When Search Becomes Premium
Taboola's new AI search tool for publishers looks helpful, but it signals a troubling shift toward paywalling basic discovery functionality
When I read yesterday that Taboola was getting into the site search business with its own generative AI search engine called DeeperDive I had two reactions: are we going to go back to the search war days when site search was owned by companies including Google, Yahoo and FAST (now Microsoft) and is site search going to become yet another premium feature?
Most publishers wouldn't hesitate to tell you that their existing site search products don't live up to their expectations and now, with the explosive growth of AI, puts them at a greater disadvantage. I can't tell you how many newsrooms I have worked in where the journalists found it was easier and more accurate to go and search via, say, Google for content on their site than using their own site search. Not to mention that many of existing site search products that are provided by the content management systems that publishers use, are keyword-based products which now feel awkward when users are being increasingly drawn to the ease of natural language search strings.
The Premium Everything Playbook
We've seen this move before: free becomes premium from Netflix password sharing to Twitter verification, even something as seemingly innocuous as LinkedIn messaging count limits. Music discovery through Spotify shifts from ad-supported with limited skips to premium unlimited access. Professional networking on LinkedIn restricts advanced search and messaging capabilities behind paid tiers. Dating apps like Tinder gate visibility features and enhanced matching behind subscription walls.
But here's the critical distinction: there's a significant difference between those functionalities and search. Those examples are largely about entertainment, networking, or dating, while search is about access to news and information.
The Information Access Stakes
An argument could be made that many sites, like the New York Times, already have a paywall which limits access, so why would this be any different? Until at least now, even sites with hard paywalls—sites that don't give away any content for free—still give access to their search platform. Search has remained a basic utility, even when the content it discovers requires payment.
Here's what worries me: search has always been different from those other features that went premium. When you paywall search, you're not just limiting convenience—you're limiting how people discover information in the first place.
So what would happen if news publishers actually removed free access to their search tools? Most users would just leave rather than pay for the privilege of searching a single site. I've watched this play out with other features that moved behind paywalls—people don't stick around to see what they're missing.
The really interesting part is how publishers would end up hurting themselves. They still need Google traffic to survive, but users could just read the headlines and snippets in Google's search results and get what they need without ever clicking through. It's like putting a toll booth on a road that people can see from the highway.
You'd probably end up with search becoming another perk for existing subscribers while everyone else gets whatever scraps of discovery the publisher decides to leave free. Which sounds familiar, doesn't it?
The DeeperDive Strategy: Solving One Problem, Creating Another
This scenario actually makes Taboola's timing look prescient. If publishers can't monetize search directly through subscriptions, an ad-supported AI search tool becomes more attractive. It lets them offer enhanced search functionality while extracting ad revenue from the experience.
DeeperDive's value proposition is compelling on the surface: it keeps users on publishers' sites instead of losing them to external AI search engines, while creating new monetization opportunities through contextually relevant advertising. As Taboola CEO Adam Singolda put it, it's about shifting "from 50 cents per click to $500 per conversion, right on the publisher's site."
But here's the thing—publishers would just be trading one master for another. They get out from under Google's thumb, sure, but now they're betting their search functionality on Taboola. What happens when that contract comes up for renewal and Taboola decides to change the terms?
The Consolidation Pattern Returns
The historical precedent is troubling. In the early 2000s, site search was dominated by a handful of players—Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's FAST. We're seeing similar consolidation dynamics emerge in the AI search space, but with higher stakes and faster adoption cycles.
Unlike the gradual evolution of traditional search, AI-powered discovery tools are being positioned as essential infrastructure from day one. Publishers feeling pressure from AI aggregation tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity may feel they have little choice but to adopt solutions like DeeperDive, even if it means ceding control over fundamental site functionality.
Network Effects and Market Power
The publishers with the deepest archives and strongest brand loyalty would probably weather a transition to premium search better. USA Today or The Independent might retain search users, while smaller publishers would likely lose traffic to aggregators or competitors with free search.
This creates a reinforcing cycle: larger publishers can afford to experiment with premium search features, while smaller outlets become more dependent on external discovery mechanisms. The result is further consolidation in an industry already struggling with sustainability.
The Information Democracy Question
Most likely, publishers would test premium search on their most engaged users first, then gradually expand based on conversion rates. The real question is whether enough users value publisher-specific search to pay for it—or if they'll just rely on Google and accept whatever content it surfaces.
Here's the deeper concern: when search becomes premium, we're not just changing how people find information—we're changing who gets to find it. Premium search creates information inequality, where your ability to discover relevant content depends on your willingness and ability to pay.
Consider the implications for local news, investigative journalism, or specialized reporting. If discovering this content requires multiple paid search subscriptions, who gets left out? Students, low-income readers, casual browsers who might become engaged citizens with the right information at the right time.
The Ironic Outcome
The irony is that making search premium might actually accelerate the very AI-aggregation problem publishers are trying to solve. If users can't afford multiple search subscriptions, they'll gravitate toward free AI tools that summarize content from across the web—exactly the scenario that prompted solutions like DeeperDive in the first place.
We could end up with a two-tier information ecosystem: premium subscribers who get rich, contextual discovery experiences on individual publisher sites, and everyone else who relies on AI aggregators that strip away the publishing context and revenue that makes journalism sustainable.
The Path Forward
Publishers face a genuine dilemma. Their current search tools are inadequate, their content is being aggregated without compensation, and their business models are under pressure. AI-enhanced search genuinely offers value to readers and potential revenue to publishers.
Publishers should think about keeping basic search free while making the AI bells and whistles a subscriber perk. They should avoid getting locked into relationships with single vendors who could hold their discovery functionality hostage. And they should be honest about how these AI tools work and what they're doing with user data.
Most importantly, they should remember that search isn't just another feature—it's how people find the information they need to understand their world.
The Stakes Are Higher Than They Appear
What looks like a simple product announcement—Taboola launching an AI search tool for publishers—actually represents a critical juncture for information access online. We're deciding whether search remains a basic utility or becomes another premium service in an increasingly gated internet.
The choices publishers make now will shape how future generations discover and engage with news and information. In an era when information literacy and access are more crucial than ever, we should be expanding discovery opportunities, not restricting them.
The question isn't whether AI can improve search—it obviously can. The question is whether we'll use that improvement to democratize information access or to create new barriers between people and the information they need to participate in democratic society.
When search becomes premium, we all pay the price.
What do you think—are we heading toward a world where basic search becomes another subscription? Have you noticed other "free" discovery tools moving behind paywalls? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
If this piece resonated with you, please share it with others who care about the future of information access.