SYNTHESIS NOTE
Topics›Agentic Commerce›this note

Do AI shopping agents destroy search ad revenue while leaving influencer marketing intact?

Explores whether AI agents that fulfill shopping needs by collapsing discovery funnels will erode search advertising while want-creation through influencer platforms remains protected from agent disruption.

Synthesis note · 2026-10-21 · sourced from Agentic Commerce

Emil Rustamli argues that as AI agents take over shopping — Perplexity's shopping feature, ChatGPT's shopping mode, Mastercard's "Agent Pay," Visa's "Intelligent Commerce" partnership with OpenAI, Perplexity, Stripe, and Microsoft — they compress "the discovery-to-decision process," cutting into the ad revenue tied to search result pages and product listings. He cites Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski predicting shoppers will "stop visiting retailer websites altogether" and instead just "send" their AI to buy. Rustamli calls the resulting pattern, following a Bain & Company brief, "zero-click" search: the user gets an answer without the clicks that generate ad impressions.

The mechanism he gives is twofold. First, an unnamed analysis found that when an AI answer topped Google results, paid-search click-through fell "from ~21% to under 10%," with organic results seeing "a ~70% drop in clicks" — concerning because Google search ads brought in "$175 billion" in 2023, "more than half of Alphabet's total revenue." He extends the same logic to Amazon, arguing that an AI assistant querying Amazon's database and placing an order directly turns the retailer into "a transaction back-end rather than a digital mall with aisles of ads," even though Amazon keeps the sale. Second, he argues this erosion has a boundary: "AI agents excel at fulfilling needs, but they're trash at creating wants." A need ("best bagless vacuum under $300") is a solved query; a want (the lip gloss a TikToker swears by, the home decor piece seen on Instagram) is "created through discovery, vibes, and social influence" — territory he says AI "simply can't compete" in against "the dopamine hit of scrolling." He points to influencer marketing budgets "projected to hit $9.3 billion in 2025 (up 14% from 2024)" as evidence that want-creation value is migrating toward, not away from, human social platforms.

This gives the needs/wants distinction as the limiting condition on Why do consumers delay adopting agentic search?: that note's formal model treats agentic search adoption as a platform-revenue-ranking question across the board, while Rustamli's argument implies the ranking differs by query type — need-driven queries are where agents substitute for ad-funded discovery, want-driven queries are where they can't. It also sits alongside Will brands succeed by building their own AI shopping agents?: Accenture frames the threat as brands needing to win agent-mediated decisions, but Rustamli's account suggests that threat is confined to need-fulfillment purchases, leaving want-creation as a channel brands can still own directly through social and influencer content. And where Can an AI agent serve both merchant and user interests fairly? identifies a loyalty conflict inside the agent's own business model, Rustamli's piece describes the adjacent structural question of where ad dollars go once the agent, loyal or not, closes the need-based transaction. The zero-click mechanism he describes for shopping search parallels what Will AI Overviews reduce search referral traffic to publishers? documents for news publishers — the same AI-answer-suppresses-click pattern, applied to a different ad-revenue-dependent industry.

The piece offers no sourced study for its own central numbers — the Google CTR figures are attributed only to "one analysis," unnamed, and the needs/wants claim is Rustamli's own framing rather than a tested finding. It is also written from mid-2025, before OpenAI's and Visa's later protocol announcements and before any agentic-commerce ad model shipped, so its prediction that "social media and influencer marketing might actually become more valuable" is a forecast, not an observed shift. The implication it supports is narrower than AI kills ad revenue: the erosion is specific to discovery-funnel advertising around pre-formed needs, and the piece's own logic predicts a compensating migration of ad spend toward want-creation channels rather than a net decline in advertising.

Inquiring lines that read this note 31

This note is a source for these research framings, grouped by the broader line of inquiry each explores. Scan the bold lines of inquiry; follow any specific question forward.

How can merchant-funded agents remain loyal to consumer interests in digital commerce? Do AI shopping agents exhibit systematic bias in recommendations? How do AI-generated summaries affect traffic and engagement with original sources? What organizational factors determine whether firms successfully adopt and integrate AI? How effectively can sellers exploit AI shopping agents through description changes?

Related concepts in this collection 6

This note in its neighbourhood — explore the map, then jump to a related concept in the list below.

Concept map
14 direct connections · 87 in 2-hop network ·medium cluster Open in graph ↗

Click a node to walk · click center to open · click Open in graph to see this note in the full knowledge graph

your link semantically near linked from elsewhere

Related papers in this collection 8

Papers most semantically related to this note, ranked by cosine similarity in the embedding space.

Original note title

Rustamli argues AI shopping agents erode search ad revenue by fulfilling needs but cannot create the wants that drive influencer marketing