The cycle of life: can we create a harmonious relationship between the libraries and publishing industry of the future?
The cycle of life: can we create a harmonious relationship between the libraries and publishing industry of the future?
Viv Mah
Originally published in Bound Vol. 1
Despite the positive appraisal, brick-and-mortar libraries are struggling to keep up with the pace set by modern technology
A growing divide exists at the heart of local libraries, triggered by the increased demands from communities. Contrary to popular belief, communities are still engaging with and intimately connected to their local libraries. In a study conducted by the Pew Research Center (PRC), 65% of responders under 30 reported that they had a library card. 60% of these people were also likely to visit the library to ‘study, sit, read, and hang out’, in comparison to the 45% of responders over 30 who would do the same. Of the responders, 22% said that their overall library use had increased over the past 5 years, while 47% said their library usage had remained the same as opposed to sliding backwards.1 The sentiment towards libraries in the twenty-first century remains largely positive, 90% of those surveyed saying that the closure of their local library would have an impact upon the community, and 94% convinced that it improved their quality of life.2
But despite the positive appraisal, brick-and-mortar libraries are struggling to keep up with the pace set by modern technology. In the same survey respondents disclosed their growing expectations of library services, which was heavily weighted towards digital options. For example, strong interest was expressed in ‘pre-loaded e-readers or digital media labs', as well as apps that would help patrons ‘locate library materials within the library’ and ‘access library services on their phone’.3 Significant emphasis was also placed upon the provision of ebooks in libraries, with a 9% increase in those who e-read over 1 year.4
The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) reports similar numbers and gives further insight. In 2014, nearly all (97%) public libraries lent ebooks in response to their communities’ appetite. However, only a quarter of these libraries were able to lend ebooks direct from their catalogue, while 76% cited budget constraints and 39% claimed licensing restrictions as reasons for their delay in catching up.60% of libraries said that they were forced to juggle several ebook platforms (e.g. Overdrive) in order to obtain any content. Between 50–66% of all surveyed Australian libraries were dissatisfied with the choice of work they were able to offer.5
The discrepancy in what libraries are able to offer versus what their communities now expect is most obvious in the ebook department and presents a major challenge to the publishing industry. Namely, if libraries are unable to easily obtain ebooks for their catalogue, they can no longer provide income to publishers who may in turn increase their prices to cover lost revenue. This results in an infinite feedback loop of lost profit, reputation and potential downscaling on both ends, which could in turn severely impact the sustainability of both industries.
While part of this problem can be attributed to the deficiencies in government funding of libraries, another large parcel of blame must be assigned to the increasingly competitive pricing models of ebooks, both at a small and large-scale level.
In a Twitter essay earlier this year, librarian Jennifer Anne best summarized what the continued erosion of this service relationship between libraries and publishers could mean. 'I’m scared,' she wrote, 'that publishing is killing libraries, and that will, in turn, kill publishing. Library budgets are shrinking or not growing at the rate of costs … (while) at the same time, material costs are skyrocketing because people want and use ebooks. If we don’t have them, we lose our users. We become as obsolete as out of touch op-ed writers imagine us to be. It’s this vicious cycle – publishing charges prices we can’t afford, users get turned off, our budgets shrink more due to lack of support, we can afford even less, our budget [to purchase these books] shrinks again, rinse and repeat'.6 Likes and retweets well into the thousands on Twitter indicate that this isn’t an isolated issue, but rather a systemic one felt across the world.
Needless to say, the potential outcomes for libraries of the future—and by extension the publishing industry—are dire. Either the library must evolve to meet its users’ needs (including ebook demand) and thrive or fail to adapt its service model and be forced into obsolescence. In both situations the balance of power lies in the hands of the book publishers, who must decide how and whether they sustain this symbiotic relationship. Do they reconsider their current pricing strategies in order to ensure their products can be fed into libraries, potentially at cost to their own author and operational budgets? Or do they proceed in order to ensure they continue to make a profit, theoretically sustaining the industry on their own, and hope that government funding for libraries will eventually catch up?
