Library Design Showcase
Ebook Talks: The Details

Digital Content and Libraries Working Group Cochair Robert Wolven, ALA President Molly Raphael, and ALA Executive Director Keith Michael Fiels, in the Random House offices in New York, January 31
The following is a summary of the meetings ALA President Molly Raphael and an ALA delegation held in New York City January 30–February 1 with members of the publishing industry:
As recently reported, I led an ALA delegation to New York last week to meet separately with Penguin, Macmillan, Random House, Simon & Schuster, and Perseus. The publisher representatives at these meetings included CEOs, division presidents, and other executives. We had frank discussions related to library ebook lending and are appreciative of the serious engagement by these publishers. Many of the meetings extended for a longer time than scheduled, and all ended with the expectation of a continuing dialogue between each publisher and ALA.
In every meeting, we reaffirmed our mutual desire to bring authors and readers together. Indeed, publishers and libraries enjoy a long history of productive relationships toward this end. There was ready acknowledgment of the key role that libraries and publishers play in society. And there was a desire for a mutually beneficial way forward for library ebook lending.
Of course much has changed in the past few years—and all indications are that the evolution of the ebook format in particular (and the medium of e-content in general) will continue or even accelerate in the coming years. While publishers and libraries share a common mission to bring authors and readers together, it is also clear that we have some goals that diverge. It is these differences that lead to varying views in the library and publishing worlds of business models and overall short- and long-term strategies.
Our discussions with publishers who already sell ebooks to libraries focused on how to maintain and strengthen our relationships. Of course, libraries represent a significant amount of direct buying power. Perhaps even more important is the library role in discoverability. Libraries expend considerable effort to identify the most relevant works for our communities. We weed out titles and feature new titles. We construct displays in our libraries and sponsor author events, often in partnership with local bookstores. We provide literacy training; support for book groups; and offer myriad other services that promote reading and book genres, titles, and authors. These publishers clearly place a high value on the library role in discoverability, and we agreed to continue discussions on how best to provide and promote ebooks to library patrons.
In meeting with publishers who currently do not sell ebooks to libraries, we shared our profession’s concerns regarding the impact of these practices on library users, many of whom rely solely on the public library for their reading choices. In some instances, we found that there were misconceptions about how libraries operate that, once clarified, mitigated some of these publishers’ concerns. For example, some publishers had the impression that libraries lend to whomever visited their respective websites, thus making collections available virtually worldwide without restriction.
We explained the close ties between a library and its community and that collection development is based on what our users want to find in their libraries. Thus, we emphasized, ebook collections—financed mostly through local tax dollars—reflect local interests, with access restricted to the cardholders of each individual library.
Nevertheless, some substantive issues remain for publishers, though we now have a better understanding of the rationale for their concerns and of the publishing industry’s perspective as a whole. In every instance, publishers are working to identify library-lending models that they find to be acceptable. We agreed to provide feedback on any ideas they may have; in turn, they agreed to consider proposals from ALA.
A key issue that arose in each meeting is the degree to which “friction” may decline in the ebook lending transaction as compared to lending print books. From the publisher viewpoint, this friction provides some measure of security. Borrowing a print book from a library involves a nontrivial amount of personal work that often involves two trips—one to pick up the book and one to return it. The online availability of ebooks alters this friction calculation, and publishers are concerned that the ready download-ability of library ebooks could have an adverse effect on sales.
Another issue that arose in all of the meetings is the influential role of intermediaries—aggregators or retailers—in library ebook lending. Thus, examination of the issue of library ebook lending involves not only publishers and libraries, but a critical analysis of the role of intermediaries.
It was agreed that we—publishers, libraries, intermediaries, and others—operate in an ecosystem that is experiencing profound change. At the same time, a thorough understanding of the ecosystem backed by reliable data is not readily available, and deserves increased attention from ALA and others.
The biggest lesson is that there is nothing like direct communication. We didn’t leave New York with complete and perfect solutions; that wouldn’t have been a realistic expectation. But I am happy with the progress that we made on multiple fronts—establishing ongoing direct lines of communication and correcting misconceptions about libraries, to mention only two. Much work remains to fully grasp the rapidly changing context of digital content and libraries and to converge on solutions that all key stakeholders can live with. We must find these solutions so that libraries can continue to provide the best possible service to their communities.
In the coming days, we will be following up with these five publishers, initiating contact with other publishers and intermediaries, and pursuing additional activities within the framework of ALA’s Digital Content and Libraries Working Group. Please look for further communications from the cochairs of the Working Group, the chairs of its subgroups, and ALA leadership in the near future.
