Library E-Book Lending Poses Rising Problem for Publishing Industry

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim

My personal opinion is that serious readers don't read on tablets and smartphones no matter how much they protest to the contrary ostensibly that they are not dilletantes. For instance, Bill Gates is a serious reader who reads 50 books a year and to people like us the only serious argument is real physical paperbooks vs eReaders and the former devices don't even play a factor in the consideration. I chose the eReader route and Bill Gates chose real physical paper books route.

Tablets are ok for reading highly technical documents from specialized periodicals for short bursts. These periodicals are generally not as long as books in page numbers.

I actually have a mix of real physical books and ebooks on my eReader but I gave most of my physical books away, for free, to a used bookstore.

I find your assertion that I, someone who reads a fair amount of serious material on my tablet including a such open access pdfs such as Women in the Ancient Near East, do not exist to be rather offensive. I am fortunate not to suffer eyestrain when reading on a sufficiently dimmed tablet and find the utility of a tablet for reading pdfs (many academic works are hard to find in other affordable formats) and the value of platforms such as Noet for certain types of study valuable. As I can't justify the expense of owning an ereader when I need my tablet almost all my reading is done on my tablet.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Depends on who you want to believe.

Well, both are players and so it's not like you'd expect either one to be unbiased.

However, I find it detracts from OverDrive's credibility to use unsound rhetorical tactics. If someone doesn't give all the answers behind the numbers...that does NOT mean they are lying. Asserting so takes away credibility.

There is no doubt at all that Overdrive's product allows the sale of one library book to be easily acquired and read by multiple people. To not at least ACKNOWLEDGE the publisher's concerns...is another thing that takes away from their credibility.

At the end (or maybe it was somewhere else I read it) - there was talk of how libraries increase sales of books. That should be the lede, the middle and the conclusion. Rather than trying to persuade McMillan of the positives that should be coming from their partnership....Overdrive is putting out a public attack aimed at turning public opinion against McMillan.

They should both be looking to find the sweet spot, the optimum position where selling to libraries brings the MOST advantage to the publisher. It's somewhere between not selling to the libraries at all, and allowing endless reads of a single ebook to any number of people simultaneously.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Depends on who you want to believe.

I suspect that the word belief, i.e. an article of faith rather than reason, is more accurate than you intended. On one side you have a business who is trying to maximize their profit and asserts that the other side must be lying because, well, apparently because windowing does make a difference and hurts their business model.

On the other side, you have a business who is trying to maximize their profit and says they did the experiment and their internal numbers tells them that windowing means more people will buy books rather than use the library and Overdrive.

Given that the book industry's main business model is built on the same concept as windowing, i.e. a percentage of people are willing to pay more money to get the book now than wait several months and get it cheaper from the discount tables or a year and get it for paperback prices, I tend to suspect that windowing in this situation works. It didn't appear that the earlier attempt at windowing, i.e. hold ebooks back in an effort to boost hard back sales, was quite as successful. At least, companies stopped doing it.

As the saying goes, watch what people do, not what they say.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

...

At the end (or maybe it was somewhere else I read it) - there was talk of how libraries increase sales of books. That should be the lede, the middle and the conclusion. Rather than trying to persuade McMillan of the positives that should be coming from their partnership....Overdrive is putting out a public attack aimed at turning public opinion against McMillan.

They should both be looking to find the sweet spot, the optimum position where selling to libraries brings the MOST advantage to the publisher. It's somewhere between not selling to the libraries at all, and allowing endless reads of a single ebook to any number of people simultaneously.

I question if library eBooks really does increase sales of books. My understanding of the argument is that people find authors in libraries and then later buy them. I suspect that this is most true for kids, who use libraries when they are young and then turn into book buyers when they have money (or people with money gift them with books). According to what I read, kids don't really seem to go big time into eBooks, they prefer physical books. If that is true, then eBooks at libraries is more for adults who are unlikely to start buying a lot of books when they have free books available.

It might be interesting to see what the demographics of library eBook borrowers really is.

[Raphi'Elohim]

I just signed into my library account and I can see how for people who read mostly read mainstream fiction it would be nice but the non-fiction section is comparatively smaller and science-fiction (for those who like it) is really small. Also, the non-fiction is mostly autobiographies. I like to read science, math, philosophy and computer technology related things

So the library has like 676 pages of fiction and only 6 pages of science for instance. That is why this issue does not bother me that much as I don't really use the resource much but I can understand or people of different reading tastes how this can be a bee in their bonnets or hats.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by leebase

Well, both are players and so it's not like you'd expect either one to be unbiased.

.

Of course not.
Catfights between between money grubbing multinationals may be entertaining but neither side is to be believed. It's mostly a matter who is clumsier.

Both sides' stories are best taken with a pound of salt.

In this case all that really matters is the libraries will gripe but cave. Their culture is too engrained for them to actually take a stand.

[leebase]

And, of course, of libraries were to band together to take collective action....wouldn’t that be the same as The Big5 coordinating with Apple against Amazon?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by leebase

And, of course, of libraries were to band together to take collective action....wouldn’t that be the same as The Big5 coordinating with Apple against Amazon?