Pricing libraries—and their readers—out of the market
It can be assumed that a large part of publishers’ reluctance to price ebooks fairly for libraries centers around their own profits
There is no question that publishers view ebooks as a money making scheme, and have given themselves permission to drastically change the pricing game. The most egregious example of publishers’ approach to ebook pricing is illustrated by Random House’s 300% ebook price increase for libraries. But in general, publishers of all scales now charge libraries up to an average of $78.00 for the digital version of a book.7
The case of JK Rowling/Robert Galbraith’s The Cuckoo’s Calling clearly illustrates this significant uptick in costs. Where libraries would pay $14.40—close to the consumer price of $15.49—for the physical edition of the book, library ebook distributor Overdrive would charge $78 for a digital version of the same text. That’s in comparison to the consumer cost for the same thing: $6.50 on Amazon.8
Further exacerbating the matter, libraries aren’t allowed to ‘own’ ebooks as they do physical books; rather, they ‘lease’ the books under tight contracts and must legally renew their copies or purchase new ones on a regular basis. For example, HarperCollins requires libraries to re-lease once every 26 borrows. For Macmilllan, every 52. Simon & Schuster require libraries to re-lease books once every 12 months.9 Hachette is an outlier in that it requires no re-leasing fees; that said, its $85-90 one-off ebook price tag means purchasing more than one Hachette book will absorb a large amount of budget.
This system is further complicated by publishers limiting libraries’ access to the content library audiences desire, or otherwise cutting libraries out of the equation altogether. Macmillan, for example, does not make all their frontlist available to libraries for fear it will cannibalize their own consumer ebook sales. Tor Publishing have likewise scaled back library access to their frontlist after its own sales decreased, and have since embargoed most of their titles so ‘libraries can’t buy ecopies until 4 months after publication’ with no option to preorder’.10 Meanwhile Anne cites Scribd and Amazon as examples of publishers who ‘will not sell ebooks to libraries’ at all, and notes that others (e.g. Penguin and Macmillan) will only sell their titles to select high-profile libraries.
This attitude change is significant, when you consider that libraries used to be one of the first port-of-calls for publishers to sell their wares. For context: in the 1950s you could count on libraries to reliably purchase 14,000 titles annually, in comparison to the meagre 1.3% of the market they constitute today.11
It can be assumed that a large part of publishers’ reluctance to price ebooks fairly for libraries centers around their own profits. This includes new digital concerns on top of standard production and marketing costs, such as protecting the property against piracy and copyright infringement, or ensuring the book is coded for Kindle, Nook, iBook and other platforms.12 Moreover, these increased ebook costs could also recoup the lost income from when libraries were required to purchase new books to replace existing worn-down physical copies. Reiterating Tor and Macmillan’s stance, other publishers stridently believe that e-lending will inevitably cut into a publisher’s profit margins and believe that ‘going digital’ means readers can and should bypass the middleman.13 Interestingly, this is a view supported by authors such as David O Stewart, who believes that libraries’ lending systems are fundamentally ‘socialist’ in nature and harmful to writers and their profits.14
A further contributing element could be Amazon’s prominence as a book sales channel. ‘By promoting both self-published and Amazon-signed authors on the Kindle platform … Amazon can now manipulate the products of hundreds of thousands of authors (and their publishers) through price reduction,’ Publishers Weekly reports.15 Given that publishers’ ebook sales have declined every year since 2015, these self-serving financial interests hold water.16 But as Anne puts it, these pricing models are ‘unsustainable for all but the richest libraries'. Her concern is understandable: in 2016 library budgets in the United Kingdom fell by an astonishing £2.5 million, as 121 libraries were closed altogether.17 In Australia, the NSW State Government cut $5 million from public libraries, while the ALIA also reported a ‘disappointing’ loss of $5 million from the National Public Library in the 2019–20 Budget.18 Although global data remains relatively limited these cuts aren’t an isolated trend, especially not in the western world. American libraries are especially threatened by the current President's plan to defund the Institute of Museum and Library Services, thereby ‘effectively ending all federal funding of public libraries’.19
Revolutionising the libraries of the future
In response to what’s widely considered an unfair pricing system, some librarians are revolting against the system altogether. In America, the Director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, Jamie LaRue, spearheaded a campaign to transform libraries from repositories of content to ‘local incubators fostering homegrown talent’. Inspired by the success of self-published authors and growing demand for ebooks in his own libraries, LaRue built a digital warehouse and contracting system that would allow the seven libraries he oversaw to purchase directly from smaller publishers and authors. Eventually known as the Douglas Counties Library (DCL) model, this program effectively cut out the group of publishers known as the ‘Big 6’ (Penguin, Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, Macmillan and others) as well as OverDrive, resulting in lower prices for the libraries.20
