Google Search in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: An Economic Reorientation of the Digital Information Economy

Artificial intelligence as an immediate threat to the classic search engine business model – or a strategic development of an already dominated market?

In the first quarter of 2025, Google officially still presents itself as the undisputed ruler of the global search landscape. With a market share of 91.55 percent, the company processes approximately 8.9 billion search queries daily, which translates to roughly 103,000 queries per second, or a total of 2.6 trillion annually. On mobile devices, Google maintains a virtually hegemonic position with a 96.3 percent market share. These figures convey an image of unshakeable dominance, but beneath the statistical surface lies a far more complex and volatile picture of economic upheaval. Market share alone masks a fundamental transformation in the nature of the value relationship between search volume, user behavior, and realized revenue streams.

In the final months of 2024, a rare phenomenon occurred: Google's global market share fell below the symbolically significant 90 percent threshold for the first time in a decade. In October 2024, the share stood at 89.34 percent, in November at 89.99 percent, and in December at 89.73 percent. This marks the first consistent dip below this mark since 2015. While analysts attribute this decline in part to regional shifts in Asia, the development signals the convergence of several structural forces that are beginning to fundamentally destabilize the traditional search engine ecosystem. It is less a matter of a radical exodus of existing users than a transformation of search behavior and the associated economic pathways to success.

Google's business model rests on an elegant, yet increasingly fragile, architecture. In 2024, the company generated approximately $307 billion in total revenue, of which search advertising accounted for roughly $175 billion. This represents not only 57 percent of total revenue but also forms the financial backbone of the entire corporate structure. The mechanics of this model are simple yet effective: users formulate search queries with explicit or implicit purchase intent; Google presents ads from advertisers who pay for clicks; users click on these ads or on organic search results; and a three-sided marketplace is created between users, publishers, and advertisers.

This architecture is fundamentally challenged by the integration of artificial intelligence, particularly through the technology of “AI Overviews”.

AI Overviews as a Business Model Destroyer: The Metrics of Decline

The introduction of AI Overviews by Google marks a turning point. This technology presents users with synthesized summaries of information, generated by generative models, directly on the search results page, without requiring them to click through to external websites. The rollout was remarkably rapid: In January 2025, AI Overviews appeared in 6.49 percent of all search queries. By March 2025, this share had doubled to approximately 13.14 percent. This means that today, in more than one in seven Google searches in the American market, the initiative of gathering information through AI synthesis is fulfilled before the user activates a traditional organic search result or a paid advertisement.

The economic consequences of this expansion quickly became apparent. Click-through rates, the fundamental metric of all digital-capitalist economic models, reacted dramatically. For search queries using AI Overviews, the organic click-through rate plummeted from 1.76 percent in June 2024 to 0.61 percent in September 2025. This represents a decline of approximately 65 percent, or, in business terms, the asset "click on organic search result" has become roughly two-thirds more volatile under the pressure of artificial intelligence. At the same time, paid search ads experienced an even more drastic decline: the click-through rate crashed from 19.7 percent to 6.34 percent, a reduction of 68 percent.

Particularly noteworthy is the interplay between these two effects: The reduction in click-through rates caused by AI Overviews is not limited to search queries where AI Overviews are actually displayed. Organic click-through rates also fell by approximately 41 percent year-on-year for search queries without AI Overviews. This suggests a more profound behavioral effect: Users are fundamentally adapting their interaction patterns. They are learning that search results are increasingly no longer worth clicking on because AI systems already provide answers on the results page. From a theoretical perspective, this learning effect might be understood as a form of irrational risk aversion or routine formation; in reality, however, users are reacting rationally to a transforming information landscape.

The aggregate effects of this transformation are striking in their starkness. The proportion of "zero-click searches"—searches that don't result in a click on an external result—jumped from 56 percent to 69 percent. Conversely, only 31 percent of search queries now lead to a click on an external destination. For publishers and content creators, this represents a traffic loss of catastrophic proportions. An analysis by Similarweb revealed that organic traffic to news websites plummeted from over 2.3 billion monthly visits to under 1.7 billion in one year—a loss of approximately 600 million visits per month, or about 26 percent of the previous traffic volume. Individual publishers report even more dramatic figures: One major American lifestyle magazine observed a reduction in its click-through rate from 5.1 percent to 0.6 percent, effectively a reduction of about 88 percent.

