Google's March Core Update Is Punishing Lazy AI Content. Good.

Google just finished rolling out its March 2026 core update. AI content farms lost 60 to 80 percent of their traffic. Affiliate sites got hit harder, with 71% reporting negative impact.

Wasn't surprised. If anything, I reckon it could've come off an even bigger base.

Good. They've probably figured out how to tell the difference between content worth reading and content that's just there.

But there's a part of this I don't love.

Low quality AI content was ranking above good human creators. People who actually know their stuff, who put the hours in, were getting buried by pages that said nothing but said it fluently enough to rank. That needed to change.

What I'm less comfortable with is the trajectory. There will be fewer human creators over time. Robots are cheaper. That's not a prediction, that's maths. I'm not celebrating that part. It's something the industry needs to sit with honestly rather than pretending it's not happening.

Separately, Seer Interactive analysed 3,119 queries across 42 organisations and found AI Overviews are compressing organic click-through rates by 61%. Different mechanism, same pressure.

For Australian businesses specifically, this compounds fast. Most of our market is SME-heavy. Smaller teams, fewer resources, less margin for error on content investment. When the bar rises, the businesses with the thinnest content teams feel it first. And in Australia, that's a lot of businesses.

I use AI every day. I live in Claude. I'm not anti-AI. I think of it like building blocks. You can craft whatever you want. But the quality comes down to the detail you take in how you build and why.

If you're stacking blocks because it's cheap and fast, you end up with something generic that doesn't work. If you haven't been trained on the tools and you're under pressure, same outcome. Fifty blog posts, no editorial oversight, no original insight. You get what you get.

Google is now weighting Information Gain more heavily. That measures whether your content adds something new. And they're evaluating quality at the site level, not page level. A site full of filler drags down even its best work.

What I find personally is that AI helps me express my thinking more frequently. I can get ideas out that would've taken ten times longer. That's the opportunity. Not replacing thinking. Amplifying it. But that only works if you have thinking worth amplifying.

Will it push out all human creators? What will humans do? Will it eliminate all art? Will we become like robots?

That's not a 0% chance. I hope not. Even though I'm a spreadsheet marketer, that genuinely scares me.

But in the inverse, it could work out well. Life gets easier. We get a better society. Think about how content has evolved. You used to need a newspaper to get published. Then self-publishing. Then social media. Now you can become your own media house. One person doing what used to take a team of twenty. I reckon we'll see more decentralised businesses come out of this. More independent operators providing value to companies rather than the traditional employee setup.

It can go either way. What matters is who's driving the ship. What values we're steering towards. What our north stars are.

Open Google Search Console. Look at your top 20 pages by impressions. For each one, ask: does this page say something that the ten pages ranking above and below it don't? If the answer is no, that page is vulnerable. It doesn't matter whether a human or a machine wrote it.

Then look at who's making content decisions in your business. If it's someone who isn't close to the audience, that's your first problem. Not the algorithm.

Filip Ivanković is the founder of New Rebellion, an Australian marketing consultancy.