Publishers have bargaining power in the platform economy

A new study on journalism platforms shows that the relationship between publishers and platforms is not simply one of dependence. Especially with emerging platforms and possibly with AI players, publishers still have room to negotiate, shape conditions, and take back control.

For years, publishers have been told the same story: platforms have the power, publishers have the content, and the content is not enough. Google, Facebook, Apple, TikTok, and now AI services determine distribution, visibility, traffic, and increasingly also monetization. Publishers may complain, negotiate, lobby, or litigate, but in the end, they remain dependent.

A new academic study by Jonas Weber, Christopher Buschow, and Andreas Will complicates that story. Their research, published in Emerging Media, does not deny the dominance of large platforms. Google News and Google Discover remain crucial traffic engines for publishers. Algorithm changes can still immediately affect reach and revenue. But the study argues that the publisher-platform relationship is more reciprocal than often assumed, especially when smaller, emerging, or niche journalism platforms are involved.

The key message is almost strategic advice: publishers should stop seeing themselves only as victims of platform power. They still possess something platforms need: high-quality, trusted, often exclusive content. And that creates negotiation space.

Beyond Google

The researchers analyzed the German market for journalism platforms and conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with publishers, platform managers, and industry experts. They found 63 journalism platforms active in Germany in 2023, 24 more than in a comparable 2020 analysis. These included news aggregators, subscription-based platforms, online kiosks, and a small number of unique cases. The study’s starting point is that media research has focused too narrowly on very large platforms, while overlooking the more dynamic field of emerging journalism platforms.

That matters because power works differently there.

With Google, the imbalance remains obvious. Publishers depend on Google for reach, traffic, and predictable visibility. One expert quoted in the study calls Google “the master of generating traffic” and says that “the balance of power is clear.” But once the focus shifts to smaller platforms, the equation changes. Emerging platforms do not yet have massive audiences. They need publishers to attract users. Without sufficient content, they cannot reach critical mass.

That gives publishers leverage.

The study describes this as a “chicken-and-egg problem” for emerging platforms: without reach, they struggle to attract content; without content, they struggle to attract reach. In that phase, publishers are not just suppliers. They are strategic actors who can help determine whether a platform becomes relevant at all.

Traffic first, revenue second, brand third

The research also shows how pragmatic publishers are when assessing platforms. Their hierarchy is simple: traffic first, revenue second, brand third. If a platform can deliver audience reach, monetizable traffic, licensing income, or revenue shares without damaging the publisher’s own business model, cooperation becomes attractive. If not, the platform’s bargaining power weakens.

That explains why publishers are cautious about “Spotify for news” models. Subscription-based platforms may offer new revenue opportunities, but they can also cannibalize publishers’ own paid relationships with readers. The study notes that several large German publishers have withheld premium content from such platforms. That is not passivity. It is strategy.

Publishers can also strengthen their position by spreading content across multiple platforms, refusing exclusivity, using open technical standards such as RSS, building direct relationships with users, and selectively withholding content where conditions are unfavorable. In other words: the more publishers can show that they are willing and able to walk away, the more seriously platforms must take them.

Counter-power through coordination

One of the study’s most important contributions is its emphasis on counter-power. Publishers do not have the same power over all platforms. They have very little room to negotiate with mature, dominant platforms whose network effects are already entrenched. But with emerging platforms, their influence can be substantial.

That influence becomes stronger when publishers coordinate. A single publisher may have limited leverage. A group of publishers can shape the market. The study suggests that publishers can affect revenue-sharing models, licensing conditions, presentation of content, and even the governance of emerging platforms.

This is a crucial shift in perspective. Instead of asking only how platforms shape journalism, publishers should also ask how journalism can shape platforms.

That applies not only to news aggregators and subscription platforms, but also to the next wave of AI-driven intermediaries. The authors explicitly connect their findings to AI. Publishers’ concerns about zero-click environments — where summaries replace visits to original sources — may grow as AI search, AI assistants, and generative interfaces become more important. But the study argues that this future is not predetermined. AI systems also need reliable content, especially if they want to compete on quality.

That makes licensing, access to archives, and exclusive journalistic material potential bargaining assets.

Don’t wait for rescue

The lesson for publishers is uncomfortable but useful. Regulation may help. Lawsuits may matter. Public pressure may shift norms. But the most immediate source of power lies in strategy: knowing what content is worth, knowing which platforms are still dependent on that content, and refusing to enter every new platform relationship on weak terms.

The study does not suggest that publishers can simply abandon Google or ignore the realities of platformized distribution. Complete independence is unrealistic for most. But dependency is not the same as helplessness.

For publishers, especially in a world where AI platforms are still taking shape, the window for negotiation is open now. The worst response would be to repeat the mistakes of the social media era: join first, optimize later, complain when the rules change.

The better response is to define the rules early. Demand transparency. Protect direct reader relationships. Coordinate where possible. License content on terms that build long-term value. Withhold content when necessary. Support platforms that strengthen journalism rather than extract from it.

The bottom line of the study is clear: platforms are powerful, but not omnipotent. Publishers still have something platforms cannot easily replace. The task is to act like it.