Most of the big publishers in this country won’t sell their e-books (or, in some cases, the e-book versions of their most recent titles) to libraries. This according to an article in the business section of last Sunday’s NYTimes. A senior vice president of the Hatchette Book Group explained its policy this way. Unlike print copies, which they do sell to libraries, e-books last forever and can be loaned “an infinite number of times with no friction.” “No friction” is corp-speak for the fact that borrowing an e-book doesn’t require the effort that borrowing a print book does. In other words, the patron doesn’t have to get off his or her duff, get in the car, etc.
Simon & Schuster keeps its e-books out of libraries for a similar reason. An executive vice president there said that they’ve never been concerned about losing sales of print books to libraries. The reason: Buying a print book is easier than dealing with a library because a purchased book doesn’t need to be returned. Also, the buyer now owns the physical object.
The good news is that over 1,000 small publishers are selling e-books to libraries. Also, according to the Times article, HarperCollins licenses use of its big sellers for a limited number of loans. After that the library can repurchase the e-book at a lower price. Its less popular titles aren’t subject to the limit.
A couple of things occurred to me when I read this. The first is that large publishers don’t have a clue as to why people buy books rather than borrow them. “Friction,” for me, is a non-issue when it comes to borrowing books. I like to go to the library because a) I can browse (the nearest bookstore is now a fifty-minute drive away), and b) I’ll probably run into friends. Given the packed state of my shelves, owning the physical book, except in the case of those written by friends, is rarely an incentive to buy. Often these days, I pass along the books I buy to friends or to our library’s used-book store.
So what do the 1,000 plus small publishers know that large publishers don’t? The obvious answer is that if you price e-books low enough, readers will indulge themselves and buy the titles even if they’re available at the library. For one thing, there’s often a waiting list for borrowing popular e-books. For another, the book will disappear from your e-reader when your borrowing time is up. So buy the e-book for $3.99 or $4.99 (the Kindle price of Murder New York Style: Fresh Slices, for example). Why not? You spend as much for a loaf of bread these days. But spend $14.99 to have Stephen King’s 11/22/63 on my Kindle? Not when I can put my name on the library’s wait list for the hardcover.
And then there’s the issue of moral imperative. Tacky to bring that up, I know, when we’re talking about big business, but I find it—well, “reprehensible” comes to mind—for publishers to refuse to sell e-books to libraries. Libraries are, after all, a cornerstone of a literate and democratic society.
Your thoughts on this?
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Neither a Borrower Nor a Lender Be?
share this post
Labels:
*Anita,
Libraries,
On eBooks,
On Publishing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Anita, you list all the practical reasons why book readers make decisions on what to buy and what to borrow. Publishers have got to come to terms with the changes in the industry,and figure out a way to make it work for them, or they will be left behind.
I guess I never thought about this. I suppose I better give it some thought before I decide what I think on the topic.
I thought I'd share a little heartwarming news for the New Year. While libraries are closing or downsizing, Carlisle, PA is expanding their main library. More at the Sentinel:
Expansion
Cindy
Terrie, I agree. I hope big publishing does figure out a way to make it work before it's too late.
Charles, take a look at the NYTimes piece and see what you think. The big issue for me is publishers saying no to libraries.
Cindy, thanks for stopping by and sharing the Sentinel story. Exactly the kind of cheering up we need at the close of this difficult year.
I have been worried about libraries. They have held magic for so many people for a long time. I go there to plug into wifi and have not checked out a book in years. However, I am glad others do check out books. I agree with the moral imperative of selling ebooks to libraries. It's like refusing to sell a print book in my mind. Whatever keeps libraries healthy for those who use them is great by me. www.dkchristi.com author of Ghost Orchid and more -
I would like to see more e-books sold to libraries. I think it will do well for the small indie publishers.
dk, I appreciate your stopping by and commenting. I agree that refusing to sell ebooks to libraries is exactly like refusing to sell print books. Big publishers fail to understand that when they sell to libraries, they're building a readership that will also buy books.
I'm with you, Jacqueline. Fortunately for us, small publishers, including L&L Dreamspell, understand the benefits of selling to libraries.
You've got that right. Altho I was disappointed in Harper Collins' limited time period, and a bunch of libraries refuse to buy their dBooks(hope they've changed their mind) I can understand their point of view. Would that the other big publishers would go that digital route rather than none at all. Maybe they're waiting for one another to jump on the wagon. What shortsightedness.
Lois, if the NYT has it right, HarperCollins isn't imposing that limit on their older titles. At least it's a step in the right direction.
Post a Comment