Molly Raphael
ALA President
Trending Now
Current Issue
American Libraries Magazine | 50 East Huron | Chicago, IL 60611 | 2013© American Library Association | Staff Login











Comments
ALA & OverDrive public survey
I noticed today that ALA and OverDrive are co-sponsoring a public survey of readers at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/overdriveebooksurvey
I hope the results can be used to help change publishers’ minds about withholding ebooks from libraries and about increasing “friction” in borrowing ebooks, and I urge everyone who’s interested in such an outcome to take the survey.
other issues
“some publishers had the impression that libraries lend to whomever visited their respective websites, thus making collections available virtually worldwide without restriction.”
This is a good example of how behind the times publishers are, and how little they really understand about ebooks. The willful ignorance of the big publishers is what hurts their bottom line, not “threats” from Amazon, public libraries, and other places.
The deeper problem here is that the American library world didn’t start tackling this issue a decade or two ago. There were plenty of articles and discussions about ebooks, but nothing was really done. Project Gutenberg had to get things rolling because we weren’t on the ball (I have a lot of respect for the Gutenberg folks). We could have been having conversations with publishers a long time ago, setting up our own distribution system and working with them directly. We let Overdrive pop up and do it instead, and now we pay them a lot of money to do it (poorly) for us. Overdrive got the publishers angry, and now we’re having to scramble to do damage control.
We shouldn’t be relying on overpriced third party vendors for our ILSs, ebook distribution, etc. We need to develop our own systems and our own relationships.
E-books
I really like the article. I am so glad to hear there is an open dialog with the publishing companies.
One thing I would like to add, is as a public Librarian, I have found that my patrons think it is easier to check out a print book in the library than waiting for a book on our e-book borrowing system. (OverDrive) The wait can sometimes be up to a month. Since we are a small library, the wait is never that long for a printed book.
(We are on the OverDrive system with about 50 other Libraries)
Thank you for including the need for better data
I’m not a proponent of studying a problem endlessly, but I think a better understanding of the role that libraries and other parties in the publishing value chain play in developing, fostering and sustaining reading would help resolve some of the issues that exist between publishers and lending institutions.
Ignorance dispelled
I find it interesting that publishers, who should be schooled in everything books, were ignorant about the process involved in book lending, including ebooks. I was shocked that they did not know how a basic library works—that users are taxpayers from the community who have to have a card to borrow. I suppose that just indicates how far away these people are fiscally from the average library user. As publishers, it should be their responsiblity to learn and educate themselves about the library world. We are the powerhouses of their industry and their #1 advocates. Sad that this relationship has become adversarial due to ignorance. Shame on them, and kudos to ALA for attempting to educate (once again) those who need it most.
We both had misconceptions
Our meetings helped us understand more about publishers' worlds as we helped them understand more about the world of libraries. In our global digital environment that is so much in flux, we know that the more we help each other understand, the more opportunities there will be for finding solutions that work for publishers AND libraries.
Another source of friction not addressed: Number of copies
The work of the working group is truly appreciated, and it is an eye-opener to realize that publishers are not aware of the effort libraries put into readers advisory, displays and programs to promote discoverability of new and old titles!
The term “friction” is an interesting one for the effort required for a patron to borrow a physical item. It’s good to have a label for it. However, another source of “friction” for eBook borrowing patrons, is the wait list for popular titles created by library budget limitations with the one copy/one user ebook lending model. This did not appear in the summary, but perhaps it was not missed in the talks.
In any case, limited numbers of library copies and high patron demand create an automatic form of friction in this ecosystem that has long been present in the physical book lending ecosystem. Publishers should be informed about this natural friction to further appease their concern about ready availability and impact on sales.
Thanks again for your effort!
"Natural Friction"
We certainly did talk about this "natural friction" as well as the fact that some patrons, who have the means, decide that a long holds list means that they are willing to purchase a copy instead. In addition, libraries with robust purchasing budgets—yes, there are still some—use long holds lists as the reason for purchasing additional copies of a title. In both cases, publishers benefit from additional sales.
Another Major Source of Friction
Did anyone mention the limited loan periods as a source of friction? This is not a big deal for a lot of fiction readers but for people like me, a nonfiction book often takes me more than three weeks or even two months.
Other causes of ebook "friction"
Also missing from the summary is the “friction” caused by the somewhat cumbersome process of borrowing an ebook from a library’s digital collection. Perhaps if publishers realized that it has to go through Amazon for Kindle users and Adobe Digital Editions for other e-readers, they might realize that often a similar amount of time is needed to get an ebook as driving to the library to get a print one!
