Here’s how it works: Revenues from Perplexity subscriptions (Pro, Max and the new $5 Tier Comet Plus, which was first reported by Bloomberg) will be pooled. Perplexity maintains 20%, while the other 80% will be sent to participants in Perplexity’s publisher program. Revenue is split based on three categories. A direct visit to a publisher’s site is when you view someone using Comet, if the publisher’s content is cited as a COMET answer search query, or if the content is used to complete a task by the AI ​​assistant in COMET. Perplexity is one of the first AI companies to pay publishers based on their content usage.

Chang said publishers could stand to make “millions” from the program. She refused to share which publishers of Perplexity’s existing programme signed up to make money from Comet Plus. Digiday spoke with her to find out more about how the revenue model works and what it means for the future where AI companies pay publishers for their content.

“Only when journalism is successful, stumping can succeed. We are truly committed to building and funding a more sustainable and thriving news ecosystem for the age of AI,” Chan said.

Confusion refused to share how many comet users have one month after launch.

This conversation was edited and condensed.

Why did confusion create this new revenue model?

Publishers are really the backbone of confusion, and our whole business model with Comet Plus has really grown from their feedback… What I’ve heard wasn’t just asking for better wages, but it was necessary to rethink the relationship between AI and publishers in the way that actually works for everyone.

Traditionally, users can either read articles or read directly, or rely on summary tools and interventions like confusion to get over the point. But it’s all changed. And then there’s this third group. [AI] Before research, comparison, purchase, and Comet Plus, publishers rarely saw revenue from this type of indirect engagement. This new evolution is really about correcting it. When users are reading articles, asking questions directly or relying on agents to do something, [publishers are] All were compensated.

So, did publishers want a pay model per usage?

I’m still interested in advertising revenue share. They came and said, “Jessica, I designed what was paid per.” [usage]. ‘But what I’m listening to between the lines is something that really worked for them… On platforms like Apple News, I think publishers look at new readers and see how revenues actually split. We really want to change it and update that model to make it a little more visibility and generate more revenue for publishers.

How much revenue are the confused publishers making from existing advertising revenue share programs?

We don’t disclose those numbers because we want to value the privacy of our publishers. We are very intentional about advertising products. After all, we care a lot about that user experience and ensure that it’s not just overloading and injecting the platform with a terrible ad experience. As a result, I don’t think it’s a huge number yet. You need to expand that. It’s already grown. We have a large queue of brands waiting to work with us, but we need to make sure the user experience doesn’t undermine it.

So, did the check be sent to the publisher?

The check has disappeared.

Does this new revenue opportunity for publishers depend on people who are actually using comets?

Publishers are really keen on paying business models, so now they are really developing something really concrete. Actual cash payments start quickly and are clearly set to grow each month as the number of professionals and biggest subscribers increases. For us, we are very bullish as we tie together some rather large initiatives around the launch of comets. We’ve only been three years ago and have seen adoptions soaring and comets give users more ways to dig deeper every day. And it’s really going to encourage that retention and growth for us.

Does one form of usage (traffic, crawler, or agent traffic) weigh more than the other forms in terms of payment to publishers?

The details will be very specific to our partners, but you’re thinking about it right.

In addition to Comet Plus, is there a way to compensate for the ways publishers try to overcome criticism and legal issues about AI companies like Perplexity, which raw the web for information?

I don’t think respecting publishers is just a good politics. I say this many times this time…unless our partners are successful, we really won’t succeed. And if we want to rub content and place it behind the paywall, I don’t think the comet will grow.

I’ve covered what IAB Tech Lab does to bring together publishers and tech companies to propose AI BOT management and reward solutions. They had several events and created a working group, but they realized that confusion was not a part of them. What do you think about what they are proposing and are you interested in supporting what they are doing?

Whatever supports publishers, fair compensation, transparency, I think we are all open to support. We’ll be open [participating].