In recent months, SEO experts and marketers have noticed a surprising trend: for numerous competitive searches across various verticals, the number one result on Google is no longer an authoritative industry site or specialized blog, but Google itself. Specifically, the Google Store Blog and other Google properties are appearing at the top of organic results for queries in health, fitness, travel, and various commercial categories. For example, searches for "lunges," "lose weight fast," or "protein breakfast foods" often display Google content first which – coincidentally – contains recommendations for Pixel Watch or Fitbit fitness products. This trend has sparked heated debate in the community about impartiality, quality, and conflicts of interest in search results.
Why Google's Content Ranks at the Top
How does a promotional Google blog outrank long-standing sites with excellent reputations (some even report overtaking giants like Mayo Clinic in health searches or trusted travel sites for destination information)? Experts point to several technical and strategic reasons:
Domain authority: Google Store Blog content is hosted on Google.com (or related subdomains), a domain with enormous authority in the eyes of the algorithm. In practice, it's as if Google is leveraging its own "trust" to push its articles above those of other sites. SEO consultant Katherine Berry defined this practice as a clear case of "site reputation abuse," meaning the abuse of an authoritative site's reputation to rank content that would otherwise not have such visibility. Normally Google penalizes those who try similar tactics (also known as "parasite SEO"), but evidently doesn't apply the same standard to itself.
Content optimization: We shouldn't forget that Google knows the rules of its own game better than anyone. Its Store Blog posts are well-optimized for SEO, rich with relevant keywords, and written to precisely answer queries. For example, an article titled "How to lose weight fast (the healthy way)" on the Fitbit/Google blog offers quick tips for losing weight before an event, cites internal experts (a Fitbit nutritionist), and then integrates a section on "7 Days to a Healthier You with Pixel Watch 3," promoting the smartwatch for achieving goals. In essence, it's a skillfully packaged mix of informative content + product. From the algorithm's perspective, the content may appear "useful" and relevant to the query – there's no explicit aggressive selling, except for a side box with the Pixel Watch offer.
Lack of comparable competition: Google may also benefit from the fact that few other companies with equally authoritative sites are producing similar content. In other words, if Google decides to cover a certain topic on its blog (e.g., "why stretch" or "healthy snacks for the cinema"), it will likely surpass specialized sites simply because it's playing "at home" on its search engine. As expert Lily Ray sarcastically observes, it seems that for Google, its Store Blog has the maximum Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-E-A-T) in fitness and weight loss – a statement that highlights the absurdity of the situation.
It seems that Google ranks so well by combining the intrinsic power of its domain with content tailored to popular search intentions, effectively circumventing guidelines that would typically favor authoritative external sources. The result is that its promotional articles displace quality independent resources, creating a potential conflict of interest in serving users.
The AI Overview Revolution
Another piece of the puzzle is the introduction of AI Overviews on Google Search – the new artificial intelligence-generated responses (Search Generative Experience style) that appear at the top of the page for many informational queries. These AI responses provide an immediate summary with information from the web, often accompanied by several cited links. The effects on organic traffic are already evident: recent studies show that when an AI Overview appears, the CTR (click-through rate) on traditional organic results drops dramatically (on average 40% fewer clicks, according to Ahrefs data, and up to 70% less according to a Seer Interactive analysis). In practice, many users are satisfied with the generated response and don't click on external sites.
This dynamic has two relevant consequences for our topic:
Less visibility for third-party sites: If the AI overview answers the question "in-house," sites that previously obtained that traffic (perhaps Wikipedia, WebMD, various blogs) see reduced visits. Google claims that AI Overviews "lead users to quality and diverse results," but in reality, total traffic to external sites is declining. After all, if a single AI snippet can contain dozens of links (often hidden under dropdown menus), it's unlikely that the user will explore them all – and often won't open any.
More opportunities for Google content: There's a certain (well-founded) fear that Google may implicitly favor its own properties even within these AI panels. For example, Lily Ray highlighted a case about the "soy query": for the question "is soy bad for men?", the AI overview showed three citations from the Google Store Blog, with suggestions to buy a Fitbit. A user ironically comments: "Google says medical queries require maximum E-E-A-T... and then Google itself, in the AI response, inserts three links to its own Store for 'is soy bad?' PS: buy yourself a Fitbit". This suggests that Google content not only dominates organic results but also finds space in new AI responses, further increasing their visibility. Additionally, Google has begun monetizing AI Overviews by inserting advertisements directly within them. In practice, the user remains increasingly "trapped" in the Google ecosystem: they see the response generated by Google, perhaps click a link that is a Google site (e.g., a Store Blog article) or interact with a Google ad – while external sites struggle to capture their attention.
