Perplexity, the AI search startup, has been aggressively recruiting publishers into its revenue-sharing program. The pitch: instead of fighting about AI using your content, partner and get paid when Perplexity cites you.

Several major publishers have signed up. Many others are weighing the decision.

If you’re evaluating this opportunity, here’s what you should consider.

What Perplexity Offers

The Publisher Program, as Perplexity describes it, includes:

Revenue sharing on ads. When Perplexity displays advertisements alongside answers that cite your content, you get a share. Perplexity claims publishers can earn “double-digit” CPMs for ad impressions attributed to their content.

Attribution and linking. Your content gets cited with links, potentially driving referral traffic. The hope: AI-aided discovery replaces some of what Google’s AI is taking away.

Partnership status. Being a recognized partner may influence how prominently your content gets surfaced, though Perplexity hasn’t been explicit about this.

Access to data. Partners get analytics about how their content is used, which citations drive value, and other metrics.

The pitch essentially is: AI citation is happening anyway; you might as well get paid for it.

The Bull Case

Arguments for joining:

Revenue from content AI already uses. If Perplexity is going to cite your content regardless, why not get paid? The marginal revenue is better than zero.

Positioning for the future. If AI search grows, early partners may have advantageous positions. Relationships built now could matter more later.

Data and insight. Understanding how AI systems use your content has strategic value beyond immediate revenue.

Referral traffic potential. If citations drive meaningful traffic back to your site, that traffic has value—for advertising, subscriptions, or brand building.

Industry direction. As more publishers join, staying out may become untenable. Early movers can negotiate better terms.

The Bear Case

Arguments against:

Legitimizing AI content use. Joining the program implicitly accepts AI companies’ right to use your content. This may undermine legal positions on copyright.

Uncertain revenue. “Double-digit CPMs” sounds impressive, but actual revenue depends on volume. If citations to your content are modest, the revenue will be too.

Competitive concerns. Your content appearing in Perplexity answers may reduce incentive to visit your site directly. You might be training users to get information from AI rather than you.

Scale matters. Revenue sharing programs favor publishers with large, frequently-cited content libraries. Smaller publishers may find the economics unfavorable.

Terms may change. Perplexity, like any startup, may modify program terms as its business evolves. Early partners have limited protection.

The Revenue Reality

Let me try to model the economics roughly.

If Perplexity displays 100,000 ad impressions citing your content monthly at $15 CPM with 10% revenue share, you’d earn about $150/month. That’s real money, but not transformative for most publishers.

The math only becomes significant if:

• Your content is cited very frequently (large, authoritative archives)
• CPMs are high and sustained
• Revenue shares increase over time
• The volume of Perplexity usage grows substantially

Some of these may happen. All are uncertain.

I’d estimate most publishers’ Perplexity revenue will be modest—helpful but not strategic. A few large publishers with frequently-cited content may see meaningful numbers.

The Legal Dimension

This is where things get complicated.

Publishers have active legal claims against AI companies for copyright infringement. Joining Perplexity’s program may compromise those claims—you’re effectively licensing content to one AI company while suing others for using similar content.

Legal counsel varies on this. Some argue the situations are distinguishable; others see obvious tension.

If you’re pursuing or considering legal action against AI companies, consult your lawyers before joining any AI revenue-sharing program.

Questions to Ask Before Joining

If you’re evaluating the program:

What are the specific terms? CPM rates, revenue share percentages, exclusivity provisions, data rights. Get specifics before deciding.

How does this affect other legal positions? Particularly if you have active or contemplated claims against AI companies.

What’s the realistic revenue potential? Based on your content volume, authority, and typical citation patterns. Don’t assume optimistic scenarios.

What control do you retain? Can you exit? Can Perplexity use your content in ways you haven’t anticipated? What happens to historical content?

What do peer publishers think? Talk to others in similar positions. Learn from their evaluations.

My View

I see the Perplexity Publisher Program as reasonable for large publishers with significant archives and clear content authority—especially those who’ve decided not to pursue aggressive legal positions against AI companies.

For smaller publishers, the economics are less compelling. Revenue will likely be modest, and the strategic implications may not be worth the tradeoffs.

For publishers actively litigating or preparing litigation against AI companies, participation seems risky without clear legal guidance.

The broader question—whether publishers should partner with AI companies or resist them—doesn’t have a universal answer. It depends on your specific situation, values, and strategic priorities.

What I’d caution against: joining because of FOMO, joining without understanding the terms, or joining with unrealistic revenue expectations.

Make an informed decision based on your specific circumstances. The Perplexity opportunity may be right for some publishers. It’s not right for all.