4 ms·

Audible reportedly only pays 25% to authors, bumping it up to 40% if they agree to exclusivity on Audible. Which of course a lot of authors do because they nee

Audible reportedly only pays 25% to authors, bumping it up to 40% if they agree to exclusivity on Audible. Which of course a lot of authors do because they need the money, and then no other audiobook marketplace can compete.

taeric 3y ago
Right, but that was my point on the numbers. As a customer that has several hundred audio books due to Audible, yes, I know that the authors get a smaller cut of the sell than they do if I buy the audio book in a store. But their larger cut of my store purchases is effectively 0. Audible has grown the market to numbers that were basically pipe dreams of the past. To ignore that in the calculation is really dishonest. I don't know if they are the best numbers, but https://wordsrated.com/audiobook-sales-statistics/ https://wordsrated.com/audiobook-sales-statistics/ has some break downs. The digital market has clearly seen a shift in the last couple of decades. And it seems safe to say that it has driven a lot of the growth in publishing and other related metrics. My assertion is that publishers used to give higher cuts to the authors because they didn't care about such a small portion of their sales. More, their long term investments in printing made it such that they couldn't scale out audio books nearly as effectively, so they had no incentive to build out that market. Even dumber in this debate, the fact that Audible puts their files in DRM is almost certainly at the demands of the publishers. You can click through most publishers to see they still want to charge 25+ for audio books that you can get for 1 "credit" on Audible. Credits being about 11 bucks, and I get why publishers would want to keep those files restricted to try and discourage people from using Audible.
- wlesieutre 3y ago
  My problem isn't just with the royalty rates, it's making the default rate so low and using it as leverage to push authors into exclusivity contracts. Imagine if Apple started telling companies "You have to pay us a 60% cut, unless you agree to not have an Android app in which case we'll do 30% instead." You could argue that Apple is entitled to make that arrangement because they essentially created the mobile app software market, but I have a hard time imagining that people would be OK with it.
  - taeric 3y ago
    But is your worry for the authors, for other platforms, or for customers? I'm very sympathetic to all of these concerns, at large. However, as things are done, many authors will make the most money by agreeing to this contract, and customers get the cheapest option there. The only people actually getting hurt, right now, are the other platforms. To paint this in any other way is not at all honest. And that is the part that is annoying me. There is also a moral hazard "they will switch some day" argument to be made, i suppose. But I don't like hinging current practices on future hypotheticals. Making a choice today should be possible with the understanding that you can make a different choice in the future.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >But is your worry for the authors, for other platforms, or for customers? Yes. Shitty practices from a market player with significant monopoly power are bad for all of them.
      - taeric 3y ago
        So you can show that authors are getting less money in this environment? And, despite me being able to trivially show that I paid less per book than any offered alternative on the table, with the exception of the library, you claim I'm getting a raw deal now? We can even add in performers and others doing the recording to this question. Obviously, I only have the numbers on what I paid out. If you actually have the others, I'm game to hear what those numbers are. And no, you can't just say, "they would have gotten a larger cut in the other marketplaces," as I am literally asserting that Audible is the largest marketplace because they grew it. A smaller cut of the much larger marketplace is the point. (And in real terms, the cut is smaller for Audible, too.) It is funny looking at the benefit of libraries to customers, as guess who is also trying to kill library's ability to loan out audio books? (They already have to do some silly license purchase shenanigans.) Again, if you are worried that they will "turn bad in the future," realize that I can change my mind in the future and agree they are bad. Right now, most evidence is that they are instrumental in growing the market.
kmeisthax 3y ago
The flip-side of this is that any author that doesn't agree to exclusivity is just leaving money on the table, because audiobook buyers will not touch alternative platforms unless it's their only option. This isn't because Audible is head-and-shoulders above the competition either. They aren't. They just won the game of Monopoly[0]. [0] Someone should turn on house rules. Or - oooh maybe we could play the unused co-op mode
- taeric 3y ago
  I am curious why you don't think they aren't better than the alternatives? Are they amazing and beyond improvement? Of course not. But most of the alternatives are crap. This is basically the same as the sad affair of enterprise software. The vast majority of that industry is actively bad. Not just not good, but actively bad.
  - mtlynch 3y ago
    >I am curious why you don't think they aren't better than the alternatives? Are they amazing and beyond improvement? Of course not. But most of the alternatives are crap. Do you think the quality of the alternatives might be related to the fact that Amazon/Audible is strangling all competitors out of existence with their exclusivity agreements? Imagine if an audiobook competitor popped up that's a 10x better experience for customers and authors. They'd starve out of existence without major VC backing because even though they're better, they can't bring the sales volume that Audible can, so customers choose the worse experience on Audible with the exclusivity agreement because the total earnings are higher. Long-term, that's a worse ecosystem for everyone except for Audible.
    - taeric 3y ago
      No. I think the quality of the alternatives is largely because it is expensive to make the publishing houses happy with licensing fees to be able to offer their work. This isn't even that controversial of a take. Netflix doesn't offer a ton of the things I used to be able to get in DVD from them, because the publishing houses have very high demands on licensing fees.
BaseballPhysics 3y ago
And guess what audible exclusivity means: no libraries. Audible is literally locking away culture from the public and it's a god damned disgrace.
- taeric 3y ago
  This is largely a point I can fully get behind. All streaming services with their "exclusives" are doing this, though. :( It is very frustrating. Disney famously has their "vault" that basically means you can only get physical copies when they deem it worthy to resell something. Relevant for libraries as they are bound by the same limitations, at that point.

