Online petition over library ebook embargo

[JBaby]

Originally Posted by meeera

To me this is more like releasing the DVDs immediately, but withholding the captioned and audio-described DVDs.



I feel as though the "it's only eight weeks, get over it" is a bit of a furphy. I suspect this is one of the first sallies in an attempted boiling-frogs scenario, and I think librarians see that also.

This is why I signed the petition. The 8 weeks in and off itself isn’t a problem. On the surface I think it’s quite good because of the perpetual license. However, I think this is just the beginning of a longer plan to undermine the library. I hope I’m wrong though.


Sent from my iPhone 11 Pro using Tapatalk

[MGlitch]

Tor didn’t collapse when they stopped allowing ebooks in the library. Obviously they, and Macmillan saw profit in the library otherwise they’d simply cut ties.

As mentioned statistically boycotts of companies tend to petter out on their own. Look at this thread or the fb page for Macmillan which had been flooded with replies to posts about boycotting but their newer posts remain free of those comments.

People naturally go with the path of least resistance. They want books and they like certain authors. They’ll stop boycotting eventually.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

People naturally go with the path of least resistance. They want books and they like certain authors. They’ll stop boycotting eventually.

That will work just fine for all those loyal people you are mentioning, especially those that cannot wait. Everybody will eventually cave in. One way or another they will adapt. Everybody will. Some may simply cough up the dough and buy the book already. Some will wait, not idly, but reading something else. Others will look elsewhere. People don't want certain authors, they want books that they like. Likes can change. Even a certain author has to keep writing books you like, or he won't stay a favourite forever.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

That will work just fine for all those loyal people you are mentioning, especially those that cannot wait. Everybody will eventually cave in. One way or another they will adapt. Everybody will. Some may simply cough up the dough and buy the book already. Some will wait, not idly, but reading something else. Others will look elsewhere. People don't want certain authors, they want books that they like. Likes can change. Even a certain author has to keep writing books you like, or he won't stay a favourite forever.

Yes but whether an author writes something you like has fairly little to do with the publisher.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Yes but whether an author writes something you like has fairly little to do with the publisher.

Exactly. So it doesn't matter if a publisher goes under or not. That Macmillan is in a position of not having enough direct buyers compared to library patrons shows that they need to make buying from them more attractive. They need to convert current ebook buyers from buying books from the competition into buying ebooks from Macmillan.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Exactly. So it doesn't matter if a publisher goes under or not. That Macmillan is in a position of not having enough direct buyers compared to library patrons shows that they need to make buying from them more attractive. They need to convert current ebook buyers from buying books from the competition into buying ebooks from Macmillan.

I’d imagine it’s more that they can have more buyers rather than not having enough, the difference is maybe semantics but it’s still an important distinction.

It’s not like Macmillan is hard up for money. And their pricing is the same as the competition when comparing apples to apples.

I’d imagine we’ll start seeing other large publishers take the same route.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I’d imagine it’s more that they can have more buyers rather than not having enough, the difference is maybe semantics but it’s still an important distinction.

It’s not like Macmillan is hard up for money. And their pricing is the same as the competition when comparing apples to apples.

I’d imagine we’ll start seeing other large publishers take the same route.

Good luck to the publishers if they all follow suit.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Good luck to the publishers if they all follow suit.

I suspect you grossly over estimate the buying power of the small group of people who have their panties in a wad about this.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect you grossly over estimate the buying power of the small group of people who have their panties in a wad about this.

Are you talking about the small group of people that use the library to get their books for free just to save some money? It is John Sargent who believes they have such incredible buying power to increase revenue. Nobody believes the letter he wrote unless you were already in Macmillan's corner.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect you grossly over estimate the buying power of the small group of people who have their panties in a wad about this.

Also known as "professional librarians", and that's a pretty sexist metaphor.

I don't think this link by Overdrive's founder has been posted yet, has it?


Macmillan publishes a work of fiction

"Let’s start with the faulty key premise. In the letter, Macmillan claims that when they test-windowed a selection of Tor ebooks for library lending, it resulted in an increase in retail ebook sales. This conclusion fails to provide any reference or data of scope and scale. With the exception of a few Tor best-selling authors, the vast majority of Tor ebooks and their authors have few to zero units of their ebooks available in US public library catalogs. Without Macmillan sharing information on the starting point for the Tor pilot, any change (increase or decrease) is meaningless. For example, going from two to four ebook units in retail sales is a 100% increase. For the Tor ebook catalog, fewer than 100 units of recent titles were sold to libraries nationwide. Added to the reality of the few available units, the library lending model is self-limiting. How a few dozen copies of an ebook that only one user can borrow at a time or wait weeks to borrow impacts retail sales is a mystery. When Mr. Sargent was asked for data to support this conclusion by the Wall Street Journal in its July 25, 2019 article, Mr. Sargent “declined to be more specific.” The reason is clear, the Tor experiment was unremarkable.

In 2015, a similar test was conducted with unremarkable results. This test used best-selling titles from several UK publishing houses in a study, jointly commissioned by the Society of Chief Librarians and The Publishers Association, funded via the British Library Trust and Arts Council England. The results were predictable. The study concluded that withholding new ebook titles for library users to borrow had no material impact on retail sales. " [...]

For all the Macmillan ebooks that libraries acquired for lending, 79% expired and were removed from library catalogs because the two-year term limit occurred first – not because they were checked out 52 times. The data of actual lending of Macmillan ebook titles by public libraries supports an underutilization of the inventory. The average number of times a library loaned a Macmillan ebook during the 2-year term for each title was 11.5 times (far from 52 checkouts). Using this data, the average cost to the library to lend the title was $6.07 for every time a title is borrowed, 5 times the figure shared in the WSJ story.

