Carmi Parker, ILS administrator for the Whatcom County Library System and RF Working Group Member, has penned an explanation in PW for the library boycott of Macmillan e-books. As of this moment, she further reports, 33 libraries/systems have joined. While she is speaking only for some libraries in Washington, her reasons are likely shared by many participating libraries.
Her piece is worth a read, so just to summarize here: equity of access for readers, the need to suggest to other publishers that “windowing” is problematic and will not go without comment and bad publicity, the ability to have positive conversations with readers who are disadvantaged by Macmillan’s decision, and the need for action before ALA and other effort at legislative or legal action might be in effect. “Equal access to information regardless of ability to pay is foundational to a democratic society and is why public libraries exist . . . And we believe that a collective effort to emphasizes libraries’ considerable financial leverage is the fastest, if not the only way to take a stand for equity and restore access.”
Ms. Parker’s tone is respectful and moderate. Less congenial responses to the report of Mr. John Sargent’s visit to COSLA have come from bloggers, who “call BS” to Sargent’s claims.
In “Macmillan Can’t Adapt to the Market, So It’s Forcing Customers to Adapt to it,” Nate Hoffelder says “As with Sargent's other claims [this specifically about the claim that 8% of readers who can’t get an e-book from the library will buy one], he has provided no evidence to back up his assertion, leaving us nothing to address.” He does address Sargent’s claim that “The availability of ebooks through libraries, which may be perceived as being free, is, in Macmillan’s opinion, the major driver in the consumer decline.” Hoffelder says Macmillan is “stuck in the pre-internet era,” can’t figure out how to monetize their backlist, instituted agency pricing to bolster hard cover sales to the detriment of e-books and is getign the return that is deserved, and has flunked consumer marketing 101. In “No Time for Sargent” (a clever if dated allusion), C.E. Petit of Scrivener’s Error is even more scathing, suggesting (I’m simplifying—the piece should be read) that Macmillan’s claims about 8% are bogus and non-reproducible, that basing claims for all Macmillan titles on Tor titles is in any case faulty, that many readers who most need libraries and who cannot get titles from libraries won’t read them at all. He concludes: Macmillan is “engaging in a pollution-control analysis that includes only the cost to the factories of installing new sulfur-dioxide scrubbers on their stacks without even trying to consider the public-health benefits (and costs avoided, monetary and otherwise).”
So, we have an increasing number of libraries refraining from licensing Macmillan e-books and people assailing the logic of Macmillan’s business decisions. Is there any way to reach common ground? Perhaps not, but for the sake of getting titles to readers, I make the following proposal, but in doing so I’m not speaking for RF. I haven’t sounded out our Working Group. It’s just me. I’m sure many in the library community will disagree because they believe prices are already too high. For Macmillan, however, this is all obviously about the money and getting as much as they can, with readers buying rather than ”being trained to read for free.”
As noted in this forum before, I like having a one-copy/one-use perpetual access option. So, Mr. Sargent, from date of publication, offer a one copy/one user perpetual access. But don’t offer it at $30. Offer it at $60, one for each library. After one year, drop price to $30. Offer this option as long as you offer leases on the title.
At the same time, also from date of publication, offer metered licenses, as many as a library wants:
• First 8 weeks: 25 circs for $75. No time limit, expires only after the circ limit is reached
• At 8 weeks to one year: 25 circs at $50. No time limit
• At one year: 25 circs at $25.
Voila, sir! No more windowing. Less backlash. Your price is high in that 8 weeks you claim we are costing you money—equal to what you’d get from consumer sales—but lower as time goes on and (by your own logic) the tiles are worth less. You monetize your backlist. You become the company that listened, represented your authors, but did not disadvantage library readers.
My friends in libraries are bound to object. These initial prices are high. On high-demand titles, a 25 circ period (chosen as an even number and not some max-circ-per-year silliness) would require frequent re-licensing. But are we glad Macmillan isn’t windowing? We’d get better much prices eventually. We’d have an option to keep titles perpetually, if we want it. Above all, we don’t have any more “exploding licenses”--we know what our cost per circ will be. Over time, I think we’d see lots of efficiency from buying only when we need to rather than seeing titles simply disappear at the end of a two year span.
Now, Mr. Sargent, maybe you’ll give us a bit of a break. How about $2.50 per title initially, and not $3.00, knowing that we help readers discover your authors? And while we’re at it, maybe in the future offering a pay-per-use or subscription on your back list? We can negotiate. Let’s talk.
I’m happy pointing people to a boycott, and RF is not restricted from advocating for it (as the ALA is), but if we could meet somewhere fair to you and fair to our readers, wouldn’t it be better than the bad publicity, rancor, and name-calling? Mr. Sargent, be the company that cares for readers. We know its all about the money, but can we do better together?
