News

Trade (Consumer Book) Revenues Up 16.4% for Month of July, and Up 5.5% Year-to-Date

Today, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) released its StatShot report covering July 2026, reflecting reported revenue for Trade (Consumer Books), Education (combines PreK-12 Instructional Materials and Higher Education Course Materials), and Professional & Scholarly Publishing.

Total revenue across all categories for July 2026 was up 14.0%, coming in at $1.0 billion as compared to July 2025. Year-to-date, compared with 2025, revenues were up 5.4%, at $6.7 billion in 2026.

The full report is available for purchase on AAP’s website.

Trade (Consumer Books) Revenues

July

Trade (Consumer Books) revenues were up 16.4% in July at $804.1 million. In terms of physical formats during the month of July, in the Trade (Consumer Books) category, Hardback revenues were up 18.5%, coming in at $242.5 million; Paperbacks were up 25.2%, with $311.6 million in revenue; Mass Market was down 43.7% to $5.8 million; and Special Bindings were down 1.0%, with $20.6 million in revenue. 

eBook revenues were down 3.4% to $85.3 million for the month, and revenues from the Digital Audio format were up 12.4% for July, coming in at $103.1 million. Physical Audio revenues were up 36.7%, coming in at $400 thousand.

Year-to-date

Year-to-date Trade revenues were up 5.5% to $5.4 billion. Hardback revenues were up 1.4% year-to-date, coming in at $1.8 billion; Paperbacks were up 10.8%, with $2.0 billion in revenue; Mass Market was down 62.7% to $20.7 million; and Special Bindings were up 16.3%, with $132.1 million in revenue.

eBook revenues were down 3.1% compared to 2025, totaling $601.4 million. Digital Audio revenue was up 12.6% to $700.9 million, while Physical Audio revenue was down 8.0% to $3.1 million.

Religious Presses Down 4.3% in July

Religious Presses revenue was down 4.3% compared to the same month in 2025, coming in at $59.5 million. Hardback revenues were down 6.8% at $32.4 million; Paperback revenues were up 1.4% to $13.2 million; eBook revenues were down 11.6%, coming in at $3.3 million; and Digital Audio revenues were down 14.4%, at $3.3 million.

On a year-to-date basis, Religious Presses revenue was up 0.8% during the first seven months of 2026 when compared with the same period in 2025, coming in at $473.1 million. Hardback revenues were down 2.8% to $275.1 million; Paperback revenue was up 8.4% to $92.9 million; eBook revenue was down 0.5% to $28.7 million; and Digital Audio revenue was flat at $27.4 million.

Professional & Scholarly Publishing Down 2.9% for July 2026

Professional & Scholarly Publishing, including business, medical, law, technical, scientific, and other books and excluding journals, was down 2.9% for July 2026, coming in at $32.8 million. The category was up 1.0% for the first seven months of the year when compared to the same period in 2025, coming in at $231.9 million.

Education Materials (including PreK-12 Instructional Materials and Higher Education Course Materials) Up 2.3% for July 2026

During July 2026, revenues from Education Materials totaled $168.6 million, up 2.3% compared with July 2025. Year-to-date Education Materials revenues totaled $964.9 million, up 3.2% compared to the first seven months of 2025.

AAP’s StatShot

AAP StatShot reports the monthly and yearly net revenue of publishing houses from U.S. sales to bookstores, wholesalers, direct to consumer, online retailers, and other channels. StatShot draws revenue data from more than 1,416 publishers, although participation may fluctuate slightly from report to report.

StatShot reports are designed to give ongoing revenue snapshots across publishing sectors using the best data currently available. The reports reflect participants’ most recent reported revenue for current and previous periods, enabling readers to compare revenue on both a month-to-month and year-to-year basis within a given StatShot report.