This isn't a gradual, evolutionary adjustment of the search engine landscape. This is a revolution. The implication for Google itself is two-faced and paradoxical: On the one hand, AI Overview integration leads to fewer clicks, while on the other hand, Google resists the pressure to roll out this feature, arguing that every click not lost to ChatGPT is valuable—and therefore even a reduced number of clicks is better than no click at all. An internal Google memo, which has been reported, succinctly articulated this cognitive tension: Google would rather lose declining searches to Gemini (Google's proprietary AI model) than to ChatGPT, because this would preserve the possibility of retaining users within the Google ecosystem. In other words, Google is risking a medium-term shrinkage of monetizable traffic volume in order to maintain its market position against decentralized AI competitors in the long term.

This strategy reflects a fundamental dilemma of platform capitalism: when the traditional measure of value—click generation—comes under pressure, alternative value creation pathways must be developed. Google is experimenting with this by developing AI Mode, a more comprehensive, conversational search experience designed to generate longer-term user engagement. The business model is shifting from transactional (“user clicks on ad”) models to potentially more integrated or even subscription-based models. The projection of search marketing revenue for 2025 at approximately $190.6 billion—an increase of about 7 percent compared to 2024—maintains a nominalist optimism in light of these trends. However, this growth is likely to be achieved primarily through price increases (cost-per-click increases) rather than increased volume.

Robby Stein's product philosophy: From Snapchat to AI Search

Against this backdrop, the biography and explicit product strategy of Robby Stein, Vice President of Product at Google Search, take on particular significance. Stein became a key figure in Google's attempt to orchestrate the transformation of search. His career path is revealing for understanding the strategic logic underlying the AI ​​plans.

Stein is known for developing Instagram Stories. This product decision provides an insightful case study of both product development under conditions of extreme uncertainty and how established platforms can neutralize competitors through "good-enough" copies. In 2013, Snapchat introduced "Stories," an innovative feature of ephemeral, automatically disappearing social media content. The innovation was technically elegant and disruptive in terms of user behavior, establishing a new category of social media interaction. Snapchat reached approximately 150 million daily active users in 2016. Instagram, already part of the Facebook ecosystem and boasting over 500 million daily active users, copied the feature on August 2, 2016.

The consequences were devastating for Snapchat. Instagram Stories reached over 150 million daily users within six months. Snapchat Stories views plummeted by 15 to 40 percent. Within a year, Snapchat had been functionally neutralized in this segment. What differentiated Instagram Stories from Snapchat Stories wasn't technical superiority, but operational superiority: Instagram integrated the feature into an already dominant ecosystem, offered better analytics for creators, allowed brand and user tagging (which Snapchat didn't offer), and operated on existing technical infrastructure. This was a textbook example of platform economics: scale, integration capabilities, and operational excellence beat innovation in fragmented markets.

In recent interviews, Stein describes his product development philosophy as being guided by three core elements: First, “relentless improvement”—an obsessive focus on iterative optimization. Second, a deep understanding of user behavior within the context of complex technological systems. Third, a willingness to make counterintuitive decisions when the data demands it.

This philosophy is manifested in Google's AI strategy. Stein has publicly stated that Google has identified three pill-like components of the "next generation of search": AI Overviews (fast, AI-generated synopses), multimodal search (images, video, Lens), and AI Mode (a conversational, turn-taking-based search experience previously unknown to Google). These three elements are intended to "converge" to create a seamless, more comprehensive search experience.

The speed of implementation is remarkable. AI Mode went from concept to launch in about a year, which is exceptionally fast for a company of this size. This reflects how newer product leaders at Google—explicitly guided by Stein's principles—are breaking through old organizational slowness.

