Lucas Shaw, reporting for Bloomberg:*
In recent months, Audible, the audiobook service owned by
Amazon.com Inc., has been meeting with talent agencies and
producers to discuss acquiring potential new podcast projects — or, in the terminology that Audible prefers, “Audible Originals.”
I salute Audible for continuing not to call them “podcasts” — if you can’t listen to them in whatever app you want, they’re just shows, not podcasts.
Audible is offering anywhere from a few hundred thousand dollars
to a few million dollars per show, according to people familiar
with the matter, more than every competitor except Spotify
Technology SA. So far, Audible has already purchased shows from
documentary producer John Battsek, as well as from comedians Kevin
Hart and Tiffany Haddish. The acquisitions by the dominant
audiobook service in the U.S. are part of a new,
multimillion-dollar shopping spree, designed to establish Audible
as a more enticing destination for podcast fans and to fend off
growing audio-storytelling competition, particularly from Spotify.
This week’s news on Joe Rogan signing a multi-year exclusive deal with Spotify got me thinking about this. With TV shows and movies, there are a slew of deep-pocketed streaming services competing with huge offers for top talent. We saw that just a few days ago with Apple buying up the rights to Tom Hanks’s Greyhound for $70 million. But, where are the competitors to Spotify? Well, here’s Audible.
But where’s Apple in this? There was a report a year ago — also from Lucas Shaw at Bloomberg — that Apple was pursuing exclusives, but so far, nada. But if Apple does start buying exclusive audio shows, where will they go? My guess is that you’d get the content through an Apple Music subscription, but the shows would appear in the Apple Podcasts app. I don’t think it would make sense for Apple to offer yet another subscription just for audio shows, and it wouldn’t make sense for podcast-style shows to appear in the Music app rather than the Podcast app.
Audible has been funding original series for years now, but after
starting with programs from well-known authors, the company is now
prioritizing celebrity hosts and shows that can help broaden its
audience beyond the avid audiobook listener.
Not sure if it was foresight or just good luck, but the name “Audible” is perfect for any and all audio content, not just books. It reminds me of how Amazon was “the online bookstore” for years before they expanded to other stuff, and if anything, the A→Z gimmick works better as the name of an everything store than it does a mere bookstore.
Audible is also considering changes to its business model. Under
the current system, each month subscribers pay $14.95 and receive
credits for one book and two original shows. Now the company is
debating selling original shows individually so that customers
don’t need to be subscribers to listen, said the people, who
asked not to be identified while discussing terms of private
business deals. Audible has also explored the possibility of
rolling out a lower-priced plan that would offer access to
originals but not books.
A lower-priced subscription that doesn’t include books makes the most sense to me.
Audible’s big push into the booming audio genre has confused some
producers and podcast networks because it is happening at the same
time that Amazon Music, a separate division of the e-commerce
giant, is also ramping up its investment in podcasts. Amazon Music
will add podcasts to its app in the coming months, according to
people familiar with the matter. Amazon has been talking with
producers and networks about hosting their shows within its app,
though they have yet to finalize many deals.
Intrigue! So is there a cohesive Amazon-wide strategy here, or is it a left-hand doesn’t know what the right-hand is doing situation? Podcast-style shows are a natural fit for both Audible and Amazon Music. Like Apple, Amazon has a tightlipped culture, so it’s not surprising to me that the content producers they’re negotiating with are in the dark. It would be kind of wild, though, if a company as smart as Amazon found itself with two of its divisions competing against each other for content deals.
* You know.
Andrew Romano, reporting for Yahoo News:
According to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, 44 percent of Republicans believe that Bill Gates is plotting to use a mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign as a pretext to implant microchips in billions of people and monitor their movements — a widely debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.
The survey, which was conducted May 20 and 21, found that only 26 percent of Republicans correctly identify the story as false. In contrast, just 19 percent of Democrats believe the same spurious narrative about the Microsoft founder and public-health philanthropist. A majority of Democrats recognize that it’s not true.
It’s slightly worse among Fox News viewers:
Take the Gates example. Half of all Americans (50 percent) who name Fox News as their primary television news source believe the disproven conspiracy theory, and 44 percent of voters who cast ballots for Trump in 2016 do as well — even though neither Fox nor Trump has promoted it. At the same time, just 15 percent of MSNBC viewers and 12 percent of Clinton voters say the story is true.
Depressing, to say the least. Social networks need to treat anti-vaccination disinformation the way they treat hate speech. This dangerous nonsense doesn’t need to be refuted, it needs to be shunned. It is as shameful to allow these theories to propagate on social networks as it is to allow KKK propaganda. Relegate these lunacies back to forwarded email chains. Keep in mind too that the people who refuse to be vaccinated aren’t just hurting themselves. They hurt their children, who don’t have a choice, and they suppress the herd immunity that protects those with immune disorders for whom vaccines are dangerous.