In short
- 19 February 2024
- The date of the press release, from “Predicts 2024: How GenAI Will Reshape Tech Marketing”, analyst Alan Antin. Quoting the figure without this date is quoting a prediction as a fact.
- The deadline is now
- 2026 was the prediction's horizon. That makes it testable today, which is rare — most predictions in this field point at a year that has not started.
- Direction right, speed wrong
- That is a more interesting story than “they got it wrong”, and it is also the honest one. Anyone dismissing an analyst because a forecast missed does not understand what a forecast is.
- No counter-figure
- The figures going around about what did happen come from secondary articles with no method. Putting one up to refute Gartner would be the same mistake, one layer down.
What does the study say?
On 19 February 2024 Gartner predicted that search engine volume would drop 25% by 2026, because of AI chatbots and other virtual agents. The statement is real, it sits in a press release, and it comes from “Predicts 2024: How GenAI Will Reshape Tech Marketing” — analyst Alan Antin. That is more than most figures in this field can say, and it is why this quote turned up everywhere.
That deadline is now, and it did not play out that way. Search did not shrink by a quarter — it changed shape. Google answered the shift with AI answers at the top of its own results page, so traffic moved rather than vanished. Something did disappear, namely the click: a question that used to produce a visit now produces an answer in which you are named or not. But that is a different change from the predicted one, with a different consequence.
And there is deliberately no counter-figure here. Numbers circulate about how much search traffic actually disappeared, and they come from secondary articles with no method: no sample, no period, no definition of what is being counted. Putting one up to refute Gartner would be exactly the mistake this page describes, one layer down. A sentence that holds is worth more here than a figure that convinces.
| What was measured | How | What the study does not say |
|---|---|---|
| The prediction itself, checked at the source on 10 August 2026 | looked up the press release and found the wording, the date, the report and the analyst's name back in the source text — not taken from an article quoting it | that Gartner was wrong about the DIRECTION. Search really has changed under generative AI; it is the size and the mechanism that went differently. A forecast that gets the direction right is not a failed forecast |
| What stands in place of a counter-figure | a description of what did happen, without a number — because every figure we could find came from a secondary article with no sample, period or definition | that those figures are all wrong. They are not CHECKABLE, which is a different thing. The difference between the two is exactly what this whole series of studies is about |
Gartner, press release of 19 February 2024, from “Predicts 2024: How GenAI Will Reshape Tech Marketing” · analyst Alan Antin. Checked at the source on 10 August 2026. What actually happened appears here without a counter-figure, with the reason attached.
Why does this matter to you?
Because this figure is still doing the rounds, and usually without its date. A prediction from February 2024 with a 2026 horizon reads, if you leave out those two years, like a statement about the future. It is not one any more. Come across the figure without “Gartner, February 2024” beside it and it is not a source but an echo — and the odds are that whoever passed it on never checked it.
And because a market prediction, even a good one, is never your figure. Even if the 25% had come true exactly, it would say nothing about the questions your buyers arrive on, the engine they use, or whether you get named in that answer. A market average is a statement about everyone and therefore about nobody in particular — that holds here just as hard as for a coverage figure about “Europe”.
What does ceeme do with it?
We do not measure the market but your brand: per question, per engine, per language, with the answer the AI actually gave next to it. That figure has no horizon and no deadline — it is today's state, and next month this month's state sits beside it. A prediction cannot be checked until it has come due; a measurement can be repeated tomorrow.
And since this study a rule holds for the whole site, one you can test against this page: a prediction whose deadline has passed appears here only together with what actually happened. No figure without its source or method beside it — not even when it suits us. That is the hard half of the rule, and it is the only half that counts.
Frequently asked questions
So were the analysts wrong?
Not about the direction. Search really has changed under generative AI, and anyone who saw that coming in 2024 saw more sharply than most. What went differently is the size and the mechanism: no exodus but a reshuffle, and that is harder to predict than a decline. Judging a forecast on the number alone is the same kind of error as judging a measurement on one run.
Can I still use this figure?
Yes, with its date and its ending attached. “Gartner predicted a 25% decline by 2026 back in February 2024; it went differently, because traffic moved rather than vanished” is a stronger sentence than the figure alone — it shows you looked. Without those two halves it is an echo, and an echo is easy to spot in this field.
Why not put your own figure against it?
Because we do not have one. We measure AI answers about brands, not search volumes across the whole market — that would need a completely different instrument. Borrowing a figure from an article to refute an analyst is exactly the move this page warns against. So the honest outcome is a sentence and not a number.
Read on
Free, no account and no card.