Monthly and yearly StatShot reports may not align completely across reporting periods, because: a) The pool of StatShot participants may fluctuate from report to report; and b) Like any business, it is common accounting practice for publishing houses to update and restate their previously reported revenue data. If, for example, a business learns that its revenues were greater in a given year than its reports first indicated, it will restate the revenues in subsequent reports to AAP, permitting AAP in turn to report information that is more accurate than previously reported.

Trade (Consumer Book) Revenues Up 12.1% for Month of June, and Up 3.8% Year-to-Date

Today, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) released its StatShot report covering June 2026, reflecting reported revenue for Trade (Consumer Books), Education (combines PreK-12 Instructional Materials and Higher Education Course Materials), and Professional & Scholarly Publishing.

Total revenue across all categories for June 2026 was up 11.0%, coming in at $936.3 million as compared to June 2025. Year-to-date, compared with 2025, revenues were up 3.9%, at $5.6 billion in 2026.

Trade (Consumer Books) Revenues

June

Trade (Consumer Books) revenues were up 12.1% in June at $765.1 million. In terms of physical formats during the month of June, in the Trade (Consumer Books) category, Hardback revenues were up 14.5%, coming in at $243.6 million; Paperbacks were up 18.2%, with $292.2 million in revenue; Mass Market was up 20.2% to $4.9 million; and Special Bindings were down 4.6%, with $17.0 million in revenue. 

eBook revenues were down 0.3% to $86.4 million for the month, and revenues from the Digital Audio format were up 3.9% for June, coming in at $97.4 million. Physical Audio revenues were down 30.1%, coming in at $500 thousand.

Year-to-date

Year-to-date Trade revenues were up 3.8% to $4.6 billion. Hardback revenues were down 0.8% year-to-date, coming in at $1.5 billion; Paperbacks were up 8.5%, with $1.7 billion in revenue; Mass Market was down 67.0% to $15.0 million; and Special Bindings were up 20.2%, with $111.6 million in revenue.

eBook revenues were down 3.0% compared to 2025, totaling $516.1 million. Digital Audio revenue was up 12.6% to $597.8 million, while Physical Audio revenue was down 12.3% to $2.7 million.

Religious Presses Up 4.8% in June

Religious Presses revenue was up 4.8% compared to the same month in 2025, coming in at $62.5 million. Hardback revenues were flat at $37.3 million; Paperback revenues were up 21.0% to $11.5 million; eBook revenues were down 11.3%, coming in at $3.8 million; and Digital Audio revenues were down 1.9%, at $3.5 million.

On a year-to-date basis, Religious Presses revenue was up 1.6% during the first six months of 2026 when compared with the same period in 2025, coming in at $413.6 million. Hardback revenues were down 2.2% to $242.7 million; Paperback revenue was up 9.7% to $79.7 million; eBook revenue was up 1.1% to $25.4 million; and Digital Audio revenue was up 2.3% to $24.1 million.

Professional & Scholarly Publishing Down 3.4% for June 2026

Professional & Scholarly Publishing, including business, medical, law, technical, scientific, and other books and excluding journals, was down 3.4% for June 2026, coming in at $32.4 million. The category was up 1.7% for the first six months of the year when compared to the same period in 2025, coming in at $199.1 million.

Education Materials (including PreK-12 Instructional Materials and Higher Education Course Materials) Up 4.4% for June 2026

During June 2026, revenues from Education Materials totaled $123.5 million, up 4.4% compared with June 2025. Year-to-date Education Materials revenues totaled $796.2 million, up 3.4% compared to the first six months of 2025.

AAP’s StatShot

AAP StatShot reports the monthly and yearly net revenue of publishing houses from U.S. sales to bookstores, wholesalers, direct to consumer, online retailers, and other channels. StatShot draws revenue data from more than 1,416 publishers, although participation may fluctuate slightly from report to report.

StatShot reports are designed to give ongoing revenue snapshots across publishing sectors using the best data currently available. The reports reflect participants’ most recent reported revenue for current and previous periods, enabling readers to compare revenue on both a month-to-month and year-to-year basis within a given StatShot report.

