Google Search Console: AI Overviews Data and What to Do About the Clicks You’re Losing

Google’s AI Overviews now appear on a meaningful share of informational queries. When AIO is present, the click-through rate to the underlying results drops significantly — the user gets the answer without clicking. GSC now exposes data about AIO impressions, and the data is sobering. Here’s what we’re seeing across the FH client book and the content adjustments we’ve made.

#Where AIO data appears in GSC

GSC’s Performance report shows ‘AI Overview’ as a SERP feature filter (alongside ‘Top stories,’ ‘Image pack,’ etc.). Filter by it to see queries where your URLs appeared inside an AIO panel — either as a source citation or as a related result.

Appearing in an AIO citation doesn’t mean the user clicked. CTR on AIO-cited results is dramatically lower than on traditional snippets at the same position. The data exists but the click-through reality is what matters.

#What we’re seeing across the FH client book

• AIO appears on ~28% of informational queries our clients rank for.
• AIO appears on <2% of transactional queries (‘[service] near me,’ ‘cost of [thing] in [city]’).
• When AIO is present, average CTR drops 40-60% on the underlying organic results, even at position 1.
• Blog content that targeted broad informational queries has seen the steepest click drops.

#Which queries get AIO

Mostly:

• ‘What is X’ and ‘how does X work’ explainer queries.
• ‘Best X for Y’ comparison queries where Google can synthesize from multiple sources.
• Basic how-to queries with a definitive answer.
• Definitional queries (‘meaning of X’).

Mostly NOT:

• Local queries (‘plumber near me’).
• Branded queries (someone searching your business by name).
• Transactional queries with clear purchase intent.
• Multi-step decision queries where users want to evaluate providers.
• Highly specialized professional content where Google’s confidence is lower.

#The content strategy shift

If 28% of your traffic was coming from informational queries that now get AIO, you’re losing 12-17% of total clicks. The response is to shift content toward query types AIO doesn’t (or barely) cover.

1. Local content. Pages about specific cities, neighborhoods, regional concerns. AIO doesn’t synthesize local well.
2. Transactional content. Cost guides, pricing pages, comparison pages, ‘how to hire X’ guides where the user is making a decision.
3. Provider-specific content. Reviews, case studies, examples of your actual work. AIO can’t replace this.
4. Deep technical content where the user wants the expert, not a summary.
5. Process content. How you specifically do the work. AIO can summarize the topic but not your differentiation.

#Should you optimize content TO be cited in AIO?

Mixed. Being cited as a source in AIO gives you a link in the panel that may produce some clicks (typically 3-8% of AIO impressions click through to a source). But the user has already been answered, so the click is informational-only — they’re fact-checking. Brand credibility benefit exists; revenue benefit is marginal.

If you’re going to optimize for AIO citation, follow the same patterns Google rewards: clear, well-structured content; named author with expertise; recent updates; structured data (FAQ schema, HowTo schema where applicable); citations from other credible sources.

#What to STOP writing

Generic informational content that competes with AIO. Stop writing ‘what is SEO,’ ‘how does Google work,’ ‘what is a sitemap.’ Those queries get AIO panels with synthesized answers; clicks are minimal even at #1. The opportunity cost of writing them is real — that’s content effort that could go toward queries that still click.

#Repositioning existing informational content

If you have a library of informational content that’s lost clicks to AIO, the right move is usually not to delete it. It’s to convert it: add provider perspective, add local specificity, add comparison frameworks, add cost data. The same general topic with a strong point-of-view often still wins clicks because users want the expert take, not the synthesized take.

The traffic drop diagnostic post has more on triaging which content to update vs. delete.

#AIO impact on transactional content

Mostly minimal. Transactional queries (‘plumber Plano,’ ‘kitchen remodel cost Dallas,’ ‘best CRM for accountants’) still drive clicks at near-historical CTRs. AIO rarely fires on transactional intent. Local services SEO has been almost completely unaffected. Local SEO for construction firms is in a great spot — AIO doesn’t touch the queries that produce real leads.

#Measuring the AIO-attributed loss

1. Pull last 12 months of GSC clicks for your top informational queries.
2. Identify which queries now show AIO. Use GSC’s SERP feature filter or a SERP-checking tool.
3. Calculate the click delta on those queries from pre-AIO to post-AIO.
4. Compare to total click trend. The diff is your AIO-attributed loss.

#What good content for the post-AIO era looks like

• Specific. Real numbers, real examples, real local detail. AIO doesn’t synthesize specifics well.
• Opinionated. Take a position. AIO summarizes the consensus; differentiated content has the opinion.
• Provider-perspective. Show how you specifically do the work. AIO can’t cite an experience.
• Updated. Recently updated content gets more weight from Google and is more likely to be a cited source.
• Structured. Use the FAQ, HowTo, Article schemas. Helps both AIO citation chance and traditional snippet quality.

#How this lands across FH client work

We’ve shifted every FH client content plan in the last 12 months. Less generic informational; more transactional, local, and provider-specific. The result on BHR Construction: organic clicks still up YoY despite AIO eating their informational tail. The transactional content has more than absorbed the loss. If your content plan still leans heavily on informational, book a consultation — the realignment is a one-quarter project that holds up.