ChatGPT reroutes web attention inside the AI intermediary: it produces outbound clicks in just 5.2% of sessions versus much higher Google referral rates, and broader ChatGPT access cut traditional search traffic by roughly 9.4%, hitting ad-supported informational sites hardest.

Main Finding

AI search (ChatGPT Search) resolves most information needs inside the intermediary and generates far fewer outbound referrals than traditional search. Over Oct 2024–Jul 2025, ChatGPT produced a clean outbound click in 5.2% of conversation sessions versus 31.1% of Google queries. Wider ChatGPT access causally reduced traditional search use (−9.4% on average; −17.0% after 20 weeks). The shift reallocates attention away from much of the ad-supported web and toward a narrower set of destinations (reference, academic, developer, tools/SaaS), identifying a routing margin by which AI search rewrites the web’s historical referral “bargain.”

Key Points

• Scale of retention vs routing
  • Pooled referral ratios: ChatGPT = 5.2% of conversation sessions; Google = 31.1% of queries.
  • Household-level: 74.4% of ChatGPT-active households never produced a clean ChatGPT referral during the sample vs 9.6% for Google-querying households.
  • Within household-week paired comparison: raw means 8.1% ChatGPT vs 39.6% Google; fixed-effect estimate of the ChatGPT gap ≈ −29 percentage points (β̂ = −0.290, SE = 0.002).
• Composition of residual referrals (not a scaled-down Google stream)
  • ChatGPT sessions are more often “solo” (no other observed browsing in ±15 min) (+23.1 pp).
  • ChatGPT use relatively concentrated in reference/knowledge (+5.2 pp) and tools/SaaS (+1.6 pp); relatively less in social, adult, entertainment/gaming, and marketplace contexts.
  • Conditional referral rates: highest for developer/technical (13.4%), academic research (12.1%), e-commerce brands (9.4%); lowest for adult, social, and reference/knowledge contexts.
  • Destination skew: referrals favor reference, academic, developer, and tools/SaaS sites and avoid much ad-supported content.
• Causal displacement of traditional search
  • Exploiting three ChatGPT Search access expansions (Oct 31, 2024 paid; Dec 16, 2024 logged-in; Feb 5, 2025 anonymous), a stacked difference-in-differences design finds average reduction in traditional search queries of 9.4%, growing to 17.0% after 20 weeks.
  • Losses concentrated in informational categories.
• Measurement caveats emphasized by authors
  • These are traffic outcomes (observable routing), not direct welfare, revenue, or long-run content-production measures.

Data & Methods

• Data source
  • URL-level Comscore U.S. desktop clickstream (Oct 2024–Jul 2025). Panel size: 168k–238k active households/month; balanced subpanel of 45,386 households used for displacement analysis.
  • Measures: foreground page loads, timestamps, HTTP referrers, search-query URLs, ChatGPT conversation endpoints.
• Unit definitions
  • ChatGPT conversation session: maximal sequence of endpoint loads sharing a conversation identifier; new session if same identifier reappears after >1 hour (sensitivity checks with 0.5–5 hours).
  • Search query: foreground Google/Bing/Yahoo load matching search URL pattern.
• Referral definition
  • Clean outbound referral: foreground visit to third-party site with ChatGPT or search engine in the HTTP referrer, excluding self-referential/platform-internal navigation and programmatic/background requests.
  • Referral ratio = share of intermediary events (session/query) that produce ≥1 clean outbound referral; absorptiveness = complement (ends without referral).
• Domain taxonomy
  • 4,266 matched-support destination domains classified by content type and monetization; high-confidence subset of 3,245 used for category analyses.
• Identification strategies
  • Within-household, within-week comparison: regression of referral ratio on indicator for ChatGPT vs Google with household and week fixed effects (clusters by household) to control for time-invariant household heterogeneity and common shocks.
  • Causal displacement: stacked difference-in-differences exploiting three staged ChatGPT Search access expansions; cohorts defined by pre-expansion signals (paid, logged-in, anonymous). Treated pooled sample = 3,882 households; control = households with no pre-expansion ChatGPT/Claude activity; reweighting toward ACS demographics; follow literature on staggered DiD (Cengiz et al., Callaway & Sant’Anna).
• Adoption and coverage notes
  • ChatGPT reach rose from ~4.6% (Oct 2024) to ~7.9% (mid-2025); Google reach ~49% across period.
  • Signal for ChatGPT search use relies on audited endpoints (paragen_submission proxy) — imperfect but validated and used with sensitivity checks.

Implications for AI Economics

• Economic reallocation via the routing margin
  • AI search introduces a new margin: the intermediary can satisfy an information need without routing a visit, extracting value at the query/answer stage while depriving publishers of downstream attention, ad impressions, conversions, and subscription opportunities that historically followed links.
• Distributional effects on the open web
  • Ad-supported publishers (news, entertainment, marketplaces) face traffic and monetization downside as AI search disproportionately absorbs informational queries and avoids routing to ad-heavy sites.
  • Publishers specializing in reference, developer tools, academic content, and SaaS may see relatively less reduction—or even relatively higher share—of residual clicks.
• Platform business models and bargaining
  • If intermediaries retain more value, incentives shift toward embedding answers and possibly licensing/crawling models, payments, or revenue-sharing with high-value sources; alternatively, intermediaries may intensify vertical integration or preferential sourcing of proprietary content.
• Advertising and competition
  • Search-ad markets could shrink if traditional query volumes decline; ad prices, targeting dynamics, and advertiser strategies may change as impressions migrate away from publisher pages to intermediary-owned surfaces.
  • Concentration risks: a small set of intermediaries that can synthesize answers and keep users engaged may capture more surplus, raising questions for competition policy and platform regulation.
• Research and policy priorities
  • Need for welfare analysis: the paper measures traffic reallocation but not consumer surplus, quality of answers, misinformation externalities, or long-term content supply responses.
  • Measurement and monitoring: better measurement across mobile, non-desktop, and server-side logs; message-level content to understand which prompts are absorbed and which produce citations/referrals.
  • Potential remedies/policies: attribution standards, mandatory linking/metadata, remuneration schemes for content creators, or regulatory scrutiny of bundling/vertical integration—each requires empirical work on long-term content incentives and consumer welfare.
• Future empirical/theoretical directions
  • Quantify publisher revenue impacts and advertiser responses across categories.
  • Structural models of platform pricing, attention allocation, and content supply where intermediaries internalize routing externalities.
  • Field experiments or panel extensions to measure substitution elasticity at different task types, longer-term effects on content production, and heterogeneous consumer welfare.

Limitations to keep in mind - Desktop-only Comscore data (no mobile app browser capture) and reliance on HTTP referrers (subject to stripping) can bias measured referral rates downward; authors apply conservative “clean referral” filters and sensitivity checks. - No visibility into prompt text or user satisfaction—absorptiveness conflates successfully resolved tasks, abandonment, and unobserved destination visits. - The causal displacement estimates rely on staged access expansions and pre-trend/pool reweighting; results are robust but interpret as traffic substitution rather than direct revenue/welfare loss.