However, Stein's philosophy also contains a structural weakness: it implies an understanding of "relentless improvement" as a process focused on the product itself, not on its ecosystemic and distributive effects. From a purely user-centric perspective, aggressive AI overviews may represent "improved" access to information. But from the perspective of publishers and the broader web ecosystem, which relies on click generation, they constitute a destructive intervention. This creates a dilemma: the product manager striving for maximum user enthusiasm can simultaneously undermine the company's business model because the user experience and commercial realization are not congruent.

Academic dispersion: Three pillars of a fragmented transformation

In recent interviews, Stein has offered a conceptual framework for the transformations in the search landscape: three non-equivalent pillars. This categorization is more significant than it initially appears because it reveals how Google internally understands the fragmentation of its search strategy.

The first pillar is AI Overviews. These are AI-generated summaries of information presented on the search results page. They work by having a specialized Gemini model (Google's proprietary large language model) interpret the search query, execute a search strategy (called "query fanout") in which the model automatically formulates and executes several dozen helper queries to gather context, and then generate a structured answer. AI Overviews are geared toward informational queries—"boiling water temperature," "best restaurants in Berlin," "how does Bitcoin work." They are not well-suited for navigational queries (where a user is searching for a specific destination). They are also not ideal for top-priority commercial queries (purchase intent), because traditional ad formats and product listings still perform superiorly in these areas.

The second pillar is multimodal search, primarily mediated by Google Lens. This allows users to search with visual input—taking a photo of an object and then asking Google what that object is, how to repair it, and where to buy it. Google Lens's growth rates are impressive: 15 percent year-over-year growth, reaching approximately 20 billion monthly queries. This is a significant pillar because it demonstrates that Google search is not solely text-based—the medium of interaction is diversifying.

The third pillar is AI Mode. This is the newest and conceptually most ambitious experiment. While AI Overviews are geared towards point-to-point answers (question → answer → end), AI Mode operates through a longer-term, conversational interaction. A user can ask complex, multi-step questions (“I’m looking for a restaurant in Berlin, my friend has a peanut allergy, I’d like outdoor seating, budget around 60 euros per person”), and AI Mode would provide step-by-step recommendations, clarify and refine them, and present alternatives. It’s less of a search engine and more of an interactive information agent.

This differentiation of the search strategy into three not entirely equivalent modes reflects a meta-strategy of flexibility and optionality. Google refrains from defining a monolithic “new search” and instead presents a portfolio of search modes that address different query types and user preferences. This is strategically intelligent because it places multiple bets simultaneously without committing to a single innovation that might not be universally successful.

However, this portfolio strategy also reveals a deep uncertainty. Monetizing a fragmented search experience is more difficult than monetizing a unified architecture. When users choose between different modes, they create expectation instability, leading to churn. And if Google offers different modes internally, one mode might cannibalize another.

B2B support and SaaS for SEO and GEO (AI search) combined: The all-in-one solution for B2B companies - Image: Xpert.Digital

AI search changes everything: How this SaaS solution is revolutionizing your B2B rankings forever.

The digital landscape for B2B companies is undergoing rapid change. Driven by artificial intelligence, the rules of online visibility are being rewritten. It has always been a challenge for companies to not only be visible in the digital masses, but also to be relevant to the right decision-makers. Traditional SEO strategies and local presence management (geomarketing) are complex, time-consuming, and often a battle against constantly changing algorithms and intense competition.

But what if there were a solution that not only simplifies this process, but makes it smarter, more predictive, and far more effective? This is where the combination of specialized B2B support with a powerful SaaS (Software as a Service) platform, specifically designed for the needs of SEO and GEO in the age of AI search, comes into play.

This new generation of tools no longer relies solely on manual keyword analysis and backlink strategies. Instead, it leverages artificial intelligence to more precisely understand search intent, automatically optimize local ranking factors, and conduct real-time competitive analysis. The result is a proactive, data-driven strategy that gives B2B companies a decisive advantage: They are not only found, but perceived as the authoritative authority in their niche and location.

Here's the symbiosis of B2B support and AI-powered SaaS technology that is transforming SEO and GEO marketing and how your company can benefit from it to grow sustainably in the digital space.

