The Joint Statement to the Big 5 on Library Ebooks

Larra Clark from the ALA recently posted about five organizations issuing a joint statement calling on the Big 5 to reconsider their public library ebook license terms. Thank you, Ms. Clark! Read the statement here. She also provided talking points from the leaders of Urban Libraries Council (ULC), Public Library Association (PLA), Canadian Urban Libraries Council / Conseil des Bibliothèques Urbaines du Canada (CULC/CBUC), Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA), and Association for Rural & Small Libraries (ARSL).

We at ReadersFirst are delighted to see a joint statement. For too long, groups have often issued statements separately, if at all. Joining together obviously amplifies the concerns for all libraries—concerns that we at ReadersFirst have been bruiting for a decade now. Thank you, thank you, ULC, PLA, CULC/CBUC, COSLA, and ARSL!

Indeed, that it is a joint statement from partners representing so many public libraries is really the big news. The statement itself is far from incendiary.

Both Clark’s post and other coverage from Nathalie op de Beeck from PW (“Library Orgs Urge Big Five to Address Digital Pricing”) suggest that the statement is challenging Big 5 prices. That costs are too high is implied. The statement contrasts what libraries pay with what consumers pay and suggests (rightly) we spend more to get less: “Many libraries are now spending 50% or more of their collections budgets – taxpayer funds – on disappearing, limited-access content, giving them less ability to support lesser-known authors and smaller publishers. Meanwhile, wait times for readers of all ages have exploded, as libraries spend more to get less.” But the basic ask is two-fold and hardly radical: provide licenses based on number of circulations rather than a time period and bring back the perpetual option (as 3 of the Big 5 still offer in audiobook). The Big 5 could grant those two asks without changing the metered price and increasing the perpetual option price (I can hear them saying “because print books don’t last forever”) and library digital costs would STILL be unsustainable, even if the situation would be far better than the status quo.

Will these basic asks be enough to bring “the Big Five publishers, as well as platform providers . . . to the table to work with libraries to identify and implement sustainable solutions”? We hope so. Experience suggests not, but at least we are asking the question together. Perhaps if even one of the Big 5 publishers would come the table for an honest discussion, we’ll find out if “Mutually-beneficial solutions exist.”

In the meantime, it wouldn’t be a good idea to stop “U.S. states and Canadian provinces [from] increasingly turning to consumer protection legislation as a response to this untenable situation.”

Getting libraries of all sizes and budgets to agree on some standard for license terms is a daunting, perhaps even Quixotic task. We have too many competing needs for easy agreement. For a small rural library, for example, access to only a single perpetual use ebook at print cover price would be attractive (I have specifically been told so), but the model would nothing but frustration for a consortium. But such standard terms, factoring as many disparate needs as possible, seem a necessary preamble if we are to have a profitable discussion with publishers and platforms. To move forward, we ask the five partners in the statement to work on this issue.

In the meantime, while we celebrate Ms. Clark’s ALA post about the statement, and of course the statement itself for bringing many together with one voice, is it immaterial (or perhaps impertinent) to ask why the ALA didn’t co-sign? Does the “oldest and largest library organization in the world” not consider this matter crisis enough to sign on? That seems unlikely. Does the structure of ALA not nimble enough to respond quickly? Did the five partners say to themselves, “Oh well, we don’t really need anyone else.” Again, thank you, Ms. Clark for posting and making this letter even more visible. Still, let’s hope the ALA will join in future efforts. All for one and one for all, please.

Speaking of unsustainable, a sharp-eyed librarian posted to RF recently about the high costs of a recent Simon & Schuster audio imprint, Simon Maverick. Of the 208 titles (all on 2 year license), 40 of them are $69.99 or less. That ain’t cheap, but 22 of them cost $114.99 and 15 cost $134.99. I make no comment on their quality. No doubt there are some interesting reads there. None of them look like they will have waiting lists for long—certainly not for two years. At those prices, they will be optional for well-funded systema and out-of-reach for others. The big question I have is, how are the prices set? None of them seem that much more significant for sales or reputation than others. Ones series of 5 books has prices for each of the parts ranging from $89.99 to $134.99. Why are books in the same series priced differently? Ah! One key to this mystery seems to be length. Longer titles appear to cost more, often much more. I’ve heard of being paid by the word, but, Simon & Schuster, are you charging libraries by the word? Really? That’s ridiculous!

And, for libraries, unsustainable.