Ultimately, the role of AI Overviews is to further reduce outgoing traffic from the search engine, consolidating attention (and clicks, including advertising) on Google's own properties. This aggravates the problem for independent publishers: not only must they compete against Google content in results, but they often don't even get the click because the user has already found (or believes they've found) what they were looking for via the AI Overview.
The E-E-A-T and YMYL Contradiction
Google has for years insisted on the importance of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) in content, especially in Your Money Your Life categories (health, finance, etc.), precisely to protect users from incorrect or unreliable information. It is therefore doubly disconcerting to see that for health and wellness queries (classic YMYL area), Google highlights its own articles which, by nature, are advertisements disguised as guides. These posts are often written by copywriters or content marketers, not independent doctors or nutritionists; they may cite internal experts as sources (e.g., Fitbit staff), but they hardly have the same authority as a scientific publication or accredited medical site. Nevertheless, Google treats them as if they were the best of the best.
The irony has not escaped experts. Lily Ray caustically commented that Google – the company that demands the highest E-E-A-T standards for health content – now seems to consider its own Store Blog as the most reliable source on fitness and weight loss. Every Google article obviously includes advice to purchase Pixel Watch/Fitbit products "as part of your health journey," but for Lily "certainly there's no conflict of interest, no siree." In other words, Google is privileging self-produced and biased content, contradicting the principles of neutrality and maximum authoritativeness that it preaches to other webmasters.
Another SEO expert observed that we're facing an E-E-A-T short circuit: if a pharmaceutical company positioned its own advertorials at the top of medical searches, everyone would cry scandal; Google, however, does it with its own products, eroding the trust that users place in the search engine's impartiality. There are also those who see possible antitrust profiles or at least an ethical dilemma: Google has designed a system (the ranking algorithm) to evaluate others' quality, but now uses it to push its own commercial content. The risk is a loss of diversity and reliability of online information if similar practices should spread or remain unchecked.
Industry Reaction and Evidence
Reactions in the SEO community were not long in coming. On professional social networks like X (Twitter), LinkedIn, and even Bluesky, many experts expressed outrage and concern. Here are some of the most authoritative voices and the evidence collected:
Lily Ray (Amsive) – Brought the case to everyone's attention with viral posts on X and LinkedIn, listing queries where the Google Store Blog beats everyone. Lily highlights the contradiction between Google guidelines (which would impose expert medical sources for these searches) and the reality: "Guess who's the top site for 'lunges,' 'lose weight fast,' 'how to lose weight in a week'...? Google, with its Store Blog – certainly the company with the most Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness in fitness and diets! (Coincidence that every page suggests buying a Pixel Watch? Surely no conflict of interest...)" Lily's ironic tone exposes the problem: Google is playing by its own rules, at the expense of those producing independent content.
Katherine Berry – Emphasized how the Google Store Blog is "surpassing sites of the caliber of Mayo Clinic" on health queries, attributing this to site authority abuse. In practice, Google would be exploiting its own domain to pass its articles off as if they were as authoritative as Mayo or WebMD, something that for any other site would be branded as deceptive practice. Berry defines this behavior as "unfair and deceptive" – terms that sound ironic when applied to the search engine itself.
Other SEO experts (Mark Williams-Cook, Barry Adams, Gisele Navarro, etc.) – Amplified the discussion with sharp comments. On Bluesky and X, lists of keywords dominated by Google's blog circulate, with posts like "Such wow... Very E-E-A-T... Much satisfying search experience," mocking the situation with memes (obviously in a sarcastic sense). Many draw attention to the fact that these Google pages are pure and simple advertorials: they contain useful information but all aimed at promoting a product, which clashes with the idea that Google offers the user the best non-biased result.
Beyond opinions, concrete data is also emerging that captures this phenomenon:
Skyrocketing organic traffic for Google sites: An Ahrefs analysis of 57 Google properties (domains and subdomains like store.google.com, travel.google.com, etc.) shows that 50 of them have had organic traffic growth in the last 2 years, many exponentially. On average, organic traffic to Google sites has risen by +168%, with a median growth of +94%. Cases like Google Flights (google.com/travel/flights) stand out, shooting up to +2006% organic traffic compared to 2023, or the Google Store site itself at about +145%. This means that Google is gaining huge slices of organic (unpaid) visits in sectors where users previously went to third-party sites. In other words, Google is becoming both publisher and traffic recipient, as well as intermediary.
Presence in AI responses: Also from Ahrefs data comes another interesting signal. Analyzing how many Google Store pages appear within AI Overviews, it's noted that about 12% of Google Store Blog pages have been cited in AI responses in recent months. This value is more than double compared to the sum of Google's main competitors in the tech field: for instance, only 3.5% of Samsung pages and 2% of Apple ones appear in AI Overviews, and just 0.4% of Amazon pages. It's a notable figure: it suggests that Google's algorithms very frequently fish content from their own Store to provide in generative responses. Whether it's a side effect (because those pages are already first in traditional results) or an internal bias, the result is the same – more visibility for Google, less for others.
