Most everyone wants to get excited about E-Books and who
wouldn't? Those cute little Kindles or swanky new Nooks all appeal to
the avid reader. I wanted a place where I could pick and chose what I
was reading at the time without having to carry eight books with me,
which I have done before. Yet libraries are playing the “Red Light Green
Light” game with the idea of E-Books in the collection especially
public libraries due to the headaches of the digital business models.
When it comes to purchasing and acquiring digital books, it can be
literal nightmare. While publishers and distributors have tried to make
workable business models for the acquisition of digital books, there has
yet to be a model that truly captures what both sides are looking for.
While I will not promote myself as a business model expert here, I offer
these two business models to examine the heart of the conflict and how
it can be improved.
First let's look at what is in practice today. In an interview with Library Journal's
Katie Dunneback HarperCollins's Josh Marwell discusses the current
business model they are using. HarperCollins is using a twenty six
checkout limit model (Carmin, Dunneback, and Sheehan, 2011, October 1).
Even he confessed that it was a “work in progress”, but that is
completely unacceptable for a broad spectrum of books and genres. True
some books may not use up that checkout limit for a few years, but there
are many books especially in the bestseller and children's areas that
exceed that checkout limit very quickly. They admit this model is not
the best. So what are some other options?
Scenario 1: The Netflix Model
One of the first ones that popped into my head was
Netflix. Despite being under heavy fire the past few months their
business model was a sound one. Much like how library reference
databases work, libraries who want to use the collective database have
to pay a subscription fee. Netflix took an awkward online database and
made it very user friendly. Users can find exactly what they like and if
it is not offered then the user can recommend it to be purchased. This
aspect of browseability lends itself to be an attractive feature for
libraries who are constantly trying to find that perfect match.
The model would be a collaborative feat of epic
proportions bring together distributors and publishers, librarians, and
users to allow licenses for as many digital books that people can
download. This model would offer unlimited check outs for everyone. Two
people can check out the same book at the same time unlike Overdrive
where it is one digital book per checkout. Offering that option to
libraries will mean that users will be able to see what is out there and
do not have to wait for the next person to check it out. Libraries can
subscribe to the service and allow their local branches to use it. The
libraries who benefit the most will be the ones who use it the most. DRM
would be protected by the same software that deletes the E-Book after a
it's checkout time limit. This idea has been explored through the use
of Overdrive, but this would be on a much larger scale. The collection
would be the largest collaborative force ever. Much like Netflix's work
with movie distributors, this business model would work in a similar
fashion.
The attractive pros for this feature is fantastic user
friendly browseability that will have patrons looking at the library
with renewed appreciation. One of the most irritating feature of E-Books
in libraries is the confusing and complicated browsing features that
leave most patrons ready to just buy the E-Book outright from either
Amazon or Barnes and Noble. Especially if they have a Kindle since only
until recently Amazon did not let their E-Readers read anything, but
proprietary Amazon approved books.
Another pro to this is the Netflix concept of instant
gratification. Netflix started out with DVDs traveling to people in the
mail and then the users were able to keep it for as long as they want
for no late fees which we all remember what a pain those were. Now
Netflix has shifted their business model from a DVD focused to an online
focus. They sought to create a business where all content would be
found online and they are working on that model. This instant
gratification will allow library users the ability to check out E-Books
from anywhere at anytime. From their public library to their home,
patrons will have the opportunity to find a book and check it out
instantaneously.
Another pro is the ease of pricing. One price to access
the collection and no check out limits! This way the libraries who use
the service more will reap the benefits of the service. That gives the
librarians an element of control. They can market and promote their
services to boost their uses. This also eliminates the wacky pricing
models that have been proposed before. Instead of complex pricing
strategies there is one blanket price that can be made affordable as
more people join.
On the other hand this would be the possible pricing
options headache. Libraries differ in size and budgets, but would have
to either pay the same price or use pay tiers to be able to tap into
this service. This could add some confusion, but allow some latitude
with smaller libraries so they are able to provide the similar services.
Similar to how Netflix uses there Unlimited Streaming package,
libraries could be offered affordable options to the collection. This
may mean limited the amount of uses or the genres of the collection. It
would take negotiations and strong trust to ensure that everyone was
being offered a fair chance at the collection.
Another con is who would run it? Netflix is a third
party that negotiates licensing with film companies to add to their
collection. Would this be the best route for an E-Book collaborative
collection? And who would take on such an endeavor as to be the go
between libraries and publishers? To answer that question, I am not sure
who could take on that. If a third party were to take this database on,
there would be a lot more headaches in deciding who got what and how
much. The upside to this would be if there was a third party, they would
be able to negotiate the best deals out publishers and libraries.
This brings me to my final con of this scenario and that
is this idea is enormous. So huge that it would take more power than
possible to maintain. While libraries collectively make up large numbers
in the United States, these libraries all act and spend their budgets
in different ways. There is no overlord of the libraries telling them
what individual libraries can and cannot spend their money on. Not to
mention the scores of publishing houses out there. There are many
publishers out there and they all follow their own mission statements
and prospective vision. To seek a distributor such as Amazon to undergo
this project might help, but as we have seen with Amazon thus far is
that they do not like to share either devices or technology.
On the other hand, maybe instead of seeing this be the
model we should have in the next four to eight years, a highly unlikely
scenario, we see this as a model to aspire to eventually. This business
model would be a glimpse of the future. A possible future that we could
tweak to our specifications. It is helpful that Netflix has made some
mistakes with this model and so librarians and publishers can learn from
these.