Monthly and yearly StatShot reports may not align completely across reporting periods, because: a) The pool of StatShot participants may fluctuate from report to report; and b) Like any business, it is common accounting practice for publishing houses to update and restate their previously reported revenue data. If, for example, a business learns that its revenues were greater in a given year than its reports first indicated, it will restate the revenues in subsequent reports to AAP, permitting AAP in turn to report information that is more accurate than previously reported.

Submissions Wanted for Outstanding Professional and Scholarly Works Published in 2026

The Association of American Publishers is now inviting entries for its prestigious PROSE Awards for eligible works published in 2026. Submissions will be accepted from September 8^th through midnight ET on November 13^th. 

The PROSE Awards recognize the very best professional and scholarly works across five category areas: Biological and Life Sciences, Humanities, Physical Sciences & Mathematics, Social Sciences, and Reference Works. Publishers are eligible to win a series of excellence awards as well as the prestigious R.R. Hawkins Award.  

AAP’s PROSE Awards have recognized scholarly works of authorship since 1976.  Submitting publishers must be a member of either the Association of American Publishers (AAP) or the Association of University Presses (AUPresses). All entries must have a 2026 copyright, and the submission fee is $115 per entry.  

To submit an entry, please click here.

For guidelines, FAQs, and past winners, please see here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the Authors Guild announced the release of a landmark independent study by leading economists at Secretariat Advisors, titled An Empirical Study of the Impact of Library E-Lending on the Book Economy: As Public Libraries Prioritize eBook Formats, Harm to Commercial Markets Across All Formats is Quantifiable and Significant.

The study, commissioned jointly by AAP and the Authors Guild, but independently conducted by Secretariat Advisors’ economists, provides the most rigorous analysis to date of how the steep shift toward digital lending in recent years has affected the commercial marketplace for books in the United States, specifically, the consumer sales on which authors and publishers rely for financial success. The research concludes that increased digital access to e-books through library apps influences consumer behavior and impacts commercial markets across both physical and digital formats. The study further concludes there is robust and economically meaningful evidence of direct substitution between library e-lending and retail sales and that decreases in library e-book prices or certain other changes to licensing terms, as required in recent state legislative initiatives, would cause further harm to commercial markets.

Authors, publishers, and libraries enjoy a close relationship and shared objective to promote and maximize reading across all levels of society, not only to champion established works of literature but to support the continued production of books not yet written. Speaking to this alliance, the study recognizes the crucial role of libraries as both public institutions and market participants, while contributing key empirical data that is essential to understanding the broader publishing ecosystem. It describes a book economy that is fueled by human creativity, technological innovation, and market competition, under the auspices of a federal Copyright Act that serves the public by prescribing a clear profit motive to authors and publishers, as envisioned and authorized by the U.S. Constitution. It observes that recent legislative efforts by several states, however well-intentioned, would compromise and conflict with this well-established equation, by imposing government controls on the distribution, purchase, and pricing of e-books, and often audiobooks as well, in library channels to the detriment of the overall book economy.

As the study shows, these state efforts would effectively undermine the commercial marketplace by demanding more digital copies for libraries for less money immediately upon first publication with little regard for the larger ecosystem. The financial impact would be felt by authors and their publishers whose livelihoods and business models depend on robust and sustainable revenue streams, by bookstores and state and local economies that will suffer lost revenues, and by consumers who will ultimately suffer from reduced supply. As further context, the study examines library funding in recent years across jurisdictions, concluding that collection budgets have not meaningfully increased and are generally constrained, even as states and localities expect libraries to offer both print and digital formats to their communities.

The study concludes that as libraries expand digital lending availability and shift their purchasing decisions from print to digital formats, they invariably compete with consumer channels, especially during the early window of a book’s commercial potential, given the ease of checking out e-books at any time of day or night with just a couple of clicks.  Data cited in the study shows that e-books now account for nearly half of many libraries’ collections as digital check-outs have increased significantly in recent years and library costs per license have fallen.

