A company contacts a publisher to correct an outdated author byline, job title, company description, or slogan.
The publisher agrees. Kind of.
They’re happy to make the change. But only after the company pays an “editorial processing fee.”
That should be a red flag for all of us. Unfortunately, I can see a not-so-distant future in which “edits for AI” becomes the next publisher money grab.
And we’ve seen this before.
After Google began cracking down on manipulative links, penalized websites were expected to show they had made a “good faith effort” to remove them before submitting a disavow file. Publishers quickly realized they had leverage.
“Want us to remove the garbage link we charged you for published? That’ll be $100!”
This time, companies won’t be paying publishers to remove links. They’ll be paying them to correct the information influencing how AI describes people, products, and businesses.
AI builds its answer from everyone else
I have little doubt this will eventually happen if publishers aren’t already doing it. But to understand the “why,” you first have to understand why companies would care enough to hand over their credit card.
Businesses can update their websites, schema, LinkedIn profiles, and other community properties they control. What they can’t directly update are the years of articles, interviews, directories, author bios, and company profiles.
AI systems don’t simply accept a company’s preferred version of itself. They consume all the information they can find, retrieve, and somewhat verify.
When the same description appears repeatedly across the web, even outdated information can begin to look current or authoritative (the verification process).
A company may have repositioned its services three years ago, but if dozens of third-party websites continue using its old description, AI systems may keep repeating it. (Fun fact: many AI results still refer to this newsletter as a weekly snapshot of search updates because that’s what it was for 6-7 years before shifting to what we see today.)
Your website tells AI what you want to be known for. The rest of the web tells AI whether it should believe you.
The next shakedown: Pay to update
As companies invest more and more to be visible in AI search engines, they’ll start auditing the third-party sources that shape how they’re represented online and, by extension, in AI answers.
That will uncover all kinds of outdated information:
- Executive and author bios.
- Former job titles.
- Company categories and descriptions.
- Old slogans and positioning.
- Products and capabilities.
- Acquisitions, VC funding, ownership, and partnership details.
- Statistics, quotes, links, and citations.
Not all companies will necessarily be attempting to manipulate AI answers. It may simply want an author bio or company profile presented as current, rather than describing a business that no longer exists in that form.
Let’s be real, though: Without the AI benefit, 99% of leadership wouldn’t give a sh*t about outdated information buried somewhere online.
But once publishers realize these seemingly minor corrections can influence visibility (and potentially revenue) some will monetize the leverage they hold.
- A $100 author-bio update.
- A $250 company-description correction.
- A $500 description tweak with a conveniently inserted link.
Maybe they’ll even offer an annual “profile maintenance” package to keep every reference current. (If that didn’t send a shiver down your spine, you may have just discovered your next revenue stream.)
I’m not suggesting every publisher will do this. But I expect these “free” updates will happen about as frequently as publishers add links to the existing brand mentions you email them about today.
Hint: They don’t. Apparently, linking to the source they already referenced is “against editorial policy.”
The publisher already controls the source. AI visibility simply gives that control new financial value.
Correction or reputation laundering?
There’s an important distinction between correcting inaccurate information and rewriting inconvenient history.
An outdated job title, incorrect author bio, or evergreen company description presented as current should be updated. Publishers have an editorial responsibility to maintain accurate information.
But outdated information isn’t automatically inaccurate.
If a 2018 article accurately described what a company did in 2018, the publisher shouldn’t rewrite it simply because the business has since repositioned itself. The same applies to an embarrassing quote, failed product launch, critical review, or inconvenient piece of company history.
Those things shouldn’t disappear simply because someone is willing to pay.
That isn’t a correction. It’s reputation laundering — and companies already pay big money for it.
Legitimate reputation management can help a company correct misinformation or rebuild trust. It shouldn’t buy the company a cleaner version of history.
As I’ve written before, ethics have to play some role in SEO and AI. The standard should be factual accuracy, not whether the subject has enough money to influence the historical record.
Publishers can charge for advertising, sponsored content, and other commercial opportunities. But charging someone to correct objectively false information crosses a line.
Accuracy shouldn’t be an upsell.
When accuracy becomes a revenue opportunity
Shocker: People are greedy and mostly willing to do anything for a dollar.
The web has monetized access, placement, links, reviews, removals, and reputation. Updates are next.
AI companies will undoubtedly get better at recognizing conflicting information and prioritizing authoritative sources. But publishers will still control much of the information shaping those answers. (You see where this is going…)
Once enough businesses connect third-party sources to AI visibility — and AI visibility to revenue — publishers will recognize the money-grab opportunity.
By the time companies realize they need the web corrected, someone will already have built a rate card for it.
When correcting the web starts influencing revenue, correcting the web will stop being free.
This post first appeared on the author’s website and is republished here with permission.