Scenario 2: The Physical Equivalent Model
This model is based off the premise that physical and
digital books are equal beings just stuck in a differing format. If the
argument holds water then publishers should not have a check out limit
per say of their digital copies. This means that libraries and even
users should be able to purchase the E-Books out right and own them, not
have them merely licensed to them. One of the biggest annoyances of
digital collections to librarians is the fact that they do not have any
control over the digital books they acquire. Most books come with an
expiration date. A date that under normal wear and tear needs to be
replaced. The number of uses these paperback or hardcover books go
through before the need to be replaced differs with each situation, but
with a little math a number could be found and it would be quite a bit
larger than the twenty six HarperCollins seems to deem appropriate. The
number statisticians would find (and there is a way to figure that out)
would be the number of checkouts a digital copy of a book would be
bought for and then libraries would simply repurchase the book the
again.
This gives the library a small sense of ownership. John
Dupuis states that “If I have a digital file and I say I want to share
it, that's great. But to somehow to say I can only share it with a
certain number of people for a certain period of time is absurd.” (2011,
March 3). Digital copies are simply physical copies in a different
format. It is DRM and publishers who want to make everything separate.
To the user a digital copy is not all that different from a physical
copy. They buy the digital copy and get for how many uses they would get
out of the physical copy. This would keep the publishers from robbing
libraries blind by forcing them to constantly repurchase books they
already had bought. The good and bad thing about digital books is that
they are intangible so they cannot get ripped or torn or wear out like a
physical copy can. This has publishers crying and gnashing their teeth
at the thought of not being able to sell more copies later down the
road. Dupuis also noted that “Libraries potentially blow up the scarcity
of digital content by mutualizing community resources to share
purchased or licensed digital content.” (2011, March 3). Libraries offer
options that oppose publishers monetary aims and that can cause some
tension. While understandable, it can get a little silly when they
restrict E-Book circulation and not a physical book's circulation.
This is a chart of librarians' opinions across the board
for models preferred. Most of the offered models today have a 32%
preferred rating for Public Libraries and less for both school libraries
and academic libraries. This shows that librarians would like more
access and freedom when it comes to their collections. The best models
libraries like seem to be where they have unlimited access or have the
digital book treated like its physical counterpart.
(Singer, I. 2011, October 13).
Now it is true that many librarians do believe that
digital content is different than physical copies, but I would argue
that to the user they are not and to really ensure a good business
model, publishers and librarians need to think and see this from a
user's perspective as well. This was what caused Netflix so many
headaches in the past few months. They stopped looking at how their
customers were going to perceive their big transition (Bohyun Kim, 2011,
September 19). To avoid that, librarians and publishers must work
together to see that not only do they need to make good business
decisions for themselves, but also for the users. Patrons do not see a
difference between a physical copy of Pride and Prejudice and a digital copy. They are essentially the same thing.
The pricing would be different for Hardcovers and
Paperbacks since there is a difference in the physical copies in
quality. Hardcovers typically hold up longer than their paperbacks
counterparts. This could cause some confusion when placing orders, but
would be much easier to gauge by since E-Books essentially cost less to
produce.
There are some negatives to this scenario and one of
them is the individual purchasing. Not only do libraries have to
purchase an individual physical copy, but also a digital one. For a
library to purchase a book, they have one set of procedures to go
through, but to buy a digital copy they have a completely different
procedure to go through. Not only that, but keeping track of those
circulation end dates would be difficult to maintain. It is not like a
physical copy where the librarian can plainly see if he or she will have
to buy a new copy. A way to ease that would be to have strong
communications with publishers and distributors of the digital copies
and possibly some combination sales packages that publishers could offer
libraries.
Another negative would be the math. The math would need
variables and those variable vary from library to library. While some
communities are able to keep books in good condition for years, other
communities may be quicker at destroying materials. This would have some
arguing that since these libraries repurchase items more frequently
than say another library that they should have less checkout times than
others. Since the digital book is not going to undergo any kind of 'wear
and tear' then all libraries should use the digital book the same.
All in all, I really like this business model, because
it helps everyone. Publishers win, because they get to place end dates
for their digital materials and DRM would still apply outside of library
circulation. Libraries would also win, because they would be able to
have some small sense of ownership for they would be able to add a
digital copy of a book to their collection and have for as long as their
physical counterparts. Since digital copies are typically less
expensive to create, the library could save money by investing in some
digital copies of their most popular books. Best of all, the users win,
because we get the greatest collection our library can offer for an
affordable price tag. If libraries offer more E-Books with an easy to
use card catalog, then users will use the library more often and that is
great for everyone.
Are these business models perfect? Heavens, no, but they
do offer some options and shed some light on the growing concerns of
librarians and publishers. The key to both of these scenarios is to work
together. Stop being greedy and work to provide the best possible
services for the users. Librarians have complex models for purchasing
and acquiring materials, but most are willing to brave the dark depths
of the digital world for their patrons. Publishers do not want to get
left behind in the dust by E-Books, but have to remember that libraries
do provide a great service and if a patron really likes a book then
chances are they are going to buy it. Despite my love of free services
at the library, I have purchased several books because I loved it so
much. These models offer food for thought. Who knows, my posting here
might inspire someone else who then inspires someone else and from there
launches one of these models better than I ever imagined.
References
Singer, I. (2011, October 13). 2011 Ebook Survey Overview Public, School and Academic Libraries [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: http://www.thedigitalshift.com/events/e-book-summit/
Star Bright by Catherine Anderson