The following is a joint statement from Maria A. Pallante, AAP President and CEO and Mary Rasenberger, Authors Guild CEO:

“This expert study will be of critical interest to everyone who cares deeply about the future of books, including the authors who write them, the publishers who invest in them, and the booksellers and librarians who promote and deliver them to readers and communities across the country through a dynamic variety of formats, distribution channels, access models, and price points designed to give each book its best shot at success for as long a period as possible.

For state legislatures that seek to intrude into the literary marketplace by singling out e-formats for government mandates, the study addresses the significant economic consequences likely to result from such actions.  It is a central tenet of copyright that licensors and licensees should individually negotiate their terms in competitive transactions that are free of government regulation by state or local governments. This time-tested legal framework has built a U.S. creative economy and book supply that are world-renowned, but which should not be taken for granted.

We note that many if not most libraries are inadequately funded for their outsized missions and collection needs in contemporary society, but the solution is not to upend the book marketplace. Rather, fully funding libraries should be an urgent priority for all lawmakers, and the Authors Guild and AAP stand firmly behind efforts that would increase taxpayer funding at every level of government and support new ideas for private sector support.  It should be obvious to policymakers that both the mission of libraries and the intellectual property of authors and publishers are equally invaluable to the public interest, not a tradeoff.

As a matter of law, it is incontrovertible that state governments lack constitutional authority to contradict our national copyright system for books or any other protected creative expression, which is the exclusive province of the U.S. Congress. In short, the key to the future of books across all formats will not come from the statehouse but from ongoing private sector innovation and more numerous and varied business models that are the result of nimble and competitive marketplace negotiations. It is our view that debates in the states, frequently accompanied by misinformation about law and facts, have not assisted the discussions between licensors and licensees but rather polarized and confused them.  

We believe this study presents new information that points to the importance of a healthy book economy that is able to reflect and respond to complex digital markets with an eye to the future, free of one-size-fits-all mandates or artificial terms that ask the private sector to subsidize the state.  In this moment, as creators throughout the world face enormous harm from AI-generated products that have infringed their works on a mass scale and now compete with them for sales, the common cause of authors, publishers, libraries, and booksellers—to get more people reading and more books into the hands of readers—has never been more important.”

Key Findings from the Study

• “[D]igital checkouts for e-books and audiobooks have exploded in recent years as libraries have reformulated their spending to prioritize digital formats, and patrons have discovered the ease of digital borrowing made possible through frictionless library apps.”

• “[S]hifts in the library marketplace have affected consumer behavior and commercial markets. Even where print remains the preferred format for purchase, some readers may still shift to reading digitally when library access makes the digital option easy, immediate and free.”

• “[T]o the extent e-lending is likely to significantly decrease book sales, economic theory would expect market forces to account for that through negotiations over the scope and extent of restrictions on library lending of e-books in licensing agreements.”

• “[C]onsumer print sales decline by approximately 0.85 to 1.0 percent for every one-percentage-point increase in the share of e-books in public libraries, with adult fiction being at the upper end of this range.”

• “[T]here is robust and economically meaningful evidence of direct, within-title substitution between library e-lending and retail sales, especially early in the lifecycle of a book.”

• “[W]ith respect to bestsellers, library e-lending is not serving as a channel for discovery but rather is substituting for retail e-book sales at the national level.”

• “Numerous states…have attempted to legislate special treatment for library e-books that appears to contravene the Copyright Act’s preemption of state law by capping or otherwise interfering with licensing fees, removing controls on the number of copies available to libraries, and/or forbidding economically rational practices such as windowing that are widespread in other creative content industries.”

• “These findings suggest that state legislative efforts related to public library e-lending, however well-intentioned, present significant negative consequences for the publishing ecosystem and consumers by exacerbating substitution between e-lending and retail sales, which threatens to destabilize the commercial book market.”

• “[A]cquisitions budgets remain constrained even as libraries are expected to maintain both print and digital collections.”

