Over a year ago, Audible announced the coming of a new royalty model, and I was excited by the headline announcing increases promised, but buried in the fine print is a change, one that hurts authors and  circumvents listeners' intention. In short Audible is taking money from higher value "Premium" titles—that people pay for—to give to lower value "Plus" titles in their all-you-can listen catalog. Audible themselves describes those second-tier books as "free." But when consumed with a Premium title, they have a cost - and it's the authors who pay. 

This "robbing Peter to pay Paul" hurts creators who don't put their titles in the all-you-can-listen program, and it isn't aligned with how listeners expect the creators of these stories to be compensated. I've proposed a tweak to this new royalty model that keeps the two membership plans separate, maintaining consistency with the value of each audiobook. But Audible hasn't agreed to make the adjustment. If righting this wrong sounds good to you, please sign the petition so we can get Audible to understand our frustration and make the change, and if you'd like a detailed explanation of the details, please read on.
 
To understand the problem, a little background is required. Presently in the US, Audible offers two plans:

• Plus - a $7.95/month plan granting access to thousands of titles from an all-you-can-listen library. 
  
  
• Premium Plus - a subscription plan that provides credits which can be used to buy any audiobook from the entire collection. Plans start at $14.95 (for 1 credit), but there are also plans for 2 credits a month, 12 credits a year, and 24 credits a year. It is also possible to purchase additional credits. As its name implies, the Premium Plus plan also grants members access to the all-you-can listen library.

In Audible's current royalty model, authors of titles in the all-you-can-listen library are compensated by a one-time "buy-out" paid by Audible. So whether no one listens to a title, or millions do, the author receives a single up-front payment.

Under Audible's new model, these titles will begin to earn a royalty, and I fully support that change. The problem is that under certain circumstances, the payment of that royalty doesn't come from consumers or Audible. It is taken from other authors. But it doesn't have to be that way. I'm proposing a "tweak to the policy," and I've made my recommendation to top officials at Audible to no avail. With your help, we may be able to convince the powers that be to accept my proposition.

From Audible's perspective, they see my proposed "tweak" as trying to fix something that isn't broken. But if you bear with me, I think you'll agree that there is a problem: one which significantly harms the authors that you, as a listener, are trying to support.

As one might expect, authors of Premium titles are compensated from fees collected from Premium Members. Likewise, authors of Plus titles are paid by Plus Members . . . but this isn't always the case. The problem arises when a Premium Member uses a credit to buy a title but they also consume content from the all-you-can-listen library.

At the heart of the new royalty model is something called "Member Value." This amount, along with "Royalty Rate" determines how much an author puts into their pocket.

• Author Income = Member Value X Royalty Rate

Member Value will vary from month to month based on factors such as the number of people enrolled in the plans, cost of credits, returns, discounts, free trials, and so on. That said, the typical Member Value Audible has been using in presentations about this new plan are as follows:

• $13 to buy a Premium title
• $7 to consume a single Plus title

The "tweaks" I'm proposing will change how this "Member Value" is calculated based upon various listener behaviors. We'll use three example books as follows:  

• Book A - Premium title. List price $30
• Book B - Plus title. List price: $35
• Book C - Plus title. List price: $20

Now let's calculate the "Member Value" using the rules of the new royalty model (full details of calculations can be found here).

As you can see, when a Premium member buys a title with a credit AND they also consume content from the all-you-can-listen library, income of one author is redirected to other authors. In essence, this sets up a "zero-sum game" where one author benefits at the expense of their fellow authors. To make matters worse, this  model makes me complicit in this behavior even if I don't put any titles in the all-you-can-listen program.

And no, it's not a typo that Title B earns the same amount when listened to in isolation or when combined with Title A. This demonstrates a part of the problem. Titles in the all-you-can-listen benefit from both Membership pools, but it comes at the expense of an income loss of Title A. And yes, the book purchased with a credit is earning less than the "free" content.

Fortunately, this is an easy problem to fix, and as I mentioned, I've already proposed the solution to Audible.

• Keep the money for the various "pools" separated.
  
  
• Any all-you-can-listen content (whether consumed by a Premium Plus Member or a Plus Member) will be compensated from Plus memberships.
  
  
• The "Plus Member pool" will be divided into two parts based on the relative numbers consumed by Premium Members and Plus Members.

Determining the "division" in that last bullet point is easy because Audible already knows how many titles were consumed by each plan participant. So let's recalculate "Member Value" in a month where 20% of the all-you-can-listen content was consumed by Premium Members and 80% were listened to by Plus Members. In this example, The initial  "Member Values" would be: 

• When consumed by Plus Members: $7 X 80% = $5.60
• When consumed by Premium Plus Members = $7 X 20% = $1.40

If we use the same set of books as the above example (but with the applied "tweaks") we can reexamine the same listener behavior as before (full details of calculations can be found here).

To me, this is a more equitable sharing of revenue, and what's more,  it aligns with what I think is the listener's intention.

As a listener, when I spend a credit to buy a particular title, I expect the author of that specific book to be the one to receive my money. As for the ability to consume content from the all-you-can-listen library, I look upon it as a "bonus" that Audible provides to entice me into the higher-priced tier. In other words, that feature is a way of providing "added value."  

In essence, I think of those titles as "free."  And by the way, so does Audible.  The following is from their own website (must not be signed in to access this page).

• Q: Do Audible members get free audiobooks?
• A: Members can enjoy select Free Audiobooks on Audible, covering a wide range of topics. The selections change frequently and feature Audible Originals.

So if the all-you-can-listen titles  are free for Premium Members, why is my favorite author paying the price for them?

Another change in Audible's policy is the ability for authors to opt-in their titles for the all-you-can-listen library. NOTE: inclusion is subject to editorial review by Audible, so being added is not guaranteed). This provides authors with more options, so I also approve this part of the policy change. That said, I predict this will exacerbate the problem I'm petitioning about. Many authors already use Kindle Unlimited, which provides access to millions of ebooks. If authors follow suit for audiobooks, then the number of titles in Audible's all-you-can-listen catalog will grow exponentially. All in all, this is good for Audible and their customers. The  listener gets more entertainment and Audible benefits from higher membership retention and the ability to attract new listeners. And yet, because of the division of income from the credit (which will happen more often), it's the authors who pay the price. How is this equitable?

One thing I should circle back to. The numbers in the tables above are NOT what the author earns. Those are "Member Values," and as I mentioned:

• Author Income = Member Value X Royalty Rate

If you want to learn more about the actual income going to authors, you can use this link for detailed calculations.

In conclusion, my proposed "tweaked" model produces the following benefits:

1. It ensures that when you buy a title your money goes to the author you've chosen to spend your money on.
   
   
2. Authors who "opt out" of the all-you-can listen ecosystem are not impacted by authors that "opt in" to that program.
   
   
3. And most important to me, I'm not forced to be complicit in a program where my author income comes at the expense of my fellow authors.

Audible's intention was honorable: to provide royalties for the all-you-can-listen titles, but its execution is, in my opinion, flawed. If we can convince Audible to make these "minor tweaks," it will truly be equitable, and a policy change I will proudly endorse with my full-throated support: both as a listener AND a content provider.

Please join me in urging Audible to make this adjustment. Sign this petition to show your support of your favorite authors. Together, we can help ensure a truly equitable new royalty model from which authors will be fairly compensated.