Libraries and publishing houses are currently at a crossroads that will determine what the pricing structure of ebooks in libraries will be in the future. Currently available are models of selling ebooks to libraries that come with stipulations such as checkout caps, limited titles available, and prices up to three times higher than what they were last year. Some publishers, however, do not allow libraries to purchase their ebooks at all. As publishers change their systems and libraries respond, a new more permanent pricing structure will be determined and become standard.
Following is a quick overview of the current ebook structures put forth from the biggest publishers and what these systems mean for libraries:
Random House raised their rates at the beginning of this month for libraries and lending distributors by two to three times higher than what they previously were. The higher costs are even more painful when you look at libraries shrinking budgets. After RH announced their price change, ALA President Molly Raphael released a statement saying, “The American Library Association strongly urges Random House to reconsider its decision. In a time of extreme financial constraint, a major price increase effectively curtails access for many libraries, and especially our communities that are hardest hit economically” (the whole press release can be read here).
In early 2011 HarperCollins began a 26-checkout policy for libraries, meaning that for each copy of a book purchased it could be checked out 26 times and then would need to be re-purchased. Librarians from the Pioneer Library System explain their frustration in this video. This policy was originally met with boycotts and threats of litigation and calls for policy regulation, but now, a year later, more librarians are finding the cap an acceptable alternative to other publishers’ policies according to thedigitalshift.com’s Feb. 17th article.
Hachette only allow their backlist to be purchased as ebooks for libraries.Except for some academic titles, MacMillan does not offer their books as library ebooks.
As of February 10, Penguin has essentially removed itself from the library ebook game. Penguin terminated their contract with Overdrive, one of the leading library ebook suppliers, and have not yet entered into an agreement with any other competing suppliers. Erica Glass, Penguin’s media relations manager, released a prepared statement saying, “Looking ahead, we are continuing to talk about our future plans for ebook and digital audiobook availability for library lending with a number of partners providing these services”, as reported by thedigitalshift.com (Feb 9).
Simon and Schuster and Scholastic don’t allow libraries to purchase their ebooks at all, with one recent exception currently in the works. The wildly popular Harry Potter series, published through Scholastic, is set to be released in ebook format in libraries through Overdrive April 30 (libraryjournal.com, Feb. 27). This is an exclusive contract and seems to have no bearing on Scholastic’s current policies regarding ebook lending in libraries.
Publishers are concerned about their future as new technologies eliminate the need for replacing worn out copies of books. They can see that their revenue per title is in jeopardy and want a pricing structure that addresses their issues. President of Sales at Harper Collins, Josh Marwell, said concerning HC’s 26-checkout policy, “Prior to announcing our new terms, in our analysis we took into account budgetary constraints, catalog lifecycles, and overall demand in the library channel. Our work led us to consider a number of models, including a term of sale based on time. Our conclusion was that the circulation cap provided the best value, since it is based on actual usage and not an arbitrarily set period of time” (Libraryjournal.com, Aug. 23)
As publishers are trying different models, it is important that libraries and publishers keep open lines of communication. According to an interview with ALA President Molly Raphael at PublishersWeekly.com, productive conversations are taking place between the two groups.. “I would say that everyone affirmed that they’d like to be dealing in the library marketplace,” Raphael said, “but what we heard was that there was not really a business model that worked for them” (Publishersweekly.com, Mar 16). Both sides are taking the opportunity to lay out their concerns and hopefully a system working for all sides will be a result.
Albanese, A. (2012, March 16). At busy PLA , ALA
Kelley, M. (2011, August 23). Hachette
taking a close look at risks and benefits of library ebook lending. Library
Journal. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/891756-264/hachette_taking_a_close_look.html.csp
Kelley, M. (2012, February 17). One year later,
HarperCollins sticking to 26-loan cap, and some librarians rethink opposition. The
Digital Shift. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/02/ebooks/one-year-later-harpercollins-sticking-to-26-loan-cap-and-some-librarians-rethink-opposition/
Kelley, M. (2012, February 9). Penguin group
terminating its contract with OverDrive. The Digital Shift. Retrieved
March 26, 2012, from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/02/ebooks/penguin-group-terminating-its-contract-with-overdrive/
Schwartz, M. (2012, February 27). OverDrive to
distribute Harry Potter ebooks. Library Jounal. Retrieved March 26,
2012, from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/02/industry-news/overdrive-to-distribute-harry-potter-ebooks/
Virtual Library of the Pioneer Library System.
HarperCollins 26+ checkouts. In YouTube. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je90XRRrruM
I am reading this blog from a very different perspective than most of us library students: I work for (dun dun dunnn) Barnes and Noble Booksellers. As a matter of fact, it's my job to sell their eReader, the Nook. The increasingly widespread popularity of eBooks means a changing world for publishers, librarians, and bookstores. I often feel as if I am selling Barnes and Noble as we know it (a brick and mortar store) out of business. Why would anyone buy a book in the store when they can get it at home, instantaneously (assuming they have wifi) and, usually, at a lower cost. The issues brought up in this post concerning copyright and pricing of eBooks arise on a daily basis at my job.
ReplyDeleteOne example mentioned in this post that also affects the bookseller side of things is The Harry Potter Question. Many popular authors, including JK Rowling, have hesitated to offer digital versions of their books due to fears over copyright infringement. I think this is the Napster effect: Once you (or someone else) has made your work available digitally, it's much more difficult to control who has access. The Harry Potter books were launched as eBooks this past Tuesday. However, Rowling has been careful to control their sale: Kindle, Nook, and other eReader device users must purchase the Harry Potter eBooks directly from Rowling's Pottermore website, rather than from Amazon or Barnes and Noble. In addition, like most books published as eBooks, restrictions are placed on who can have access to the book. Some, like Rowling's, cannot be shared at all. She is attempting to protect her product, but once made available digitally, this is difficult to do.
