In business, the art of the pivot is a delicate thing, difficult to get right. That’s why it doesn’t happen that often; you only do it when you’re convinced the alternative—continuing down a path that isn’t working—will be worse.
I have to think this is the basic logic factoring into Perplexity‘s recent relaunch of its revenue-sharing program with publishers. Quick recap: Perplexity announced a new kind of subscription called Comet Plus. Users can pay $5 a month to access content from Perplexity’s publisher partners—that is, those who sign up to participate—and Perplexity passes on most of the revenue to them. It’s already set aside $42.5 million to kick-start the program, according to CEO Aravind Srinivas.
Although the program is named after the company’s new Comet web browser, users can use any browser to access the content via Perplexity. However, using Comet means you’ll also be able to use the Comet Assistant—more on why that’s important in a minute. And if you already have a Pro or Max subscription, Plus is part of the package.
Subscribe to Media CoPilot. Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com
The thing is, Perplexity already shares revenue with publishers via the Perplexity Publishers’ Program. Launched last summer, the PPP is an ad-based program; when a partner’s content is featured in an answer, revenue created from ads in that answer (typically a sponsored question) is shared with that partner. Perplexity isn’t sunsetting the PPP—Gannett just signed up for it. Still, it’s hard to see Comet Plus as at least a partial admission that the PPP wasn’t a great answer to building a business around AI search, at least not one that excites publishers.
It didn’t shield the company from their ire either. News Corp sued Perplexity last year over alleged copyright violations, simultaneously praising OpenAI for its willingness to sign up-front content licensing deals instead of experimental revenue-sharing models. Perplexity’s recent bid to get the case dismissed failed, and Japanese publishers Nikkei and The Asahi Shimbun Co. sued around the same time.
Getting that agent money
Comet Plus is a different tack on a revenue model, but it’s also an opportunity to reset the conversation around monetization, copyright, and the law—at least a little. While competing AI search engines have been slowly migrating toward either licensing deals or “pay per crawl” models that charge bots in the moment they access content, Perplexity has so far been resistant to an approach that involves them (or their bots) paying up front for content.
Instead, they’re going to monetize when others pay—either advertisers or users—and share the money with publishers. With respect to Comet Plus, Perplexity says it’s going to share 80% of that money, with the other 20% going to compute costs. A key part of the structure is that it plans to apportion the money based on three different types of traffic: human engagement, search indexing, and agent activity (i.e. bots).
That in itself is interesting—I’ve written before about the rise in bot traffic and the opportunity it represents for publishers to provide context for those bots. This is where the Comet Assistant factors in: it’s the agent in Comet Plus’s three-part revenue plan (obviously, Perplexity can’t track and monetize agent bots it doesn’t control). Credit to Perplexity for creating a way to make money from the activity that its own Assistant creates.
In fact, it might be the only one who could. That’s because Perplexity is one of several AI companies that gives its user agents permission to bypass a site’s Robots Exclusion Protocol (the internet standard for blocking bots). So rather than partnering with others on an existing “pay per crawl” program (by, say, paying TollBit or Dappier when its bots want access to content), Perplexity is effectively building its own system, and setting the price of that activity itself.
That seems like an obvious conflict. Although a Perplexity spokesperson told me it provides “robust and transparent” visibility to publisher partners about how their content is performing, agent activity is largely uncharted territory. Perplexity promises to compensate publishers based on it, but they also control it. The company is adamant that its search engine will surface only the answers that best answer a query, but exactly how agents make queries could end up being a subject of great interest—especially to media companies who start to make money off it.
How much for just the scrape?
Comet Plus also exposes the central contradiction of how the AI companies value content, but in a different way. Since the program is charging users to access certain content, that content is by definition valuable. But Perplexity doesn’t treat “free” content differently—it will still surface the best content to answer a user query regardless of whether or not the publisher is part of Comet Plus. The onus is on the publisher to erect defenses (block crawling via either robots.txt, Cloudflare, or some other means) to prevent that.
Put another way, Perplexity is essentially saying, “We’re happy to share revenue with you if you join our program, but if you don’t we’ll ingest and surface the content anyway, unless you tell us not to.” This approach is certainly more legally dicey, but since Perplexity’s business model depends on being able to access the entire internet, it’s clearly decided that the ambiguity is worth the risk.
And to be fair, Perplexity is hardly the only AI company with this de facto stance. It’s not like ChatGPT will ignore sites that don’t have a deal with OpenAI. “Ingest first, sort it out later” has essentially become an operational standard in the AI world. How that shakes out will ultimately be answered by the courts.
Will users pay?
In the meantime, the media world will be watching Perplexity’s new, three-pronged revenue model with great interest. Monetizing user agents and AI search activity are new ideas, but whether they succeed ultimately depends on if users think Comet Plus is an experience they want to pay for. Because if they don’t you can bet a different revenue model will rise to take its place: advertising.
Subscribe to Media CoPilot. Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com
The early-rate deadline for Fast Company’s Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