Overdrive: posting facts and figures. MacMillan: claiming that they have some, but not sharing them, and misrepresenting the ones they do.

[issybird]

That's interesting. It's a concrete elaboration of what could have been inferred by what's available at OverDrive I've always bemoaned that libraries focus on titles with a lot of churn: best sellers and genre fiction, and don't serve the readers with specialized interests nearly so well. I suspect now we'll see even more of the same.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by meeera

Also known as "professional librarians", and that's a pretty sexist metaphor.

I don't think this link by Overdrive's founder has been posted yet, has it?


Macmillan publishes a work of fiction



Overdrive: posting facts and figures. MacMillan: claiming that they have some, but not sharing them, and misrepresenting the ones they do.

You’ll pardon me if I don’t trust Overdrive implicitly as they’ve got a vested interest in libraries continuing to get ebooks.

It’s also always concerning when companies complain about the lack of transparency from another company but hide behind averages without giving all the figures that go into those averages.

Overdrive also makes a rather big leap with the conclusion that Macmillan not going into detail implies the test was unremarkable. Macmillan knew they’d get blowback for this move it doesn’t follow that they’d do it for no reason.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by meeera

Overdrive: posting facts and figures. MacMillan: claiming that they have some, but not sharing them, and misrepresenting the ones they do.

Overdrive is arguing out of both sides of their mouth. If MacMillan books are so "not in demand" that they age out before the reach 52 checkouts....then who cares if there is an 8 week time window?

Overdrive cast aspersion on Macmillan's claims but not because of any reasons...just...complaints that Macmillan didn't publish their data.

What Overdrive spent zero time addressing is whether or not they are sensitive to and in agreement with a publisher's desire to increase sales.

What Overdrive isn't interested in....is whether or not their service to libraries has made borrowing ebooks so easy that it works as a depressant to sales.

What I think we should all trust is that Macmillan is working for it's own best interest...or trying to. There is revenue for selling ebooks to direct customers. There is revenue for selling ebooks to libraries. The publisher is trying to figure out how to make the money selling to libraries without cannibalizing too much the money selling books to customers.

We have testimony aplenty here of folks joining libraries in other cities, even countries, so that they can check out ebooks. We also have testimony of folks who discover books and authors from libraries who go on to buy those books or others from the authors.

Macmillan isn't going to share their proprietary data. Why give your competitors business insights that you paid to acquire?

[leebase]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Are you talking about the small group of people that use the library to get their books for free just to save some money? It is John Sargent who believes they have such incredible buying power to increase revenue. Nobody believes the letter he wrote unless you were already in Macmillan's corner.

People who read for free are not a publisher's market. Those dedicated to reading for free use libraries...but they are not customers of publishers.

At issue are those who WOULD buy books but are opting for "reading for free" because...who wouldn't? When it's just as easy to check out a book from the library via an app....or buy an ebook via an app....why buy the book?

I think the publishers have long been fine with "at least getting some money from sales to libraries" along with the marketing effects of getting folks hooked on reading who will later become customers.

But technology has changed the equation. It was the same thing with the Baen Free Library. There was a time when reading ebooks was a niche activity and even those who would read ebooks often preferred the real thing. As such, the Baen Free Library was stocked with LOTS of books.

Over time, ebooks have become THE desired format such that the Baen Free Library was giving away the product that they were really hoping to sell. The BFL still exists, but it's not stocked in the manner of days gone by.

There was this notion, and there was a good deal of truth in it, that library books begat future sales. Even though it's always been, on the face of it, also a challenge to sales.

Where is the line? Macmillan (and others will follow) are examining this issue to optimize sales. It's "the value of the sale to the library plus the marketing effect for future sales" vs "loss sales due checkouts from the library replacing purchase of ebook".

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Good luck to the publishers if they all follow suit.

One publisher isn't following suit and that is BAEN.
A direct competitor to Tor, which is the whole cause of the catfight, apparently.

https://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2019/11/jB08x.html

Signature quote:

Anecdotally (apparently according to Sargent himself!), eight percent of science fiction and fantasy fans who couldn't get an e-book promptly from the library would instead go out and buy it. So it really is based on fantasy and science fiction!

So, Tor's business is hurting enough that a (mythical?) eight percent of their sales is worth going to war with (by their own admission) one of their biggest customers? Really?

Wow.

And they do this just as BAEN finalized a years-long struggle to get their books into libraries? So libraries boycotting MacMillan can divert the money to BAEN?

And, since the beef is over SF&F, has anybody told Sargent that two thirds of SF&F ebook sales are going to Indies? Something no amount of library catfights is going to change. (Except, maybe, increase?)

And this isn't even Tor's fault: back in 2006, Tor actually put their ebooks on Webscriptions, alongside BAEN. Before Kindle. And their overlords from Germany made them pull them out within days. It took another six years for Tor to get permission to "experimentally" try doing DRM free.

If TOR's sales have dropped that much (which I don't doubt on price alone) that they need an 8% boost of their sales enough to start this fight they must be pretty close to the edge.

For that matter, SF&F is supposed to be a niche: does TOR matter that much to MacMillan's bottom line?

Edit: To be clear, if the made-up number were 8% of all sales it might be worth documenting but 8% of SF sales isn't worrh all this drama. It's a niche! And very fannish. Projecting that anecdotal number onto other markets ignores real world customer behavior.

The longer this goes on, the sillier it looks.
All this for peanuts...
Sheesh...