COSLA's Ebook Feasibility Report Suggests National Buying Pool
By Josh Hadro, with Norman Oder Jul 28, 2010A provocative new report released today by the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA) on the upheaval caused by ebooks asks, "Is it different this time?"
The answer, in "eBook Feasibility Study for Public Libraries," is a resounding yes, including a call for a national buying pool to buy ebooks--a tactic likely to face pushback from publishers and distributors.
Still, the report serves as a rallying cry. "We want to create our destiny," COSLA says of the venture. "We want to be ready. We are tired of allowing others to decide these things for public libraries."
The 53-page report consists of findings collected from interviews with ten library managers, covering a variety of topics and concerns--which were then discussed with other industry experts.
Given the potential for e-reading to change the emphasis from libraries away from repositories of print, the report also suggests public libraries emphasize their role as community centers for learning and events.
[Many of the issues raised in the report will be addressed September 29 at ebooks: Libraries at the Tipping Point, a virtual summit sponsored by Library Journal and School Library Journal. In fact, the report states, "Many library leaders believe a tipping point is not far off."]
Toward a library commonwealth
The paltry nature of ebook collections available to libraries in comparison to consumer offerings prompts the report's most action-oriented suggestion:
A single, national purchasing point for eBooks combined with expert selection, tough negotiation, and data mining that gives members a compelling story for local funders is a different beast from consortia that mostly fill operations or content gaps for have-not libraries. It forces a reckoning and concentrates eBook access to create real leverage. But it's a steep climb from where we are. Inspiration and leadership will be key.
Indeed, major concerns about redirecting local funds to such an umbrella effort have been raised.
The slightly weaker--though far more prevalent--formulation offered is to increase pressure on vendors and publishers, thus pushing for thus pushing for lower prices, standardized formats, and fewer digital rights management (DRM) restrictions.
But libraries face firm opposition, according to the report: "Publishers want library models that collect payment for every use"--as is the model in the UK--"lease access instead of sell objects, or have digital rights that enforce methods that worked for print, such as one copy one user."
In the comments, which are not attributed to people by name, frustration with vendors is palpable, with an edge of hostility: "It's not like we missed the boat. The boat left without us because we don't rate."
Another comment takes aim at the dominant consumer ereader companies directly: "If COSLA is really trying to figure out where to put the energy, spend it talking to Apple, to Amazon. They are keeping us out of the game on this."
Publisher pushback?
Many publishers and distributors are resistant to the idea of selling to increasingly powerful buying groups, operating under the assumption that collective buying results in fewer duplicate sales.
For example, the report notes: "OverDrive won't sell to the LYRASIS consortium and has begun to balk at statewide purchasing groups. Maybe this is for the comfort of nervous publishers who view ebooks as frictionless, ripe for piracy, or long-term profit losses as library products."
OverDrive CEO Steve Potash, queried by LJ, said the company "is working with hundreds of consortia, we are very consortia- and resource-sharing friendly." He was quizzical at the statement about statewide groups: "We are proud to be partnering with several statewide shared digital book corsortia."
As for LYRASIS, formed by the merger of SOLINET and PALINET, and now covering some two-thrids of the states, Potash said no deal had been discussed, but cautioned, "I don't think I can say without limitation we're ready to adopt every mega-consortium," noting the challenge of authenticating users. In many cases, he said, OverDrive is already serving LYRASIS members via existing consortia.
LYRASIS spokeswoman Sacha Turpin, queried by LJ, confirmed that "we have not tried to do a deal with Overdrive" but added, "It is true that Overdrive has begun to balk at statewide purchasing groups."
OverDrive, Potash pointed out, is working on a major initiative to consortia known as OverDrive Consortium Services, including OverDrive Advantage 2.0, an upgraded feature which allows libraries to add more copies of popular titles that the consortium owns and add copies of other titles that the consortium doesn't own.
Making the case for library use
To address concerns about this new model--and to appeal to publishers in clearly defined financial terms--the report suggests further study on "connections between library use and book buying."
In the vein of a white paper recently released by OverDrive titled "How eBook Catalogs at Public Libraries Drive Publishers' Book Sales and Profits", the report urges libraries to prove their value, possibly via a "Book Promotion Index" to highlight library promotion of publishers' titles.
Another suggested approach is to track something analogous to anonymous "Nielsen families," keeping tabs on all publishing related activity, including both buying and lending, in an attempt to identify strong correlations.