Libraries in the DCL model were then outfitted with Adobe software (at a cost of $10,000) that allow them to transfer ebook files from provider (publisher/author) to library to reader. (No detail is provided on what ereader platform the DCL models uses—for example, whether it’s a bespoke program on an iPad—although it can be safely assumed Kobos and Kindles aren’t part of the equation). The DCL model contracts were also specifically worded the eliminate the industry standard of re-lease fees, thus preventing libraries paying ongoing costs.21 Since 2012, libraries under the DCL program have purchased from 900 smaller publishers and ‘hundreds of individual authors’. In 2013, books from the DCL program made up 60% of LaRue’s libraries’ catalogues. The remaining 40% came from major publishers, purchased at standard higher prices. Regardless, the DCL program reports a total saving of $200,000 and has since been adopted by 300 other libraries in America.22
If nothing else, this implementation of the DCL program and the public’s response to the provision of lesser-known content represents a true opportunity for libraries to merge into publishing. As LaRue himself elucidates, libraries can draw upon their reputation as trusted institution and cultural tastemaker to trusted supplier of cultural artefacts.23 A shift to promoting and creating new books for their local community feels like a natural step, too: in 2016, 60% of library audiences reported buying from an author they first discovered in a library.24 Criticism has also been levelled at the current system for pricing small and independent publishers out of libraries, thereby resulting in a dearth of new and diverse voices. By their very nature, both the DCL system and LaRue’s aspiration of libraries-as-publishers could address this criticism and provide the wealth of content an increasingly savvy audience is hungry for.
Elsewhere, the library has begun to re-evaluate its purpose altogether. 'In a post-digital age, where (the library)’s walls have been blasted open, its uniqueness (in information provision) gone … libraries must rediscover their specialness', wrote Guardian contributor Simon Jenkins, '(which) must lie in exploiting the strength of … its readers, in their desire to congregate, share with each other, hear writers and experience books in the context of their community. They embody the cultural identity of a place'.25 A survey by the University of Technology Sydney goes one step further, suggesting that libraries should embrace their identity as ‘community hub’ in all its forms, such as providing digital literacy programs and related innovative technologies, tools and assistance for those using the library to job hunt, and engaging spaces to stimulate creative and entrepreneurial or support community groups.26
In response—and in confirmation of these views—libraries ranging from the San Diego Public Central Library (SDPCL) to the Brooklyn Public Library to Adelaide’s Barr Smith Library have begun to extend their facilities and services beyond simply providing books. For example, the Brooklyn Public Library runs ‘transitional services’ such as allowing incarcerated parents to read books with their children, while the Barr Smith Library includes a technology hub complete with 3D printers, graphic design facilities and recording studio.27
The Toronto Public Library (TPL), however, represents the greatest shift away from its roots. Taking its duties as ‘a huge part of Toronto’s delivery system’ seriously, the library’s 100 branches now offer classes in computer coding and yoga; offer author talks and advice on family matters; borrow music instruments or access lamps that combat seasonal affective disorders, all within beautifully designed buildings. Staff at the TPL best summarise the country’s overall approach, explaining that as valuable ‘bastions of democracy’ in the twenty-first century, it falls upon libraries to ‘both acquire and create knowledge’ depending upon what the community needs. In the case of the TPL, this ‘targeting’ extends even to loaning out radon-testing kits in Nova Scotia.28
It should be noted that while the TPL’s evolution is both positive and has been positively received, similar library redevelopments are estimated to cost Canada around $168 million. The expenditure required to transform a library into a vital, relevant hub is likewise demonstrated in the State Library of Victoria’s Vision 2020 redevelopment, which proposes similar architectural and program-based innovations and could cost the state $88.1 million.29 Needless to say, not every library will be able to reinvent themselves on such a scale.
While demonstrated differently, this sentiment of the TPL’s echoes that of LaRue’s and the DCL program: that libraries can no longer remain static guardians of information. If the survival of libraries depends upon metrics such as audience attendance and usage, libraries must reinvent their identity to both patrons and guardians as innovative and perceptive creators of information and resources.
