"Roughly one is five American households listened to an audiobook within the last year—23 million households. (Audio Publishers 2001 Consumer Survey)"[2]
"'The best patrons are the best book-buyers. They’re avid readers who use audiobooks to keep up when their eyes are busy,' says Mary Beth Roche, president of the Audio Publishers Association. ('Commuter Consumer,' The Washington Post, April 24, 2005)"[2]
Households and adults aren't exactly comparable, but it's a start. That last quote supports my personal, anecdotal findings that most audiobook listeners also read books.
1: https://www.edisonresearch.com/audiobook-revenue-and-the-num...
2: https://web.archive.org/web/20101119164743/http://audiopub.o...
Most Americans didn't read many books in 2025
https://yougovamerica.substack.com/p/most-americans-didnt-re...
Desafinado•1mo ago
But let's face it, the reason people aren't reading anymore is because most of us are lazy and there are swaths of less cognitively demanding alternatives. People also can't afford books. Reading has always been a pastime of the wealthy.
Books had their heyday in the 19th century before the rise of computers and when print technology was quite robust.
galleywest200•1mo ago
The public library system begs to differ. Heck, mine even gives me The New Yorker for free.
none2585•1mo ago
thisoneisreal•1mo ago
It's fine! The number of books you read is not a reflection on your quality as a person.
Reading absolutely has positive benefits, but really it's exactly what you said. It's just more interesting than other options out there. The tradeoff is yes, it can require some effort, but that's the same as any other effortful activity. You have to get past the cost, but there's a really nice reward on the other side.
And for what it's worth, there ARE television shows, movies, etc. that have more value than many books. ("The Wire" is a prime example, probably better than 70-80% of the books out there.) The point is just generally that more cognitively demanding avocations can have a higher cost-benefit ratio than cheaper ones like TV. On average, books fall more into this category than other media, but that's just on average.
Anyway this is a long way of saying that feeling bad about the media you consume is counterproductive. The message should be that there is potentially a more rewarding experience out there, but whether you pursue it or not is totally up to you and doesn't make you a good or bad person either way.
Desafinado•1mo ago
Read what you want, how you want. Pick up the same book five times. Do whatever. Forget arbitrary challenges.
eudamoniac•1mo ago
I echo the sentiment of the sibling comment: book count challenges are foolish and missing the point.
AuthAuth•1mo ago
parineum•1mo ago
Maybe if you're buying brand new hardcovers. Maybe.
You can get used paper backs for cheap, and frequently for free. Plus, libraries exist.
What a bizarre point to make.
Desafinado•1mo ago
The poor obviously do read, but wealthy people have significantly more time and energy for the hobby, meaning that they read more.
eudamoniac•1mo ago
Desafinado•1mo ago
By the numbers wealthy people almost universally own and read more books. For a number of reasons.
reorder9695•1mo ago
m-hodges•1mo ago
Do you have any source to back up this claim that affordability is a primary blocker to reading? Any surveys? Any studies? I’m highly skeptical.
Desafinado•1mo ago
It's not that difficult to understand. For example, my kids go to a low income school where many families are having a hard time feeding their kids consistently. How many books do you think they're buying? Maybe some, but a hell of a lot less than my wife and I are.
Reading itself also takes effort and energy. If you barely have food to eat then reading isn't an appealing activity, most of the time.
Many families fall under this category.
cafard•1mo ago
I see that a movie ticket in Silver Spring costs $14. Second Story Books on P St. has outdoor carts with $4 books, so I can get three books and change back for the price of a movie ticket.