taeric 3y ago

Right, but that was my point on the numbers. As a customer that has several hundred audio books due to Audible, yes, I know that the authors get a smaller cut of the sell than they do if I buy the audio book in a store. But their larger cut of my store purchases is effectively 0. Audible has grown the market to numbers that were basically pipe dreams of the past. To ignore that in the calculation is really dishonest. I don't know if they are the best numbers, but https://wordsrated.com/audiobook-sales-statistics/ https://wordsrated.com/audiobook-sales-statistics/ has some break downs. The digital market has clearly seen a shift in the last couple of decades. And it seems safe to say that it has driven a lot of the growth in publishing and other related metrics. My assertion is that publishers used to give higher cuts to the authors because they didn't care about such a small portion of their sales. More, their long term investments in printing made it such that they couldn't scale out audio books nearly as effectively, so they had no incentive to build out that market. Even dumber in this debate, the fact that Audible puts their files in DRM is almost certainly at the demands of the publishers. You can click through most publishers to see they still want to charge 25+ for audio books that you can get for 1 "credit" on Audible. Credits being about 11 bucks, and I get why publishers would want to keep those files restricted to try and discourage people from using Audible.

wlesieutre 3y ago
My problem isn't just with the royalty rates, it's making the default rate so low and using it as leverage to push authors into exclusivity contracts. Imagine if Apple started telling companies "You have to pay us a 60% cut, unless you agree to not have an Android app in which case we'll do 30% instead." You could argue that Apple is entitled to make that arrangement because they essentially created the mobile app software market, but I have a hard time imagining that people would be OK with it.
- taeric 3y ago
  But is your worry for the authors, for other platforms, or for customers? I'm very sympathetic to all of these concerns, at large. However, as things are done, many authors will make the most money by agreeing to this contract, and customers get the cheapest option there. The only people actually getting hurt, right now, are the other platforms. To paint this in any other way is not at all honest. And that is the part that is annoying me. There is also a moral hazard "they will switch some day" argument to be made, i suppose. But I don't like hinging current practices on future hypotheticals. Making a choice today should be possible with the understanding that you can make a different choice in the future.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >But is your worry for the authors, for other platforms, or for customers? Yes. Shitty practices from a market player with significant monopoly power are bad for all of them.
    - taeric 3y ago
      So you can show that authors are getting less money in this environment? And, despite me being able to trivially show that I paid less per book than any offered alternative on the table, with the exception of the library, you claim I'm getting a raw deal now? We can even add in performers and others doing the recording to this question. Obviously, I only have the numbers on what I paid out. If you actually have the others, I'm game to hear what those numbers are. And no, you can't just say, "they would have gotten a larger cut in the other marketplaces," as I am literally asserting that Audible is the largest marketplace because they grew it. A smaller cut of the much larger marketplace is the point. (And in real terms, the cut is smaller for Audible, too.) It is funny looking at the benefit of libraries to customers, as guess who is also trying to kill library's ability to loan out audio books? (They already have to do some silly license purchase shenanigans.) Again, if you are worried that they will "turn bad in the future," realize that I can change my mind in the future and agree they are bad. Right now, most evidence is that they are instrumental in growing the market.

kmeisthax 3y ago

The flip-side of this is that any author that doesn't agree to exclusivity is just leaving money on the table, because audiobook buyers will not touch alternative platforms unless it's their only option. This isn't because Audible is head-and-shoulders above the competition either. They aren't. They just won the game of Monopoly[0]. [0] Someone should turn on house rules. Or - oooh maybe we could play the unused co-op mode

taeric 3y ago
I am curious why you don't think they aren't better than the alternatives? Are they amazing and beyond improvement? Of course not. But most of the alternatives are crap. This is basically the same as the sad affair of enterprise software. The vast majority of that industry is actively bad. Not just not good, but actively bad.
- mtlynch 3y ago
  >I am curious why you don't think they aren't better than the alternatives? Are they amazing and beyond improvement? Of course not. But most of the alternatives are crap. Do you think the quality of the alternatives might be related to the fact that Amazon/Audible is strangling all competitors out of existence with their exclusivity agreements? Imagine if an audiobook competitor popped up that's a 10x better experience for customers and authors. They'd starve out of existence without major VC backing because even though they're better, they can't bring the sales volume that Audible can, so customers choose the worse experience on Audible with the exclusivity agreement because the total earnings are higher. Long-term, that's a worse ecosystem for everyone except for Audible.
  - taeric 3y ago
    No. I think the quality of the alternatives is largely because it is expensive to make the publishing houses happy with licensing fees to be able to offer their work. This isn't even that controversial of a take. Netflix doesn't offer a ton of the things I used to be able to get in DVD from them, because the publishing houses have very high demands on licensing fees.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago

And guess what audible exclusivity means: no libraries. Audible is literally locking away culture from the public and it's a god damned disgrace.

taeric 3y ago
This is largely a point I can fully get behind. All streaming services with their "exclusives" are doing this, though. :( It is very frustrating. Disney famously has their "vault" that basically means you can only get physical copies when they deem it worthy to resell something. Relevant for libraries as they are bound by the same limitations, at that point.