Audible subsidizes its streaming plan via premium credits

Audible is transitioning its audiobook marketplace from a traditional purchase model into a streaming service. In August 2025, Audible has changed their royalty structure to subsidize this transition, by taking money consumers spend on audiobooks and distributing it across all the audiobooks the consumer listened to that month, regardless on whether or not the audiobook was purchased or streamed using Audible's streaming service.

Background

Audible, founded in 1995, is the longstanding global market leader for purchasing and listening to audiobooks. Since 2020, Audible has offered two plan-types to consumers: a premium plan that gives credits consumers can use to purchase audiobooks and a non-premium plan that allows consumers to stream an Audible-curated selection of audiobooks. Common knowledge suggests if a credit is spent on an audiobook, the author and audible split that credit by some agreed upon percentage. For an audiobook streamed through Audible, it is reasonable to expect the subscription price is split between all streamed audiobooks for the given month.

Consumer rights impact summary

Digital ownership erosion

Since 2020, Audible has been transitioning its marketplace from a traditional purchase model into a streaming service. In August 2025, Audible unveiled a new royalty structure to siphon money from credit purchases to subsidize their streaming library.

Audible updates their royalty structure

In the past, if you wanted to purchase an audiobook on Audible, you purchased a credit and then used that credit to buy the audiobook you desired. The understanding was the cut of the credit that went towards the author, only went to the author of the audiobook that was purchased. In August 2025, Audible unveiled a new royalty structure combining its credit-based sales with its streaming service, creating a system that indirectly pushes authors toward the streaming environment. When a user purchases a book using a credit and also streams another title in the same month, the royalty pool from that single credit is split between both the purchased and streamed works. While financially efficient for Audible, this structure dilutes the revenue earned per title and forces authors to subsidize the growth of Audible's streaming catalog. Even if authors opt-out of the streaming catalog, they are not protected from the royalty split. Audible has created a system that encourages the streaming catalog to be increasingly populated by works that can be produced cheaply or en masse, such as AI-generated content. Over time, this dynamic risks reducing the diversity and sustainability of high-quality content, narrowing consumer choice.

A petition at change.org has been made to convince Amazon to change this. https://www.change.org/p/convince-audible-to-revise-its-new-royalty-model?source_location=psf_petitions

Lawsuit over royalties

In June 2025, a federal judge allowed an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon/Audible to proceed. The lawsuit, filed by independent author Christine DeMaio (CD Reiss), alleges Audible discriminates against authors who do not participate in its 90-day exclusivity program by offering higher royalties (40% vs. 25%), potentially violating antitrust laws. The court found sufficient grounds to move forward.

Consumer response

Authors and listeners alike have reacted strongly against the royalty structure change, pointing out the underhanded feel of the royalty distribution change and harm streaming has caused the artistic industries.

One user expressed displeasure at the restructured royalties:

I've been a plus user for years. Learning that how it's been restructured is actively harming the indie authors I discovered through this platform is disappointing. If you won't correct this then I'll have to take my business elsewhere.

Another user on the petition said:

I've been an Audible subscriber for years (at least 12... maybe more... I don't know). If I'm being honest, I've never given much thought to exactly how my Premium Plus membership is being divvied up, but I can tell you for sure, the proposed Audible breakdown is not how I would have guessed or expected it to be done.

The user hawaiianshirtwizzard9542 on where they expect their audible credit to go:

When I spend money on a credit, I assumed the full value (or whatever agreed upon percentage of that credit) was going to that one author. Never in my life would I have expected that part of that credit would go to some pool of authors I wasn’t paying for. Audible thinks its users are stupid and I’ve had enough.

The user RariettyC said:

God, the streaming/subscription model really is tearing through artistic industries. I feel like so much of the conversations I see are surrounding Netflix, Spotify, and other platforms’ devaluing movies, TV shows, music, and video games but every single artistic field seems to be shifting towards more power and profit going to conglomerates who control access rather than the actual creatives who created.

The user sacredwisp said:

They're obviously doing this intentionally to get more people over to the new system, because it benefits them more long term.

Audible's response

Audible frames the royalties change as one that "prioritizes equity, flexibility, and insight for creators". The platform says the new royalty model creates new opportunities for smaller authors by allowing all titles to generate revenue. Audible has not yet responded directly to the petition.