February 3, 2012
Random House makes history, says it will sell books to libraries with no restriction on number of loans
by Dennis Johnson
It’s one of those modern situations that no one in publishing ever imagined: Being at odds with librarians, the ultimate champions of literacy and literature. But that’s been the situation as publishers have tried to figure out how, exactly, to handle selling ebooks to libraries. I mean, the situation has always been perfectly straightforward: You sold a library a book and, when their patrons wore it out, you sold them another one. But no one foresaw books that wouldn’t wear out. How in the world do you price such a thing?
There have been, as we’ve noted before, some solutions that didn’t go over well. Take, for example, HarperCollins‘ announcement, back in March of last year, that it would only allow a library 26 circs — circulations — of its ebooks, then the library would have to pay for another copy.
That didn’t go over well.
As we reported last November, Penguin pulled its books from library distributor Overdrive because it distributed Penguin’s ebooks to Amazon’s Kindle Lending Library — which had no contract with Penguin allowing them to do so. But that meant that most libraries in the country couldn’t get ebooks of Penguin titles. As a School Library Journal report notes, Penguin’s move proved temporary, but it had a “chilling effect” on libraries doing business with the company.
Meanwhile, of the remaining Big Six publishers, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, and Macmillan, simply don’t sell ebooks to libraries.
In short, none of them have been able to figure out a deal that struck them as fair and equitable. That, and/or they’re all waiting to see what the other guy does first.
But yesterday, the biggest of the Big Six, Random House, threw caution to the wind and announced they’d struck a deal with libraries: It was going to raise the price of its ebooks to library wholesalers, but once a library had bought the book, that was it. They could loan it out as many times as they wanted and never have to pay for it again.
“Never has a price increase been such good news for libraries,” trumpeted a Publishers Weekly report. According to PW,
While price increases may not be easy to swallow in tough economic times, it is well within normal practice. “Libraries are used to paying a bit more for library versions, whether it’s with a library cover on a book, like in the old days, or an institutional journal subscription, where libraries pay more than the cost of a personal subscription,” Internet Archive and Open Library founder Brewster Kahle [said] …
Of course, what hasn’t been said is how much more Random is going to charge for those books. What would make up for the tremendous loss in long-term income for those books? I.e., what constitutes an equitable pay-out to publishers and their authors, in return for lots of people sharing one copy of a book … forever? None of the coverage has speculated on that.
And indeed, it seems almost unsolvable, a depressing conundrum dividing natural allies … short of an arbitrary decision. Perhaps it was simple relief, then, that greeted that arbitrary decision. At any rate, a Library Journal report notes Random House made the announcement “After an ‘upbeat and productive’ meeting with leaders of the American Library Association.”
Interestingly, the announcement was rather unusual in its emotionality: “Our commitment to libraries, as imperative to our momentum, if not to our existence as publishers, is greater than ever,” said Random House spokesman Stuart Applebaum. He added, “The leadership of Random House grew up in large part loving libraries and we believe libraries are indispensable in bringing readers and books buyers to our authors’ works. It’s an emotional as well as a practical commitment in our support and our enthusiasm for libraries.”
In any event, thus is history made. Now we wait and see how long it takes the remaining Big Five to follow suit.
Dennis Johnson is the founder of MobyLives, and the co-founder and co-publisher of Melville House.
DOJ calls Apple “ringmaster” in pretrial filings 
What will the “Big Library Read” reveal about the potential for ebook marketing in libraries? 
Goals and controversies on National Library Legislative Day 
Penguin changes ebook pricing in response to EU probe 
9 Comments
How is that history? Right of First Sale has allowed libraries to purchase a single copy of a book and circulate it in perpetuity for centuries. Having to pay more for the same rights to be extended simply because the content is digital is hardly a blessing…
And as I say in the post, the fact of an object makes that “perpetuity” a limited prospect — precisely unlike digital media. I also didn’t mention — because I apparently mistakenly thought it was obvious — that it also meant the purchase of multiple copies, which ebooks will largely obviate. In short, why do you think the big publishers have been so hesitant to do this? And the little ones, too, for that matter — it’s a very bold move by Random House, and even I, one of their client publishers, am not so sure it’s the right solution. But I join them nonetheless with our own books, and applaud them for moving the ball forward when everyone else was stalling, and for showing such strong commitment to libraries, particularly public libraries. — Dennis Johnson
The “perpetuity” of ebook lending is a chimera – first, because only a trivial part of a library’s budget is spent on replacement copies for print books, and second, because no one thinks that the ebook formats that are bought today are going to be readable or desirable in 10 years. Think LPs to cassettes to CDs to digital files: libraries are constantly having to repurchase holdings as formats evolve and improve.
And what makes you think that the purchase of multiple copies is going away? If RH actually followed the serial model and provided authorized users unlimited access to electronic copies, and at a price only slightly more than the cost of the print alternative (or less than print, if one purchases e-only), then we would have a radical and desirable model that takes full advantage of the nature of the electronic medium. But I am willing to bet that Random House will insist that it is only one copy per one user at a time, thus mimicing in digital form the print model and trying to make electronic files as restricted as the print alternative. Do you really expect anyone to applaud such a model?
All good and in some instances clarifying points, and I’m glad you brought them up. Just wish you, had done it without the hostility. And yes, I do still applaud Random House, for doing what none of the other publishers would do, for setting that precedent, for saying very clearly in their release that they realize this isn’t perfect yet and that they’re going to continue working with libraries and not operate by fiat as, say, HarperCollins did, nor with hostility like, um, you. And I applaud them for making a public statement, again in very clear and deliberate language, of the importance of libraries to our culture and of publishers therefore working with them. Sorry you didn’t get everything you want, but I didn’t either. Nonetheless I’m happy The model everyone wants — one ebook, one price — has been established. Finally. Now let’s tweak it till it’s right. And to make that happen and keep things going forward, it wouldn’t hurt to give credit where credit’s due … although I understand that may be a hard concept for an anonymous critic. — Dennis Johnson
I believe that iTunes struggled with similar dilemmas in balancing price versus use. I agree with wfiske concerning format changes in technology. As a librarian in a public school, I am looking for a reasonable solution that works now. We can address changes in the future as they come along. Flexibility is how we all currently work and will continue to do so. The stumbling blocks to access are hurting the bottom line for publishers every day that they delay addressing the issue. I would think that their authors/contributors would be anxious to weigh in on an answer as well. Another thing that matters to us in a school setting is that current fiction is hot, then it’s not. So, I don’t really care to “own” an e-book forever. My patrons and our ever-changing curriculum drive our collection so the sooner a reasonable solution is found, the better for all involved.
I think I’m going to buy a Random House book as a gesture of good will. They did the right thing. Hopefully other publishers will to.
Oops. “too.”
at least they’re talking with libraries, unlike Warner Home Entertainment who continues to restrict libraries access to new release Warner movies on dvd & blu ray.
Collection of materials with systematically arranged.