More about it here:

• 
  
  
  • 🔵 Partner of Xpert.Digital (Business Development)
  • 🔵 SE Ranking (Website)
  
  
  B2B Support & Blog for SEO, GEO and AIS – Artificial Intelligence Search
• Forget expensive SEO tools – this alternative dominates with unbeatable B2B features

The Echo Chamber of the Gemini Model: Technical Architecture and its Business Implications

The underlying technical architecture of Gemini, the AI ​​model that powers AI Mode, AI Overviews, and multimodal search, is relevant to understanding why Google is driving this transformation. Unlike many language models, Gemini is designed to be multimodal from the ground up. This means that the model integrates text, images, audio, and video into a single neural network, rather than adding these modalities later. This gives Gemini a structural elegance from a theoretical perspective.

Technically, Gemini uses a so-called transformer-decoder architecture, optimized for efficiency. The model runs on Google Cloud's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), giving Google a proprietary advantage in inference speed—Google can run AI models faster and cheaper than competitors based on general-purpose cloud infrastructures. Gemini can perform chain-of-thought reasoning—it can disaggregate complex problems into several conceptual steps before formulating an answer. This enables deeper logical structures than the shallow token generation of earlier LLMs.

Crucially, Gemini is integrated with Google's proprietary data repositories. Google's Shopping Graph contains approximately 50 billion products, updated 2 billion times per hour via merchant feeds. Google has access to 250 million locations and map information. Google has access to financial data, real-time stock market information, and the entire web as a source of context. These data repositories are not publicly available—they are proprietary resources accessible only to Google. This gives Gemini (and therefore AI Mode, AI Overviews, etc.) a fundamental advantage that competitors like ChatGPT or Perplexity lack. OpenAI has to rely on publicly available data and data retrieved via APIs. Perplexity has to use web scraping. Google already has the data internally.

This architecture illustrates why Google's AI integration should be seen as strategically necessary, not merely optional. The infrastructure is already in place. The data is already there. The computing capacity is already available. The economically rational course of action is to utilize these resources. The only question is how aggressively the monetization should be pursued, given the side effects on the traditional business model.

The perplexity problem: competition in the noise

A frequently overlooked aspect of the AI ​​search discussion is the role of Perplexity AI. Founded in 2022 by Aravind Srinivas, a former Google intern, Perplexity explicitly positions itself as an AI-native search interface. As of August 2024, Perplexity had approximately 15 million monthly active users. The company reported revenue projections of around $40 million for 2024. OpenAI reported projected revenues of approximately $11.6 billion for 2025 through its API offerings and the commercial use of ChatGPT Search.

However, the aggregated user figures reveal a surprising picture: Perplexity and ChatGPT Search combined currently process approximately 37.5 million prompts per day for ChatGPT, plus a multiple of that for Perplexity (conservatively estimated at around 10-20 million), resulting in a total of roughly 47.5-57.5 million AI search prompts per day. Meanwhile, Google processes approximately 14 billion search queries per day. This means that Google processes roughly 250-370 times more search queries than Perplexity and ChatGPT combined. Aggregated AI search traffic accounts for roughly 0.1 to 0.25 percent of total global web traffic. This is noise, not a signal of a paradigm shift.

This is significant because it shows that despite the massive venture capital funding of AI search startups, despite the media hype surrounding the “search revolution,” and despite the genuine technical improvements in Perplexity and ChatGPT Search, classic Google Search remains the dominant source of information. This doesn't mean that Perplexity and ChatGPT Search are unimportant—they signal a shift in user expectations. But they don't mean that Google's market position is under existential threat.

However, these figures can be misleading. While Perplexity represents only 0.01 percent of Google's daily search volume globally, its penetration among specific user cohorts (young, tech-savvy, information-intensive workers) is significantly higher. A venture analyst might argue that Perplexity isn't competing with Google, but rather creating the user type that will form the dominant usage cohort in ten years. This is a classic disruption argument. However, this is speculation; current data suggests a coexistence of search models rather than a substitution process.

The publisher collapse: Economic destruction or business model restructuring?

For a complete economic analysis, the destructive process caused by Google AI integration for publishers must be examined. This is a real and immediate phenomenon, not merely a projection. Publishers are reporting traffic losses of 70 to 80 percent. One major American news magazine lost 27 to 38 percent of its traffic between 2024 and 2025. A specialized niche blog about home renovation lost approximately 86 percent of its revenue, from about $7,000–$10,000 per month to about $1,500 per month.