Taking the high road out
In truth, it may simply be that the glory days of publishers and libraries working together seamlessly are over. Moreover, in addition to the challenge of navigating onerous ebook contracts, other innovations threaten the sustainability of libraries such as the digitisation of archival content, ebook piracy, and the proliferation of other content resources such as Wikipedia.
Although it’s sad to see a hallmark of the literary world change, this potential split is one both industries seem to recognise as inevitable. Of the DCL program—perhaps the strongest innovation to directly challenge the ebook publishing and pricing system—publishers are said to be ‘watching with great interest’.
But emulating the DCL program as a ‘solution’ to the problem of sustaining libraries is fundamentally flawed as well, in that in turn it removes industry publishers from the equation. On the whole, it seems neither party are willing to compromise on their personal interests or needs. A potential middle ground would be to develop a globally available and sustainable interlibrary elending system—a system 80% of surveyed Australian librarians are in favour of.30 In such a system library staff would be able to request ebooks from other member libraries through a common catalogue for their patrons, with ebook formats potentially standardised. This would allow libraries to assign and manage their book-buying budgets more effectively and would also benefit publishers in ensuring circulation of their authors’ content. However, there remains questions of whether ebook contracts would again change to benefit publishers in this model, let alone the number of publishers that would sign up to such a ‘socialist’ scheme.
So given the potential forthcoming divide, what does the future look like for publishers and libraries? First and foremost, publishers will need to consider where they spread awareness of their wares. With plenty of budget now assigned to marketing and a proliferation of review channels (e.g. on social media) available, it’s almost certain that the industry will begin to rely more heavily on influencers to promote their products. If publishers are now focused on solely targeting individual consumers as industry data suggests, greater consideration must also be paid to how ebooks are formatted (e.g. their accessibility across all platforms) as well as how ebooks can be made into ‘premium’ experiences worth spending higher amounts of cash upon. Meanwhile, the necessary evolution of libraries away from their co-dependency with publishers has been clearly charted. It yet remains to be seen how their potential as publishers might disrupt the industry and whether or not this prompts publishers to rethink their ebook pricing system.
Notes
1 Purcell, K, Rainie, L & Zickuhr, K 2013, ‘Younger Americans’ library habits and expectations’, America: Pew Research Center.
2 ibid.
3 ibid.
4 ibid.
5 ALIA 2014, ‘Comparison of ebooks and elending in Australian public libraries 2013 vs 2014’, Australian Library and Information Association.
6 Anne, J (kidsilkhaze) 2018, ‘I’m worried that publishing is killing libraries’, Twitter.
7 Brodsky, A 2013, ‘The abomination of ebooks: they price people out of reading’, Wired.
8 ibid.
9 Kozlowski, M 2018, ‘Here is a breakdown of how much libraries pay for ebooks from publishers’, Good Ereader.
10 ibid; Anne, J 2018.
11 Vinjamuri, D 2015, ‘The case for libraries’, Publisher's Weekly.
12 Scott, D 2013, ‘Can libraries survive the e-book revolution?’, Governing.com
13 ibid.
14 Brodsky, A 2013.
15 Vinjamuri, D 2015.
16 Kozlowski, M 2018.
17 Kean, D 2016, ‘UK library budgets fall by 25m in a year’, The Guardian.
18 ALIA 2019, ‘News’, Australian Library and Information Association.
19 Dumond, S 2019, ‘Trump’s 2020 proposal threatens to defund libraries’, BookRiot.
20 Scott, D 2013.
21 ibid.
22 ibid.
23 ibid.
24 Vinjamuri, D 2015.
25 Jenkins, S 2016, ‘Libraries are dying—but it’s not about the books’, The Guardian.
26 Civica & UTS 2016, ‘The intrinsic value of libraries as public spaces’, UTS.
27 Martin, C 2015, ‘Who says libraries are dying? They are evolving into spaces for innovation’, The Conversation.
28 Bethune, B 2018, ‘How public libraries are reinventing themselves for the 21st century’, Maclean's.
29 SLV 2020, ‘Vision’, SLV.
30 ALIA 2014, ‘The need for interlibrary lending in an ebook environment’, Australian Library and Information Association.