About the Study:

This study is the work product of Jéssica Dutra, Ph.D. and Robert Stoner, Ph.D. of Secretariat Advisors. Undertaken at the request of the Association of American Publishers and the Authors Guild, the study’s empirical analyses and all findings belong entirely to Secretariat Advisors. Secretariat Advisors is a global expert witness, litigation consulting, and economic advisory firm trusted to address complex legal, risk, and regulatory matters. Read more at secretariat-intl.com.

The full study is available here.

About AAP

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) represents book, journal, and education publishers in the United States on matters of law and policy, advocating for outcomes that incentivize the publication of creative and intellectual expression across a variety of formats and business models in support of an inspired and well-read democracy. AAP fights vigorously for the copyright and freedom of expression protections that have been the lifeblood of American publishing for more than 250 years, from the printing press to digital markets. Comprised of small, large, independent, scholarly, commercial, and nonprofit houses, AAP’s members collectively cultivate and publish a vast body of literature by both new and established authors, including winners of every major writing prize.  Learn more at publishers.org.

About The Authors Guild

The Authors Guild is the nation’s oldest and largest professional organization for published writers in the United States, with a particular expertise and long history of involvement in freedom of expression protections and copyright law, which together are the constitutional and economic bedrock of authors’ livelihoods. With over 18,000 members, the Authors Guild advocates for authors’ rights and fair pay, and protects against challenges such as infringement, censorship, book bans, the misuse of AI, and nonpayment. In addition to engaging with legislatures and the courts on behalf of all writers of every level of achievement, the Authors Guild offers resources, legal support, and a professional community to individual authors to help sustain their careers and thrive in an evolving literary landscape.  Learn more at authorsguild.org.

Today, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), News/Media Alliance (N/MA), and International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) filed an amicus brief in In Re Mosaic LLM Litigation. This case was brought in March 2024 by a group of authors alleging, among other things, that the defendants, Mosaic and Databricks, downloaded datasets including pirated copies of copyrighted textual works, and trained large language models (LLMs) using copyrighted works.  The case is before Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California.

The brief urges the district court to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and find that their unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training is not fair use.  As the brief explains, fair use is a critical exception to exclusive rights that should not be extended to LLMs that exploit expressive content to generate expressive content, essentially serving substitutes for copyrighted works.  Unlicensed AI training substantially and adversely usurp markets that rightfully belong to copyright owners, including markets for derivative works and AI licensing. 

Excerpts from the brief:

• Overly expansive interpretations of fair use displace the market mechanisms Congress established, replacing negotiated exchange with uncompensated (and uncredited) use and transferring value from the authors and publishers that invest in them to industries that neither incurred the costs nor assumed the risks of producing the underlying works.
• When properly analyzed, LLMs, like those of the defendants, exploit copyrighted works for their expressive value for the same purpose, ultimately generating substitutes for the works used for training.  Fair use should not sanction AI systems with an inherent “problem of substitution.”
• Consistent with their purpose, design, and training, LLMs can readily generate substitutes for the copyrighted works on which they are trained, resulting in non-transformative uses.  Those substitutes can take the form of verbatim and near-verbatim copies, summaries and alternative versions of written works, knock-offs that copy expression and creative choices from original works, and derivative works exclusively reserved for rightsholders.  LLMs’ proven ability to generate outputs that substitute for, are derivatives of, or otherwise exploit the expressive content of the original works further demonstrates that LLMs are not highly transformative. 
• Consumers are confused and overwhelmed, and copyright owners are losing revenues and market visibility to the flood of AI-generated books and other text.
• [L]icensing provides AI developers authorized access to human-created works and high-quality content.  Using unauthorized content from online or questionable sources carries the risk of tainting training sets with low-quality, such as AI-generated, text.  For AI to flourish, licensing is needed to ensure humans continue to be incentivized to create so that the well of human creation does not run dry and that AI companies have reliable access to content that improves model performance.

The full amicus brief is available here.