The economic consequences are dramatic. The news industry in the US lost approximately 600 million monthly visits in less than a year—a reduction of about 26 percent. For an industry based on advertising revenue, this translates directly into fewer impressions, fewer clicks on ads, lower CPM rates (due to competition for scarcer impression inventory), and declining overall revenue.

This is a classic case of the economic externalization of negative effects. Google internalizes the profits from the improved user experience (users don't have to click, they receive instant answers), but externalizes the costs to publishers who no longer generate traffic. This asymmetric cost distribution is a structural feature of platform economies, where platform operators have bargaining power to shift cost centers.

Some publishers are beginning to experiment with models that embrace this new reality: Instead of optimizing for traffic volume, they are optimizing for visible/brand mentions in AI outputs. If Google generates a response for "best restaurants Berlin," a mention of a specific restaurant might be more valuable for that restaurant than a click, because the mention strengthens brand recognition and creates a "top-of-mind" entry point. Users who read AI responses that mention a specific restaurant may be more inclined to visit that restaurant later, even if they don't click immediately.

This is no consolation for publishers who rely on immediate traffic monetization. But it does point to a possible restructuring of publisher business models: away from “traffic volume × ad CPM” to “brand authority × premium content subscription” or “brand authority × high-value partner relationships”.

The unresolved billing question: Who pays for the training data?

A subtly important but systematically overlooked issue is the question of training data attribution. The AI ​​models that power AI Overviews, AI Mode, and ChatGPT Search were trained on web data that was 99 percent created by non-AI entities. Publishers pay journalists to write articles. News agencies pay correspondents to gather facts. Scientists invest time in research to publish those findings. All of these entities fund their operations through business models typically based on traffic generation or direct subscriptions. But the creation of web content is considered a “public good” if it is not compensated through direct monetization.

The AI ​​training process has never compensated these content creators. OpenAI trained GPT-4 with billions of articles without compensating the publishers. Google trained Gemini with web content without compensation. Perplexity trains its models similarly. This is technically and legally possible because it involves "fair use" (under US copyright law), but it is ethically and economically asymmetrical: The content creators finance the AI ​​training but receive no direct compensation. Instead, they are harmed by reduced traffic generation.

This could prove to be a long-term risk for the AI ​​industry. If publishers aren't compensated for their training data, they have less incentive to create high-quality content. The quality of the web will decline. This will later create a problem for AI models trained on web data—they'll be training on lower-quality content. This is a classic "tragedy of the commons" problem. Some players (notably OpenAI with its commercial resources, and Google with its intrinsic web integration) have already begun experimenting with licensed data sources (e.g., OpenAI partnering with news publishers for content feeds). This could lead to an emerging norm where AI training is partially licensed. But for now, this is still the exception, not the rule.

Value chain destabilization: From ads to… what?

A fundamental economic problem created by Google's AI integration is the question of alternative monetization pathways when traditional advertising becomes less effective. The classic Google value chain was: user formulates a query → Google presents organic results + ads → user clicks → publisher or advertiser receives traffic value or a conversion. This value chain formed the basis of the digital economy for 25 years.

AI Overviews destabilizes this value chain by eliminating the "click" step. Google needs to establish new value chains. Several approaches are being tested:

First: Integrating ads directly into AI Overviews and AI Mode. This is difficult because users explicitly understand these AI-generated responses as "non-ads." Integrating ads into AI responses risks eroding user trust. Google is cautious here.

Second: Monetization via subscription. Google is experimenting with premium versions of AI Mode, which may eventually be paid. This would mean that conversational AI search would be a premium feature, while standard search would remain free. This is a freemium model, similar to Spotify or Adobe. The challenge is to maintain a sufficiently high penetration rate for the paid versions to compensate for the loss of ad revenue.

Third: Monetization via business models that are not based on individual user monetization. For example, Google could offer an “API for Enterprise AI Search” where enterprise customers rent specific Gemini models for their internal search needs. This would shift the business model to a B2B model, similar to Google Cloud.

