People Inc.’s move comes against a stark backdrop: Google search traffic — once 54% of its volume two years ago — dropped to just 24% this quarter due to AI Overviews, according to the company.

People Inc., Microsoft, and the New Phase of Publisher–AI Bargaining

by ChatGPT-5

The announcement that People Inc. (formerly Dotdash Meredith) has signed an AI licensing deal with Microsoft marks another inflection point in the evolving relationship between major publishers and generative AI platforms. The deal places People Inc. among the early licensors feeding high-value content into Microsoft’s emerging publisher marketplace, where Microsoft’s Copilot will pay publishers on a pay-per-use basis for content access. This follows People Inc.’s earlier deal with OpenAI.

At heart, this development is not just about monetization — it represents a strategic assertion of bargaining power in an AI-dominated discovery ecosystem where search traffic is declining, web crawlers are contested territory, and content producers increasingly demand compensation for AI training and commercial reuse.

A Strategic Response to AI-Driven Disintermediation

People Inc.’s move comes against a stark backdrop: Google search traffic — once 54% of its volume two years ago — dropped to just 24% this quarter due to AI Overviews, according to the company.

Search engines are no longer reliable gateways to publisher content; generative answers are becoming the new interface, and content owners risk being pushed further out of consumer view.

Rather than merely litigate or complain, People Inc. opted for leverage.

Two tactics stand out:

This combination — technological moat + licensing marketplace — signals a blueprint for publishers asserting sovereignty over their content.

The Microsoft Marketplace: “A la Carte” Licensing

CEO Neil Vogel described Microsoft’s offering as a “pay-per-use” model, contrasting it with OpenAI’s “all-you-can-eat” licensing.

For publishers, this hybrid approach matters:

• Per-query licensing aligns value with usage

• Allows price-setting differentiation across content types

• Supports transparency and accounting for model-use volumes

• Prevents one-time lump-sum deals that undervalue future demand

If executed well, this could become an industry settlement structure.

Pros and Cons of the People Inc. Approach

✅ Pros

1. Monetizes content in the AI era

• Converts content into recurring revenue streams rather than passive scraping.

2. Forces AI companies to negotiate

• Blocking bots flipped leverage dynamics; others have seen success with similar tactics in music and social media.

3. Creates a market standard

• Participation in the first major “publisher marketplace” helps shape licensing norms.

4. Protects journalism and editorial integrity

• Compensation for production costs underpins sustainable media — a key societal argument.

5. Diversifies revenue beyond advertising and search

• Licensing and performance marketing saw strong growth (24% and 38% respectively).People Inc. forges AI licensing…

❌ Cons

1. Risk of ceding too much control early

• Early movers help set the floor on pricing — positive if high, dangerous if not.

2. Potential dependence on AI distribution channels

• Licensing deals must avoid content becoming captive to Microsoft/OpenAI ecosystems.

3. Unknown long-term economics

• A pay-per-use model could generate meaningful revenue — or turn into pennies per query.

4. Competition risk

• If only some publishers license, licensed content may disproportionately train the most commercially powerful AI tools.

5. May weaken collective bargaining power

• Unless replicated across the market, deals can be used as precedents against holdouts.

Should Other Publishers Follow?

The answer is yes — but not blindly.

Follow if...

• You have scale or premium content that cannot be replaced by synthetic data.

• You have technological means to detect and block scrapers.

• Contracts protect audit rights, attribution, derivative work controls, and price escalation.

• Deals are non-exclusive and model improvements must not eliminate the need for future training access.

Proceed cautiously if...

• Pricing terms are opaque or capped.

• You lack brand strength to negotiate value.

• The deal provides broad usage rights without granular compensation.

Do NOT follow if...

• The deal looks like a rights grab disguised as “partnership.”

• The tech platform refuses transparency or auditability.

• You have no internal AI/data governance or enforcement capability.

Implications for the Publishing Industry

This marks the shift from:

Scraping → Coercion → Negotiation → Marketplaces → Industrial Licensing Era

We are witnessing the beginnings of:

• Standardized AI content marketplaces

• Bot-blocking as negotiating leverage

• Per-query micropayment models

• Platform competition to secure high-value content inputs

• Publisher alliances and federated licenses

Expect copycats. Expect more selective bot-blocking. Expect regulators to point to deals like this as proof licensable value exists — undermining “fair use” claims.

Conclusion

People Inc.’s move reflects a sober recognition: control over content access, rather than rhetoric about theft, is the strongest negotiating weapon. Their approach — block scrapers, force negotiation, pilot multiple licensing models — offers a tactical roadmap for premium publishers.

Other publishers should indeed follow — provided they negotiate from strength, preserve audit/control clauses, and treat licensing as revenue infrastructure, not as a one-off payday.

In the generative AI era, publishers face a simple choice:

Become suppliers, become adversaries, or become obsolete.

People Inc. has chosen to be a supplier — but a smart, assertive one.