Friction
Karen got that right. Ebook “friction” still seems pretty powerful from where I sit, managing a team that provides technical support for library patrons struggling with all the formats, devices, and unexpected rules (like you can’t return audio books early, but you can return ebooks early, except that very recently now you can return audio books early if you use an OverDrive app, but you still can’t return audio books from a desktop). Power users eventually find their way to a place with little friction, but the wall separating frustrated newbies from that ice rink is high.
Friction Not Just with Newbies
I probably qualify as a “power user,” having been a librarian for 20+ years, currently working at a research university, and the proud owner of a Nook Color. However, after a couple of weeks of trying various strategies for downloading a currently available book from my local public library, I have given up, at least for the moment.
As one of the authors of our library’s guide to e-books, I was confident that having Adobe Dig Editions on my home computer, having my trusty library card, and having my Nook plugged into said computer would be enough for a professional to go through Overdrive’s process for downloading a currently available book. But alas, no luck.
Librarian colleagues have told me that it took several tries and strategies for them to get a book from their public library to their e-readers. Sometime when I have some time and am feeling calm, I’ll try again.
Another source of friction
Have not seen any comments (yet) about how little friction there is to ordering a book, at least a print one, maybe an e-book too, from Amazon.com. Sounds like it is easier than checking out either print or electronic books! I don’t think the publishers have to worry too much.
Defining Who has E-book Access
RE: “We emphasized, ebook collections—financed mostly through local tax dollars—reflect local interests, with access restricted to the cardholders of each individual library.”
I want to note that many states (like WI) have robust interloan systems that often allow loaning across large regions of the state or even statewide. Interloan is NOT restricted to just the cardholders of each individual library. I’m aware that some publishers are trying to define what constituents a library can lend an e-book to. We do not want publishers, cart blanche, to define who can be served w/o substantial library input.
-Bob
________________________________
Bob Bocher, Technology Consultant
Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction
Division for Libraries and Technology
Madison, WI 53707-7841
608-266-2127 — robert.bocher@dpi.wi.gov
Bob, I think the ILL process
Bob,
I think the ILL process has enough friction in place to appease the publishers.
It sounds like what they were worried about was that the ebook-wanting public could sit at home and browse the nations libraries looking for books to download.
ILL, cards, and Lending models
Lending models are not that simple. In California, you can get a free card from almost all public libraries with just a California driver’s license - no local residency required. I have cards for 6+ nearby cities.
Also, many libraries in CA have a Link+ system that provides super-easy borrowing from 50+ libraries - no ILL friction at all.
Ultimately the driving factor will be publishers deciding how they make the most money - and since they license (rent NOT sell) their eBooks, their is no “first sale” doctrine that protects the business model of libraries for print books and lending. I suspect publishers will still sell (rent/license) to libraries for 10-20 years, but with ever-increasing costs so that eventually the cost per circulation reaches a point where taxpayers cannot afford to support library lending, and most eBooks will go direct to consumers.
Libraries best bet is to try to convince publishers that they add enough value in curating/promotion that the library generates incremental sales.
ILL
What we have to realize is that ILL is a print solution that kind of morphed to other areas. To apply it to eBooks is really tricky and doesn’t make much sense. Part of ILL was cost to maintain and the space to house that item. With eBooks, the space issue is gone and honestly it doesn’t make much sense to ILL and eBook. It wasn’t intended for digital and I think too often we are trying to force print models into the digital world and then when they don’t work, everyone is unhappy, it’s unrealistic.
Some aggregators have a pseudo model in place to work with ILL, but depending on the content; trade vs academic, you have a different need and and different agg working with it. The tools needed for one don’t work with the other, square peg round hole issue. This is where the thinking has to change and we have to take a different approach to how the content is handled, distributed and worked with.
Need publishing and lending models designed for digital format
Eric is right. The publishing and lending models of the print format cannot be practically applied to the digital format. It is time to create publishing and lending models that take advantage of the way the digital environment functions. Libraries need to be proactive in defining for digital content providers how we need digital publishing and lending to work to provide good practical library service.
These discussions with publishers are a good start at educating each other. The question is do we have a proposal for how we want the provision of digital content to work for library service? Once we have some definition of “digital library access” we need to talk about the “digital library price.”
ebooks
If the ebook is nonfiction rather than fiction a library should be able to ILL a chapter from a book just like you loan an article from a journal.