Fourth: Monetization via data monetization. When Google conducts millions of conversational AI interactions with users, it generates enormous amounts of user intent data. This data is incredibly valuable for advertising targeting. Google could use this data to improve advertiser targeting, even if click-through rates decrease. This is a form of indirect monetization.

None of these alternatives is obviously as profitable as the classic “click × CPM” formula. But taken together, they could potentially create a new ecosystem of value creation.

The Strategic Dilemma of Relentless Improvement

Stein's philosophy of "relentless improvement" encounters a fundamental conflict structure: The process of product improvement from the user's perspective directly conflicts with business model stability. A better product (AI overviews that provide instant answers) damages the business model (ad clicks decline). This is not a gradual, moderate dilemma—it is a structurally radical one.

The problem is even more complex because it's a timing issue. Google could theoretically slow down or stop the rollout of AI Overviews. This would protect ad revenue in the short term. But it would also mean that Perplexity and ChatGPT Search would become technically superior, and users would migrate to these platforms. In other words, by not acting, Google risks losing market share to competitors who prioritize user experience. This creates a prisoner's dilemma: all players are forced to maximize the user experience, even if this collectively leads to a monetization crisis.

Another way to understand this: AI integration isn't just a feature decision; it's an existential strategy against decentralized competition. Google has to build in AI capabilities, or search will migrate to ChatGPT. But this integration creates immediate business model problems. Google accepts this short-term sacrifice as necessary for its long-term market position.

The paradox of growth with declining revenue multiples

One last important point: Google's search volume continues to grow. The annual growth rate of search queries was around 4.7 percent in 2025, compared to 4.1 percent in 2024. This means that absolute search volume is expanding. However, this expansion has occurred alongside declining monetization multipliers. A Google search query is worth less than it was a year ago because the likelihood of a click is lower.

If this trend continues—volume growth × falling monetization rate—it will lead to an economy of “feasting on ruins,” where Google generates more traffic but extracts less revenue from it. While this is better for the user (more searches, better quality), it is bad for Google (less revenue per search, potentially declining overall revenue).

The search marketing revenue projection of $190.6 billion for 2025 (compared to $178.2 billion in 2024) suggests that Google is compensating for volume losses through aggressive CPM increases (forcing advertisers to pay higher prices). This is a short-term game—advertisers will eventually migrate to alternative channels (e.g., directly to retailers, Amazon Ads, TikTok Ads) if Google's efficiency continues to decline. The current "projection" may be a projection on sand, not on stable ground.

Innovation under pressure and the circumstances scenario

Google's transformation from a classic search engine to an AI-native search interface is not a voluntary change in strategy; it is a forced adaptation against multiple simultaneous disruptions: ChatGPT/OpenAI as new competition, Perplexity AI as a new search channel, internal technological pressure (Gemini and other AI models are already built; it is irrational not to use them), and a shift in user expectations (users expect AI capabilities in all digital products).

Robby Stein's product development philosophy—relentless improvement, obsessive optimization of user experience, and a readiness for conversion—works when user improvement and business model stability are aligned. However, in the context of AI disruption, these goals conflict. Stein's approach allows Google to aggressively pursue AI innovation but fails to provide immediate solutions to the business model problems that this innovation creates.

The long-term scenario is unclear. Several possibilities exist: (1) Google stabilizes on a new economic foundation where AI search, premium subscriptions, B2B services, and improved advertiser targeting combine to create a new revenue portfolio. (2) Google gradually loses market share to Perplexity, ChatGPT Search, and other decentralized models because these competitors offer better user experiences and are not constrained by business models that prioritize monetization. (3) A regulatory crisis prevents Google from leveraging its data advantage, and the competitive landscape remains fragmented.

Currently, scenario 1 is the most likely because Google's structural advantages (database, user base, infrastructure) are still substantial. But the uncertainty is real, and the transformation is permanent and structural, not merely gradual. In any case, one thing is clear: the era of pure click-based search monetization is ending. Something new is emerging, but its form has not yet stabilized.

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Our global industry and business expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month