Traffic is down across the media industry, and AI is the main reason why. That was the throughline connecting the second-quarter earnings from The New York Times, News Corp, USA Today Co., and People Inc., all of which were reported this week.
In response to the declines, each company is implementing some version of the same three-part playbook: licensing their content to AI companies where they can; suing or blocking where they cannot; and squeezing more revenue out of the readers they have. In describing his approach to the problem, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson has called the strategy a "woo and sue" framework.
The AI traffic problem
The earnings reports make clear that generative AI search and answer engines are diverting readers away from publisher websites. This is not a speculative concern for the industry's biggest players; it is showing up directly in their quarterly traffic numbers.
The shift stems directly from the rise of Generative AI and LLM tools that summarize information without sending users to the original source. For publishers that have built their business models on audience scale, that represents a fundamental change to their operating environment.
The "woo and sue" playbook
News Corp's strategy, as described by Thomson, is to pursue licensing agreements with AI companies where possible. The company has been among the most aggressive in seeking payment for the use of its content in training data and AI-generated answers.
Where deals cannot be reached, the publishers are turning to litigation and technical blocking measures. The New York Times has pursued legal action over the use of its content, and other outlets are implementing paywalls and other barriers to prevent AI systems from scraping their material.
This strategic combination of dealmaking and legal pressure is a central consideration for AI for Executives & Strategy, as the approach defines how major content owners are asserting their rights in the AI economy.
Squeezing existing readers
The third pillar of the strategy is extracting more value from the audience that remains. With fewer new readers arriving through search, the companies are focusing on subscription pricing, advertising yield, and deeper engagement with their most loyal users.
This is a defensive move as much as an offensive one. The publishers are betting that their premium content remains valuable enough to justify higher prices for a smaller, more dedicated audience base.
Why this matters for executives and strategists
For executives watching this space, the key takeaway is that the standard response to AI-driven disruption is now clearly established. The playbook is no longer experimental: license where you can, sue or block where you cannot, and monetize your existing base harder.
The legal and licensing landscape remains unsettled, and the outcomes of the major cases will determine how content is valued in AI systems. Companies in any industry that produces proprietary content should be watching these earnings calls closely, because the strategies being tested now will likely become the template for negotiating with AI platforms across sectors.
Your membership also unlocks:
