Google has been quietly scaling a pay-per-value AI licensing scheme for publishers. But critics say the program looks less like a meaningful payout and more like a legal fig leaf.
The tech giant, which has steered clear of the large lump-sum licensing deals struck between other AI rivals like OpenAI and major news publishers, has been quietly testing a Search Console-based program that pays publishers when their content “significantly” contributes to AI-generated responses across Gemini, AI Overviews and AI mode, according to multiple industry sources close to the situation.
Once a publisher joins the “AI contribution pilot,” they receive an extra AI earnings widget via their Search Console dashboard. This displays a monthly earnings number (with some history), though no other detailed information on how payouts are calculated currently. Payments are based more on value than raw usage, meaning Google only pays when it judges that a piece of content has meaningfully contributed to an AI-generated response to warrant payment. They can opt out at any time.
Google confirmed the scheme is an early-stage learning pilot to test how best to reward high-quality content, on top of the traffic and tools it already provides. The company pointed back to a June blog post, noting that it is testing a new model for working with websites whose content helps keep its generative AI answers fresh and accurate, by using that material to ground responses.
Digiday has learned that at least dozens of publishers have been approached by Google for the AI contribution pilot, though the program has been more appealing to small and mid-sized, rather than large publishers and has widened far more broadly than news publishers. Digiday couldn’t get final confirmation of the number.
Screenshots from Google Search Console, seen by Digiday, show an “AI contribution” panel that appears once a publisher opts into the program. The interface lists the program name and a monthly payout figure, though little detail about how that number is calculated.
“It’s quite black box,” as one exec with knowledge of the matter told Digiday.
Given the early stage of the program, Google is likely still figuring out how to best determine the value each piece of content has for its AI-generated responses, and that’s a complicated equation no one in the industry has yet figured out.
Two publisher execs who are part of the pilot but requested anonymity to speak freely conceded that while the information available so far is basic, it’s far better to be inside Google’s AI licensing tent, testing direct payments and data-sharing, than standing on the sidelines hoping the old referral economics return.
“Do I wish they were more transparent? Definitely,” said one publisher exec who is in the program. “But I’m hopeful that the fact that they’re setting a precedent for exploring paying publishers directly for content through this is meaningful,” they added.
Google is having weekly calls with some of the program partners, who described its approach as “extremely collaborative.” One exec said that they see the pilot less as a one-off deal and more of an early test of a marketplace for inference data, where publishers learn what’s valuable to AI systems as well as to readers. “What would be most interesting for us in the same way that Google Search Console historically has been a place where you can see what content performs in search… [is] that same feedback loop develop in the AI inference space,” they told Digiday.
Another program partner, who requested anonymity, said it’s early days for the program and so it’s not yet fully baked, but that Google has been very collaborative and in regular contact over progress. “What we’re looking for is real, meaningful collaboration in this super important area in which no one has really figured out the best way forward.”
He added that it’s critical that AI companies like Google aren’t “disincentivized” from collaborating, but are encouraged to do so. “We’re super excited to participate. The fact that we can have an open dialog, share insights in a meaningful way and have a true partner, I feel like that’s so important,” he said.
This isn’t the first time Google has experimented with paid pilots, having launched a program with major news publishers including the Guardian and The Washington Post to test AI features in Google News, and overhauling how links appear in its AI-powered search products last year.
Unlike its earlier AI licensing negotiations with news publishers, reported on by The Information, which were also tied to News Showcase agreements, this latest attempt has been with a broader range of publishers beyond news.
Google also launched the AI performance report within its Search Console in August, though some publishers have only just started to see this appear. One exec said the new AI-surfaces reports very recently appeared in their Search Console, showing more impressions than they expected, and closely tracking the traffic they’ve lost from traditional search and Discover. They said they believed that raises fresh questions about how that exposure should be compensated.
Some publishers — particularly mid-sized or small ones — are unlikely to refuse recurring revenue for content they’re already producing. But it’s hard to call it a fair trade when the calculation is a black box, and one source close to the situation said the early returns have delivered “peanuts” relative to their advertising revenue.
One publishing exec told Digiday the “lowball numbers” they’ve seen offered by Google to their company and “several” of their peers at other publishers don’t hit a revenue threshold that entices them to opt into the program. To their knowledge, negotiations with Google were ongoing.
Google has an opportunity here to create a new value exchange through a pay-per-use AI licensing marketplace, but this program doesn’t offer enough revenue to make opting in worthwhile, the exec said. Participation in the program could also hurt publishers’ leverage to push for better revenue terms from Google, as the tech company could argue that it’s offering compensation to publishers for using their content in AI-generated summaries, they added.
Another publishing exec said a program like this might be best suited for small or mid-size publishers that don’t have the negotiating power to get a bigger AI licensing deal out of Google, and would offer those publishers a way into the market.
Google has little incentive to dole big paychecks out to publishers for using their content at scale in AI-generated summaries, the exec argued, given the company’s long history of freely crawling and indexing content across the web.
“Publishers have relatively little leverage over how AI changes content discovery and distribution, said Luke Stillman, managing director of Madison and Wall. “They are better served creating a new revenue stream while they still can and using that money to expand businesses that are less dependent on advertising, such as subscriptions and events,” he said.
Given smaller publishers in particular are unlikely to have the resources or bargaining power to negotiate independent licensing agreements, programs like Google’s can “provide some incremental upside for publishers while also helping Google reduce legal and reputational risk around how content is used,” added Stillman.
Unpicking Google’s motives
These kinds of pay-per-use agreements are also a relatively inexpensive way to lower several forms of risk at once: legal risk, regulatory risk, publisher relations and negative headlines, explained Stillman. “The political or regulatory environment would probably have to shift substantially for content litigation alone to become a major financial threat to the largest platforms,” he said.
David Buttle, founder of publisher AI coalition Spur and media consultancy DJB Strategies, said the per-use licensing payments appear less like a meaningful exchange and more like a strategic hedge. Google “doesn’t want” a market where it has to pay on the basis of actual usage of journalism in AI because that would be the “thin end of the wedge” for its whole search model, which has largely avoided paying for publisher content, he stressed.
“What this sounds to me like is a kind of hedge against that world, a bit of experimentation in the event that that world comes to pass and they do actually have to pay,” said Buttle. “So what infrastructure do they need to do so? How they manage that at scale — it’s probably a bit of testing around that.”
He added that it does at least introduce the notion that there are “usage events which convey value” on Google, and that there needs to be a return path of value coming back. “The first step is establishing the precedent that publishers deserve to know when their content has been used to inform a response,” he said.
Other publishing execs are a little more cynical, with some believing that Google is merely giving the illusion of contribution to publishers as a result of regulatory scrutiny, while dividing publishers by selecting a few at a time to be on the receiving end.
Beyond the current pilot, Google says its news AI scheme already involves more than 200 titles globally, while its Google News Showcase licensing programme now covers over 2,800 publications in 33 countries.