Rated U.S. Digital Publishers Potentially Affected By Google's AI Overviews
Company Estimated Degree Of Organic Traffic Select Brands

Centerfield Media Parent Inc.

Low autoinsurance.com, broadbandnow, business.com

Digital Media Solutions Inc.

Low Protect, ZipQuote

System1 Inc.

Low CouponFollow, info.com, MapQuest

Dotdash Meredith Inc.

High Better Homes & Gardens, Investopedia, PEOPLE

Red Ventures Holdco L.P.

High Bankrate, Lonely Planet, ThePointsGuy

Ziff Davis Inc.

High IGN, Speedtest, RetailMeNot

College Parent L.P.

High Yahoo!

Angi Inc.

Online marketplace

LendingTree Inc.

Online marketplace

Taboola.com Ltd.

Intermediary between advertisers and publishers
Source: S&P Global Ratings.

What is the potential for litigation or new legislation?

Publishers (or the U.S. government) could potentially take legal or legislative action if publishers believe they're not being properly compensated for their content, whether it be from Google, other AI engines, or other digital platforms. However, the outcome of any potential legal action is uncertain, and it is likely that litigation would be prolonged. The New York Times sued OpenAI (not rated) and Microsoft Corp. in December 2023 for copyright infringement of news content related to AI systems. OpenAI filed a motion in February 2024 seeking to dismiss some elements of the lawsuit, although there haven't been any recent updates on the lawsuit. In February 2024, eight newspapers owned by Alden Global Capital (not rated) also sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, though we're not aware of any further developments at this time.

Google or other digital platforms may not be willing to pay for licensed content, even if new legislation is signed. Australia passed the News Media Bargaining Code in 2021, giving the government power to make designated digital platforms negotiate content-supply deals with media outlets. If an agreement couldn't be made, an arbiter would step in to set the price and force the platforms to pay. While no digital platforms have been designated, Google and Meta Platforms Inc. (parent company of Facebook) voluntarily made commercial agreements with more than 30 news organizations. In March 2024, Meta announced that it wouldn't be renewing the deals it made when the government initially passed the bill and would be shutting down Facebook's news tab features in Australia as well as in the U.S.

Dotdash Meredith Inc. recently signed a content-licensing deal with OpenAI to train AI models and allow OpenAI's chatbot and virtual assistant ChatGPT to answer queries using their content, which others in the U.S. could potentially look to replicate. Smaller publishers or those with less recognized websites would likely have less bargaining power to negotiate favorable licensing deals with digital platforms.

What has Google said about AI Overviews expected impact on publishers?

Google generates a significant amount of revenue from directing traffic via paid listings on its search engine. The Google Search segment generated $163 billion of revenue in 2023, and we expect Google wouldn't want to compromise this lucrative revenue stream. The company conducted testing of AI Overviews with Google's Search Labs. Google said that people using AI Overviews visited a greater diversity of websites for help with more complex questions, and that the links included in AI Overviews got more clicks than if the website had appeared as a traditional web listing for that query. However, we're skeptical and believe it's more likely AI Overviews could cause traffic to decline, in many cases because there's less incentive for users to click the links below the AI Overviews results.

How does the rollout of AI Overviews affect our ratings on digital publishers?

The rollout of Google AI Overviews hasn't had an immediate impact on our ratings on digital publishers because it's uncertain what the long-term effect will be and to what degree traffic, and subsequently advertising revenue could decline (see table 2). However, the announcement highlights the rapid rate of technological evolution (including generative AI) and the potential disruption it can have on the companies we rate. We believe larger companies with greater financial resources will likely be better positioned to navigate future changes in technology, although even they could be significantly affected, while smaller companies may not have the necessary resources to adapt.

We have taken several negative rating actions on the digital marketing companies we rate over the past two years due to declines in advertising amid macroeconomic challenges--including elevated inflation and interest rates. This is particularly true for those with greater exposure to challenged advertising categories such as mortgage, finance, and insurance, which haven't yet abated, resulting in elevated leverage and either muted or negative cash flow. Amid these challenges, LendingTree Inc., System1 Inc., and Digital Media Solutions Inc. pursued distressed debt transactions over the past year.

We will continue to evaluate developments related to Google's rollout of AI Overviews and other AI platforms and assess the impact on companies' business models and financial results as information becomes available.

Table 2

Select U.S. Digital Publishers Ratings And Credit Metrics
Company Rating as of May 22, 2024 Upgrade threshold Downgrade threshold Leverage 2023a (x) FOCF/debt 2023a (%)

Ziff Davis Inc.

BB/Stable/-- Leverage below 2x Leverage above 3x 2.8 21.3

Taboola.com Ltd.

BB/Stable/-- Leverage below 2x Leverage above 3x 2.1 31.1

Red Ventures Holdco L.P.

BB-/Negative/-- N/A Leverage above 4x 4.3 19.6

Dotdash Meredith Inc.

B+/Stable/-- Leverage below 4x and FOCF/debt above 10% Leverage above 6x and FOCF/debt below 5% 5.1 2.4

Angi Inc.

B/Positive/-- Leverage below 6x and FOCF/debt above 5% N/A 6.3 10.2

College Parent L.P.

B-/Stable/-- FOCF/debt above 5% Sustained negligible FOCF Over 10 (6.4)

LendingTree Inc.

B-/Stable/-- Leverage below 6x and FOCF/debt above 5% View capital structure as unsustainable 9.9 9.5

Centerfield Media Parent Inc.

CCC+/Negative/-- N/A Expected default within 12 months 7.4 3.7

System1 Inc.

CCC+/Stable/-- FOCF fully covers debt amortization payments and EBITDA interest coverage above 1x Expected default within 12 months Over 10 (8.6)

Digital Media Solutions Inc.

CCC/Negative/-- N/A Expected default within six months Negative (5)
The ratings on Dotdash Meredith and Angi receive one notch of ratings uplift from parent company IAC Inc. (BB-/Stable). All leverage metrics are calculated on a gross basis other than Red Ventures and Dotdash Meredith, which are calculated on a net basis. Historical metrics are as reported and not pro forma for transactions. a--Actual. N/A – Not applicable due to negative outlook. FOCF--Free operating cash flow. Source: S&P Global Ratings.

Related Research

Primary Credit Analysts:Rose Oberman, CFA, New York + 1 (212) 438 0354;
rose.oberman@spglobal.com
Cody M La Grange, CFA, New York + 1 (212) 438 0204;
cody.la.grange@spglobal.com

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.

 

Create a free account to unlock the article.

Gain access to exclusive research, events and more.

Already have an account?    Sign in