Sample size of 1, but: my taste in audiobooks does not perfectly overlap with my taste in dead-trees books. My audiobook library skews much more to the fiction end of things, while my dead-trees library contains more nonfiction. I also use audiobooks to re-read books I've already read.
I enjoy the performance aspect of the audiobooks in its own right. The narrator makes or breaks my experience of the book, to such an extent that I have returned Audible books that _I have already read in dead-trees form and knew I liked_ because the narration was bad. I also suspect some of my favorite audiobooks would have ended up in the "donate/throw out" pile if I'd read them first on paper.
Yet... audiobooks' are still pretty much just books. There is no theatre-2-film difference between the mediums. It's more like hardbacks and soft covers.
They do a full cast audiobook with sound effects, music, etc. and they tend to be altered slightly to work in the medeium - would not be surprised if the differences continue to grow.
Drama CDs are really popular in Japan as well. These usually include a full-cast recording with special effects.
I do think it'll continue to grow more popular as the market continues to expand.
As you said, audio productions if all kinds are nothing new. That said, audiobooks are still mostly just an audio version of the book. They're not longer or shorter. They don't change the jokes.
Peter Attia, internet famous doctor, changed some things in his audiobook and included special things.
I only have 200-250 audiobooks unlike some here and those are the only two where something special is done for the format.
For a brief period I got into listening to classic radio dramas. Surprisingly hard to find. For as much screen time as I get, I do like to be able to just listen. Plus, I think it helps with my concentration.
In fact, the minimalist podcast version of The Economist magazine (technically a weekly newspaper) is very good, where presenters read articles word-by-word. In 2018, "only 10 percent of its app users listen to audio, but they tend to be very loyal." [1] I'm one of the regular listeners, because otherwise, I find it much more difficult to keep up with the magazine (it's easy to listen to while exercising or commuting, but when I have the free time to sit down and read, I usually prefer enjoying my time some other way).
Similarly, The New Yorker and The Atlantic also have audio versions of a good number of their articles, too. Out of all the publications mentioned, The New Yorker's audio recordings sound to me, with the most distinctive with music and a radio drama-like voice actor. But overall, the adaptations are essentially indiscriminate from the written word.
The goal of recorded news and magazine readings to understand the material to roughly have the same experience as the readers, where you can have your hands free to focus on something else. I never choose the audio version of the news because it's more entertaining, but rather because it's more convenient. So, the focus is on utility more than entertainment, though the material itself can be interesting.
~~
Perhaps that is why audiobook listeners generally don't have a distinct taste apart from book readers. If the audiobook deviates noticeably from the content of a book, it no longer becomes an audiobook, but an adaptation inspired by the source material. Then, book readers and audiobook listeners can no longer closely relate, due to the changes in the story.
At most, I do like audiobooks with a narrator with great voice acting to differentiate between the characters—for example, in an audiobook for Jane Austen's "Emma," the voice actor sounded very different for Emma & Harriet, and , Mr. Knightley & Frank Churchhill. The audiobook can also deviate from the source material in this sense, as the emotions expressed in dialogue are interpretations of the writer's intention (like the famous acting of "Harry, did you put your name in the Goblet of Fire?" in the film versus the book).
But once more, if the audiobook deviates too much, the reader can feel cheated as the experience is too different from the original material. At that point of deviation, a producer would best promote this as a "re-imagining"—which would be fairly separate from the original.
[1] https://digiday.com/media/economists-new-app-tries-keep-peop...
> No one watches recorded plays.
There are also a few audio books where the audio book is clearly superior to the book. The audiobook version of Brandi Carlile's memoir contains almost 2 hours of music in addition to the entire text of the printed book.
That said, there's also value in making texts accessible to an audience that has difficulty reading. I love watching recorded plays that I'll never get the chance to see in person. Granted, the reasons plays are inaccessible (limited venues and times) are quite different from the reasons books are inaccessible (dyslexia and sight issues, for example), but it's still great to be able to share cultural works with people who have different accessibility requirements.
I expected that if they continued to grow, audiobooks' and written books would undergo speciation.
Books are a medium. Audiobooks are a different medium. Film may have dabbled in being recorded theatre... but it didn't remain there for long. No one watches recorded plays. Audiobooks have, mostly, stayed just audio versions of the book.
It's just surprising that audiobook listeners haven't developed a distinct taste apart from book readers.
Even though it has gotten huge... the audiobook industry is mostly byproduct and afterthought.
Imagine how lame a podcast version of time magazine would be, with an audiobook-like, minimalist adaptation. About as good as watching a recorded play.