 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
| Bluesky Rising: Is the News Ecosystem Finding a New Home? |
 |
| The Guardian’s recent decision to exit X (formerly Twitter) has sparked interest in Bluesky as a fresh alternative for news outlets—and the numbers are telling. With a fraction of the following it once had on X, The Guardian is already seeing Bluesky traffic outperform weekly referral numbers from Musk’s platform in 2024, says Dave Early, Audience Editor at Guardian Australia. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that traffic from Bluesky is three times higher than Threads, with 4.5x the conversions to paid subscribers. It’s a fascinating shift for publishers who’ve grown weary of algorithmic whims and suppressed links on traditional social platforms. Bluesky’s decentralized model, lack of ads, and supportive environment for news sharing feel like a refreshing change, but questions about its longevity loom. Digiday points out that brands and advertisers are cautiously circling, wondering if Bluesky could follow the fate of BeReal or Clubhouse—flashy debuts that fizzled fast. While some marketers are holding back, publishers are diving in. For newsrooms like The Guardian, this isn’t just a platform experiment; it’s a bet on reclaiming audience relationships without the interference of toxic environments or fickle algorithms. Bluesky's ability to support journalism sustainably could make it more than just another shiny new app. But can it sustain growth without the ad dollars that often come with scaling? In the battle for social relevance, platforms like Threads are leveraging Meta’s infrastructure to lure brands, but Bluesky is carving its niche as the go-to place for news without the bots and ad clutter. It’s early days, but the narrative is shifting: Bluesky isn’t just an alternative—it’s shaping up to be the anti-X for media. The question is, can it stay true to that mission while scaling up? Only time (and clicks) will tell. — LdJ |
|
 |
|
| Is Big Tech’s Heyday Over? The UK’s New Playbook Says, Probably |
| Big Tech has reigned supreme, shaping digital markets with unchecked dominance. But regulators are flipping the script with the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC)—and it’s not looking pretty for Silicon Valley’s heavyweights. Pirate Wires calls it a “regulatory coup,” handing Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) sweeping new powers to step in early to regulate tech giants’ operations. That’s right: this isn’t just antitrust lawsuits after the fact—this is before they’ve even breached the rules. The DMCC’s new “ex-ante” framework will target companies like Apple, Google, and Meta, forcing them to justify their every move in the UK’s digital marketplace. Think bespoke regulations per company (Apple’s rules will differ from Google’s), and mandates for interoperability and sideloading. If this sounds eerily like the EU’s Digital Markets Act, you’re not wrong—only now, the CMA can shut down mergers, demand documents from abroad, and levy fines that could make even trillion-dollar companies sweat. AdMonsters has been watching this trend for a while, asking whether Big Tech’s heyday is truly over. This latest move might just be the proof point. The impact isn’t hypothetical. Deals like Amazon’s $1.4 billion bid for iRobot and Adobe’s acquisition of Figma have already crumbled under similar regulatory scrutiny. As the CMA flexes its newfound muscles, the big question is whether US tech giants should retreat from international markets altogether. The stakes are dizzyingly high, with fines as high as 10% of global revenue. The move from laissez-faire to top-down economic planning signals a broader political shift in the UK and Europe—one where private enterprise bows to public power. So, what does this mean for publishers and the ad tech ecosystem? The DMCC’s mandates on interoperability and sideloading could open up previously closed ecosystems, disrupting walled gardens like Apple’s App Store or Google’s ad stack. This could mean new opportunities for smaller ad tech players to compete on a more level playing field. But it’s a double-edged sword: publishers, already grappling with AI, privacy tools, and algorithmic disruptions to their revenue streams, may find themselves navigating even more fragmented ecosystems. As Big Tech pivots under regulatory pressure, the question isn’t just whether their heyday is over—it’s who stands to gain (or lose) in the aftermath. Let’s just wait and see if this regulatory reckoning has the bite to match its bark. One thing’s for sure: the CMA isn’t playing nice. — LdJ |
|
|
| Google’s AI Power Play: Will Antitrust Remedies Finally Give Publishers the Upper Hand? |
| The Google search antitrust trial has taken a twist as the DOJ proposes remedies to curb Google's dominance in search and AI. In response, Google is pulling rivals like OpenAI and Perplexity into the fray, subpoenaing their confidential AI deals to make its case. The DOJ’s suggested remedies, banning exclusive agreements that block rivals from accessing publisher content and requiring opt-outs for AI scraping without penalties—could fundamentally reshape the search landscape. AdMonsters has consistently covered the challenges publishers face in an ecosystem dominated by Google, particularly how tools like Search Generative Experience (SGE) funnel traffic inward, cutting off publishers from referral loops. But Perplexity and OpenAI are already rewriting the rules. Perplexity’s Publishers’ Program shares ad revenue with partners like Time and The Texas Tribune, while OpenAI is striking licensing deals with The Atlantic and The Financial Times. This willingness to directly compensate content creators starkly contrasts Google’s history of keeping publishers at arm’s length. For publishers, these moves represent both opportunity and caution. Direct revenue-sharing models could offset the losses from declining search-driven traffic. Yet, the reliance on AI partnerships raises questions about control, plagiarism, and the sustainability of these arrangements. If Google is forced by antitrust remedies to adopt similar practices, it could pave the way for a more balanced relationship between publishers and search platforms. The decisions made here could ripple across the digital landscape, influencing content discovery and monetization for years. The key takeaway? Adaptability is non-negotiable. Diversifying traffic sources and exploring AI collaborations may no longer be optional—it’s the price of staying competitive in a market where AI is shaping the rules faster than regulators can enforce them. — LdJ |
|
|
| Ads in AI: OpenAI’s Thoughtful Approach to Revenue Growth |
| OpenAI’s minimalist ChatGPT experience may be getting a makeover. While OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar insists there are no "active plans" for advertising, the company is reportedly exploring an ad-based model to address its staggering costs—$5 billion in cash burn against projected 2024 sales of $3.7 billion. This comes as OpenAI edges into the search space, hiring ad industry veterans from Google and Meta and potentially taking cues from Perplexity’s sponsored follow-up questions. Perplexity’s foray into ads prioritizes transparency by clearly labeling paid content and preserving user trust. OpenAI could adopt a similar approach, maintaining its clean interface while generating revenue without compromising the user experience. As Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, has expressed, traditional ad models risk "enshittifying" platforms by prioritizing profit over quality—a scenario he’s eager to avoid. With the growth of zero-click searches and AI-driven tools like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) diverting traffic and revenue away from content creators, Perplexity’s ad model, which compensates publishers, shows how AI platforms can support journalism through direct revenue sharing. If OpenAI follows suit, it could open the door to partnerships that benefit publishers while addressing concerns about visibility and monetization. Or, it could deepen concerns about visibility and revenue erosion. As OpenAI ventures further into search, there’s a call to balance innovation, user trust, and partnerships with publishers. For now, the question isn’t just whether ads will appear on ChatGPT, but how they will shape the future of AI-powered ecosystems—and the industries that rely on them. — LdJ |
|
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
|
|
