Google’s landmark deal with AAP may look like a win-win, but for the rest of the publishing industry it raises harder questions. Bench Media’s Shai Luft questions if this is really compensation for journalism in the AI age or just another way for Google to tighten its grip on news?
Google’s content licensing deal with AAP has been hailed as a “market-first” for Australia. It’s the first time the tech giant has formally licensed Australian news content to train its AI model, Gemini. On the surface, it looks like a win-win: AAP gets recognition (and revenue) for its trusted journalism, and Google gains a stream of quality, fact-based content to improve its AI products.
But scratch beneath the surface and it becomes clear this deal may be the exception rather than the model for the future — and it raises bigger questions about power, control, and the sustainability of Australia’s media industry.
This deal makes sense for AAP because of who they are. As a not-for-profit wire service, AAP exists to distribute content broadly, supplying newsrooms and outlets across the country. Their business model isn’t about driving subscriptions or protecting ad inventory – it’s about scale, syndication and reach. For them, licensing journalism to Google is simply another channel of distribution, neatly aligned with their mission and structure.
Short-term cheques wont pay off
For commercial publishers, however, the picture looks very different. Unlike AAP, their survival depends on traffic, advertising and reader subscription revenue. Handing over content to an AI platform that may reduce the very clicks and subscriptions they rely on is far more fraught. What looks like a sensible distribution play for AAP could, for others, accelerate the erosion of their core business.
The more fundamental issue isn’t the cheque Google is writing, it’s the role Google plays on both sides of the table. On one hand, it’s licensing content to train Gemini. On the other, it controls the pipes of distribution: Search, AI Overviews and Gemini itself. And those products are already diverting audiences away from publisher sites.
That concentration of power is what should concern the industry. When the same company both uses your content and decides how much audience you get back, what looks like partnership can quickly become extraction. A short-term licensing deal is little comfort if the long-term effect is less traffic, less ad revenue and fewer subscribers.
This deal sets an important precedent: AI companies will have to pay for quality journalism. That’s a positive shift, and something publishers have rightly been demanding. But if licensing remains limited to organisations like AAP – neutral, not-for-profit and built for distribution – the broader industry risks being left behind. Commercial publishers should be pushing for transparency around how licensed content is used, safeguards that ensure content is credited and linked back, and equity in deals that reflect the true commercial value of their journalism.
Without these protections, publishers risk trading short-term cheques for long-term dependency. The Google-AAP deal is an important moment, but it’s not the solution for everyone. For AAP, it’s a distribution win. For Google, it’s a credibility boost. But for commercial publishers, the risks remain high.
As AI platforms become the default interface for information, the danger is that journalism gets commoditised while platforms capture the value. If that happens, the very news ecosystem these AI models depend on could be weakened – and once again, it will be publishers and the public who pay the price.
The industry must welcome licensing as a first step but not mistake it for a long-term fix. The real fight is ensuring journalism isn’t just fuel for someone else’s machine, but remains a sustainable, independent force in Australian media. And if publishers aren’t careful, they’ll end up licensing their content today and licensing their relevance tomorrow.
Shai Luft is co-founder and COO at Bench Media.
Read next: Bench Media’s B&T Agency Scorecard
