Quote:
Originally Posted by MGlitch
In comparing their release to the libraries statements it’s rather clear the libraries were depending on pathos based arguments while the publishers presented logos based ones. As the libraries have already tried to deceive me in this situation I’m inclined to overlook their claims in favor of those of Macmillan.
|
On both sides it is about money. The publisher wants to sell more and allow less borrowing during the first 8 weeks. They want to make more money, makes sense. The library has a limited budget. When they spend money, they need to make it count. They are not maximizing profit, but have to maximize benefits with a fixed amount of spending money. Also makes sense from a pure business point of view. The library could just play along and do the 1 copy for 8 weeks, then buy more. But that would be against their duty to maximize benefits as they would disadvantage the patrons that cannot jump out of line and buy the book. So for 8 weeks the only ones getting access to the book are the 4ish lucky ones first in line, and the impatient ones capable and willing to buy instead after seeing the huge wait list. These are the facts we have to play with. It really doesn't matter how the library does their cost and benefit calculation. The 8 weeks may or may not matter in the calculation, but we don't have their numbers and formulas either. So just assume the 8 weeks can make a difference. The sensible solution would be to get NO copy for 8 weeks, then buy according to demand. Everybody will be happy, nobody is disadvantaged. Maximum benefits for the budget. Except they have to take access away from those first in line. Is their benefit worth more than the disadvantage of the ones waiting? The library is between a rock and a hard place.