Taking a stand on copyright
Though given proportionately little treatment in the report, "Copyright and fair use emerged as an area of special concern."
Thus, "some participants felt it is simply time for public libraries to push harder on the legislative front to protect the public interest and make a bigger noise about library models for fair use that include eBooks and other digital materials."
Here, partnerships with the Internet Archive, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union are suggested as a means to spark greater civic discussion and engagement on this issue.
However, one commenter offered a cautionary note against picking a legislative or judicial fight over copyright change: "careful what you wish for. Publishers have more money and clout than we do."
Devices for lending
The device lending section of the report concludes that cheap ereaders are already penetrating the consumer market. Though none are "well-designed or mature yet," and not particularly well-suited to heavy library use, the report--at least as framed in a COSLA press release--states that librarians needn't worry about the availability of low-cost reading devices.
Some respondents also contended that readers may prefer multi-use devices over dedicated e-ink readers in the long term. That raises the issue of software control and additional expense to lending considerations.
The perfect ereader, the report says, would be simple, durable, and cheap-a familiar library refrain for patron technologies-and would ideally cost less than $100. Respondents also disagreed whether the device should be dedicated to lending or allow for mixed lending and buying.
A remark that no cables be required for use also implies that wireless lending is both desired and expected-a feature yet to be made available from any library ebook lending vendor.
While an ereader developed specifically for public library lending was an initial consideration, this was eventually discarded as unfeasible, however, citing concerns that it could not compete with commercial products.
A number of comments were critical of libraries dedicating resources to lend ereaders likely to quickly become obsolete. "By the time libraries do this, it'll be too late," one commenter offered.
To help patrons navigate the increasingly wide variety of ereaders available, an ereader certification program is proposed-an idea that has already been taken up by OverDrive, which announced at the American Library Association annual conference in June that it will vet devices for compatibility with its lending platform.
Access for all
In terms of getting ebooks into the hands of patrons, the report's conclusions on usability and accessibility center on a consistent criticism from librarians and patrons alike: the demand for ebooks is there, but the procedure for locating and borrowing is prohibitively difficult.
Meanwhile, lending rules-including "one copy, one user"-are are described as awkward, and a source of confusion for patrons since they are counterintuitive in regard to digital files.
The "leasing" of collections--which would provide easier and more simultaneous access to materials--is increasingly being considered, but is also a more expensive option, as more rights to usage entails a higher cost.
This model has proven popular with academic library collections, but has yet to take hold on the public library side.
The report also highlights the efforts by the Internet Archive's BookServer project "as a simple way for libraries to concentrate and promote their riches."
Forward without content?
In one section, the report also suggests librarians might prepare themselves for a radically different future-one in which reference and content circulation have fallen by the wayside.
"Because of the competition, I'm not sure libraries should be concerned about providing content for people. I see us getting squeezed out," said a commenter.
Instead, a further shift "from content repository to community center" may be the way forward, the report suggests.
However, elsewhere the report suggests that libraries will remain essential to the broader reading ecosystem, and offers a scenario in which libraries step up efforts to help patrons self-publish materials and then highlight the contributions of local authors.
Task Force
The COSLA eReader Task Force was led by Oregon State Librarian Jim Scheppke. Other members were California State Librarian Stacey Aldrich, Kansas State Librarian Jo Budler, and Massachusetts State Librarian Rob Maier.
They worked with Eva Miller of Pinpoint Logic, a Portland, OR-based research and design consulting firm, and Tom Peters of TAP Information Services, a Kansas-based library consulting firm.
Interviewees
All of the report's in-line comments are unattributed; however, while some respondents' names are withheld names entirely, the majority of the contributions came from discussions with "library leaders" including LJ's Book Review Editor Heather McCormack and Collection Management Editor Barbara Genco, as well as:
• Joe Janes, Associate Professor, iSchool, University of Washington
• Jana Bradley, Professor, School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona
• Maggie Balistreri, librarian at Poet's House, New York, New York
• Brenda Bailey-Hainer, President and CEO, Bibliographic Center for Research (BCR)
• Kate Nevins, CEO, LYRASIS
• Peter Brantley, Director, Internet Archive
• Steve Coffman, Vice President, LSSI
• Steve Potash, President and CEO, Overdrive
• George Coe, President of Library and Education, Baker and Taylor