Decrease in organic CTR: As already mentioned, the advent of AI responses is reducing clicks on organic results. If we compare the pre-SGE era with today, click rates have fallen to historic lows. A February 2025 report indicated that the average organic CTR in Google had fallen below 1% for many informational queries. When the AI Overview is present, users click about half as often on traditional results compared to before. Conversely, Google has told investors that these AI features are increasing user satisfaction and creating new advertising opportunities. Translated: the user finds immediate answers (so is satisfied and stays on Google), and Google can show them more ads – a business win-win for Big G, a lose-lose for external publishers.
Strategic Responses for Publishers and Brands
Faced with this scenario – a Google "player-coach-referee" taking the biggest slice of traffic – what can websites, publishers, and companies that traditionally counted on SEO and organic traffic do? Experts suggest various adaptation strategies, united by a key concept: don't put all your eggs in Google's basket. Here are the most recurring tips:
Diversify traffic sources: Aim for alternative channels where Google cannot intermediate. For example, build email newsletters, podcasts, social communities, or platforms like YouTube, TikTok, etc. Rand Fishkin observes that people spend most of their online time on a handful of large sites/platforms, and Google often comes into play after a need has already emerged. For this reason, you need to be discovered elsewhere, create an audience directly. A loyal audience that follows your newsletter or video channel will make you less dependent on the whims of the SERP.
Build a strong brand: In a web where Google favors big names, being a big name helps. Investing in brand marketing means more people will directly search for your name or content (so-called navigational or brand searches). Additionally, emerging studies indicate that even AI algorithms and chatbots tend to cite well-known brands more often than unknown ones. Therefore, focus on brand awareness: PR, event participation, media presence, everything that creates recognition can give you an indirect advantage even in search. As Fishkin says, "Google now rewards those who have done well elsewhere – it's no longer the place to start from, but where you arrive when you've already sparked interest elsewhere."
Exclusive or "gated" content: A counterintuitive idea is to offer part of your content in exclusive form, reserved for subscribers or clients (e.g., in-depth articles available only via newsletter, or resources behind a paywall). If Google is using your open content to keep the user on its site (perhaps via the AI Overview), you might decide not to feed it everything. Of course, this means giving up some SEO traffic, but if that traffic is evaporating anyway, better to use your energy to obtain direct contacts (leads, subscribers) to whom you can then provide valuable content that the search engine cannot copy. For example, many publications are pushing communities and memberships: those who truly appreciate your content might subscribe to support it and enjoy it directly from the source. "Now that 'easy' traffic has disappeared, we must refocus on building our audience and creating demand," states an Ahrefs analysis, suggesting formats like newsletters, Substack articles, podcasts, and so on instead of merely chasing keywords.
Content marketing beyond SEO: In general, marketers are reassessing excessive dependence on content designed only for ranking. Content marketing is not just SEO – it means producing useful and interesting materials for your target even if they won't immediately bring organic traffic from Google. For example, white papers, case studies, video tutorials, interactive tools: they may not appear in SERPs (or Google will copy them with difficulty), but they can attract users via word of mouth, social, or other sources. The goal is to provide value that distinguishes you, creating a more direct relationship with the audience. SEO remains important, but as Ryan Law (Ahrefs) says, "for most companies, SEO serves to scale growth already initiated, not to find product/market fit." In other words, first build something people want and a brand they trust, then SEO can amplify its reach – but don't rely solely on Google to emerge.
Monitor and adapt: Finally, experts advise keeping an eye on these trends with the right tools. For example, measure brand awareness (search volumes for your brand, mentions online, share of voice) to understand if you're gaining recognition outside of SEO. Or monitor your presence in new spaces, such as citations in AI Overviews, perhaps using specific tools. If you notice unexplainable drops in organic traffic, ask yourself if Google is changing something (algorithmic updates, new boxes in SERPs, etc.) and adapt your strategy accordingly – diversifying even more.
Conclusions
The current trend of Google putting itself first in results – especially on YMYL topics like health and wellness – highlights the company's almost monopolistic power in controlling the flow of online information. This poses a major challenge to content creators and brands: blindly relying on SEO on Google is no longer sustainable. Indeed, as Ahrefs notes, "there's a big competitor in your search results: Google." This is why professionals invite you to evolve strategies: diversify channels, focus on brand and community, and preserve the most valuable content for your audience. In a sense, the motto for the future is "look out for #1" – that is, protect your interests, just as Google protects its own. By building a strong brand and a direct relationship with the audience, and focusing on what makes your content unique, publishers and companies can mitigate the impact of Google's moves and continue to grow even in a rapidly changing search landscape.