I can see how the eBook revolution could be as devastating for publishers as it was for the music industry. Like the music industry, they need to adapt to survive. This may mean that libraries cannot simply purchase one copy of an eBook and lend it as many times as they want. Libraries would have had to purchase multiple copies of a physical book in the past, so I do not really understand why they would resent the caps of lending eBooks if it means protecting the publishing industry. An according between libraries and publishing houses will need to be worked out if readers are to have access to eBooks through the library.
As I mentioned before, I worked at Barnes & Noble for a 7.5 years and also sold Nooks. One of the first questions I had was, "What happens to my e-book if you go out of business?" Can this question also be applied to publishers? What happens to my James Patterson e-book collection (that I do not have)? I was also amazed at the amount of people who purchased a Nook Color when it came it so that they can have a cheap Android Tablet. I do not know a lot about the music industry, but I know bookstores, and some libraries, worked on a "credit" based model with publishers that does not lend itself well to e-books, so I am sure this is why there has been so much focus on DRM and controlling content.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! It really helped shine a light on who is doing (not doing) e-book business with libraries. It made me think of how different libraries are responding to this issue. In particular, Sarah Houghton, "The Librarian in Black" and acting director of San Rafael Public Library in California is fighting back through public awareness. Sarah advocates for the idea of posting signs in public areas listing which publishers won’t do eBook business with libraries and providing contact information for the publishers in question.
ReplyDeletehttp://librarianinblack.net/librarianinblack/2012/02/ebooksign.html
I am very excited because Sarah Houghton is the key note speaker at the Rural Libraries conference in Traverse City, MI in May!
DeleteGreat post, Emily! It's really interesting to learn about which publishers are working with libraries and which ones are not. I, unfortunately, do not cuurently work in a library and when I did one of my library visits, the Librarian I spoke with gave me a lot of information about Overdrive and e-books, and how their library is using these. During the interview she told me, "E-books won't bring an end to libraries, but publishers might". At the time, she had just told me the basics about Overdrive, but I didn't really know what to make of the publishers comment. When I came home I had just recieved a new issue of the magazine, "American Libraries". Inside was a lot, as you would expect, of information regarding e-books and publishers. Like Cara, I also read the blog post by Sarah Houghton and her idea of posting signs in the library that list publishers that won't do business with libraries and their contact information.
ReplyDeleteDoing a little reading on the subject, I ran across a New York Times article, Publishers vs. Libraries: An E-Book Tug of War (December 24, 2011) where the author explains, "To keep their overall revenue from taking a hit from lost sales to individuals, publishers need to reintroduce more inconvenience for the borrower or raise the price for the library purchaser." More inconvenience. While I know in my mind that publishers make money by selling books, I still shudder at this thought of a company introducing inconvenience to limit access to their product.
ReplyDeleteThinking back on the article we read earlier this class from Library Journal, Publishers & Librarians: Two Cultures, One Goal, I am reminded that these two groups both serve readers and, given that arena, do have to find a way to work together. From that New York Times article, I give kudos to both HarperCollins on their 26 lend policy as well as Robin Nesbitt, technical services director at the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan library for being comfortable working with those limits. I'd much rather see both parties working together (and making mistakes then learning from those mistakes) than one or both parties folding their arms indicating there's no perfect answer. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a "perfect." Messy real life doesn't lend itself to perfection but, no doubt, library patrons will appreciate a best effort solution.
The idea to "reintroduce inconvenience for the borrower" is seen all over different discussions on this subject, but under the more docile term of "friction". A March 18th article on the San Francisco Chronicle's site title "E-readers grow; libraries can't get many titles", explains that friction is meant to make an obstacle to the borrower to borrow a book (i.e. having to drive to the library. It is a legitimate concern to publishers that it is theoretically as easily to borrow a library book from the comfort of one's home as it is to download the same title.
DeleteHowever, due to the one copy, one user model (that is the same as a physical book) that is used with digital copies, waitlists are created for many titles, especially the most popular, which I would consider a form of friction. Beyond that it is hard to imagine what other inconveniences the publishers hope to put in place to have readers opt to buy rather than borrow. The conversation is going to have to look at whether those could be made necessary.
I agree that there is no perfect model, but I think that coming to a compromise between serving the users and good business sense, the Harper Collins model has a lot of merit (although it would be nice to have conversations on why 26 was chosen and if it is the best number of uses, compared to the current environment).
And maybe the price was "fixed" and should have been much less.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=150419217
This was very well written! I stated in one of the previous posts on here about how the librarians are concerned that publishers aren't selling their books to Overdrive. I hope that this changes in the future because as Heather mentioned from one of her library visits that technology won't be the end to libraries, but publishers will.
ReplyDeleteI am an eternal optimist about most things. As I was researching, I fully believed interviews from both sides of the table saying that they want ebooks to be available in libraries, but with a model that isn't going to hurt publishers in the long run. I want to believe that publishers aren't just being money-grubbing, but legitimately looking at the long run and the future loss potential from what they were getting from replacement copies and trying to find a way to work that in up front. I am very hopeful that when a compromised model is generally agreed upon, the more cautious publishers will join in.
DeleteIt may seem like a stretch, but in some ways this situation reminds me a bit of what I saw when television networks began to move content online (and later OnDemand). Some networks jumped in and put certain content in the new venues right away while others sat back and waited. Now, many networks release most of their content online, and more are adapting to the ondemand format. I think it just needs time to work out the potential issues (remember the writers' strike)so we have a viable and sustainable model moving forward.