It’s been another busy week: attending British IP Day at Parliament and the Publishers’ Licensing Service conference, and getting ready for three workshops in Dublin, Cambridge and London next week. As a result, I almost missed a milestone: Wednesday marked six full years of my consulting business. I’m very grateful to clients, newsletter subscribers and everyone else who has made those years so interesting.

There are twin themes this week: administrative convenience in tools you are already using like Slack and Excel, and more ways for creators to control their output—written, spoken or performed. And for publishers, two important new research projects. If you do one thing this week, please take ten minutes to respond to whichever is relevant to you—it’s how we move the industry from anecdotes to data.

It’s hot here. For anyone reading outside the UK, the country broke its June temperature record yesterday, and today may go higher again. I should have been running a workshop in London today for the Independent Publishers Guild, but after discussions with the client, and with official advice to avoid anything except urgent rail travel, we rescheduled it. A logistics company blamed heat disruption for failing to deliver something to my office yesterday. And my daughter’s school has been closed.

This week there is a tight cluster of stories around how AI companies access content, what that is doing to publishers, and the economic model for compensating creators. But it’s not just a theoretical set of discussions, with at least one practical step publishers need to take in the next couple of weeks.

This week Harvard Business Review published an article by E. Glen Weyl and Raul Castro Fernandez, How AI Companies Can Pay Fair Rates for the Content They Need. As a publisher and author, it’s a subject that’s close to my heart, and I was glad to see HBR addressing it. I agree completely with the authors that both AI companies and authors will benefit from the creation of a sustainable market for content for training purposes—in fact, I’d go further and suggest that society as a whole benefits from that. I also concur with their view that collective management organisations (CMOs) have an important role to play in distributing money to publishers and individual authors. But to me there is a fundamental, fatal flaw in their argument that needs to be called out.

A shorter update this week: seven presentations and workshops in ten days have left me genuinely tired, but they’ve also been the best kind of primary research about how people are encountering AI day-to-day. One theme came up again and again: how to use AI in content and marketing without losing your audience’s trust. That throughline runs through a lot of what follows.

There are two big themes this week: what new AI agents are making possible, and the need for a more nuanced discussion of AI’s impact on authors and publishers. In particular, Matt Webb’s first-person reflection on agents will resonate with any publisher shipping products internationally in 2026.

This week’s newsletter focuses on the economics of AI becoming more visible. Sometimes that’s positive for publishers: a new tool for estimating the value of licensing your content. Other perspectives are more challenging, particularly on the real cost of AI usage. For publishers, the lesson is that AI strategy must now include cost, value and platform-risk assumptions.