Interesting question.

To re-word, is it legal for local governments to band together in a buyer cartel?

I'm not a lawyer, but -- I think it would be in my country (U.S.).

However, if I was on the board of the library, I wouldn't be interested. Instead I would want to know the long-term total costs of each eBook borrow vs. each pBook borrow. I'd also want to know some other numbers, like how much it comparatively costs to have eBooks and pBooks, in the collection, that got great reviews and/or won awards, but don't circulate much. I'd also want to know some large print comparisons. Then based on that, if there was really a dramatic cost advantage for pBooks, I'd vote to push the overall collections that way pretty dramatically.

As I've said before, my back-of-the-envelope cost comparison -- refusing to treat our existing physical branches as permanent sunk costs -- is that eBooks are cheaper. I don't think the recent changes would reverse this. If so, I'd push in that direction, but slowly in light of community center sorts of functions for our branches. Eventually it might mean putting some branches in smaller rented spaces focusing on services to children.

What I wouldn't have much patience for is treating supplier pricing as a moral issue.

[leebase]

I wonder what’s in it for a library to be in the ebook lending business anyway. I can’t imagine the poor are all that served by the over drive app. I would think that services that don’t bring people into the library, help the library.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It didn't appear that the earlier attempt at windowing, i.e. hold ebooks back in an effort to boost hard back sales, was quite as successful. At least, companies stopped doing it.

As the saying goes, watch what people do, not what they say.

You make your case there (bold mine). Now please do explain how the new windowing to allow ONE perpetual ebook per library is not exactly the same as banning ebooks from libraries at release. The only nice thing is allowing a reduced price perpetual ebook that never expires with time or number of loans. Libraries could go wide instead of deep, reducing demand of the publishers cash cows by advertising a very wide selection of older titles.

[haertig]

I imagine that book publishers have hated libraries since day one. Now they have decided to take bold steps to curtail, and I'll postulate eventually totally eliminate, them.

Will the strategy work? Will consumers abandon the libraries they have known all their life? Even if they never really used their library all that much? I predict "no", but we'll see what happens.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by leebase

I wonder what’s in it for a library to be in the ebook lending business anyway.

Their mission is literacy promotion. This is right in that lane.

Periodicals are also important for that mission. My public library (through what seems a state-wide resource) provides access to major regional and national newspapers*. I personally consider this an act of democracy promotion.

Originally Posted by leebase

I would think that services that don’t bring people into the library, help the library.

I'm confused by this sentence.

Most human organizations, in or out of government, will try to preserve their own funding and existence. But that's not a legitimate mission.

________________________________________
* Note to Pennsylvanians: This is in General OneFile under the Power Library. Using "advanced search" with publication date of today and publication title The New York Times, I get full text of 103 articles in alphabetical order. I also find 22 Washington Post articles dated today, and 48 from the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is a good example of how libraries are making resources public without overly harming the publisher business model. It doesn't cause me to cancel my Washington Post digital subscription, because that way is more convenient. But if I have to cancel due to finances, pay walls won't block me from reading what I consider the best journalism. Windowing sounds to me comparably reasonable for the eBook side.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by haertig

I imagine that book publishers have hated libraries since day one.

Even when libraries made up most of publishers' sales?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by haertig

I imagine that book publishers have hated libraries since day one.

I guarantee you that big publisher executives frequent New York Public Library locations, with and without their children and grandchildren. The only difference, with the middle managers, is that they may to go to the Brooklyn Public Library.

Simon & Schuster to Extend Relief Assistance to Libraries, Schools and Booksellers Damaged by Hurricane Irma

Penguin Random House Supports the NYPL by Tripling Donation Amounts

I can believe that publishers do careful market research for product pricing. But for charitable contributions, such as in the past two links, I think the most plausible explanation is that publishing people give to charities they like, and this means libraries.

I also believe that many of people at New York Public Library fund-raising events are from the publishing industry.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I'm confused by this sentence.

Most human organizations, in or out of government, will try to preserve their own funding and existence. But that's not a legitimate mission.

________________________________________
* Note to Pennsylvanians: This is in General OneFile under the Power Library. Using "advanced search" with publication date of today and publication title The New York Times, I get full text of 103 articles in alphabetical order. I also find 22 Washington Post articles dated today, and 48 from the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is a good example of how libraries are making resources public without overly harming the publisher business model. It doesn't cause me to cancel my Washington Post digital subscription, because that way is more convenient. But if I have to cancel due to finances, pay walls won't block me from reading what I consider the best journalism. Windowing sounds to me comparably reasonable for the eBook side.

I meant to question the value to a library of ebook lending which basically circumvents people going to the library. I think of ebooks as needing technology that “people who need the library to have access to reading material” are not likely to have.

It seems that Overdrive is more about letting middle class and above get books on the cheap....and NOT EVEN go to the library.

What’s the difference between OverDrive and Kindle Unlimited except who is paying for the subscription?