HarperCollins announced that it would only allow 26 borrows of its ebooks at libraries.
This, naturally, ignited something of a firestorm.
The point of libraries, of course, is to lend books to readers for free. The libraries buy a certain number of copies of a book or video or CD and then lend them out until the thing falls apart. That’s what it’s all about.
In addition, as Eric Blank at Pimp My Novel put it:
E-books don’t take up physical shelf space, so the limiting factor that once forced a librarian to choose between replacing a popular title that’s worn out and purchasing a different title—that is, space—no longer exists. More titles sold is good for everyone.
HarperCollins’ response to the concerned patrons and librarians is:
Twenty-six circulations can provide a year of availability for titles with the highest demand, and much longer for other titles and core backlist. If a library decides to repurchase an e-book later in the book’s life, the price will be significantly lower as it will be pegged to a paperback price point. Our hope is to make the cost per circulation for e-books less than that of the corresponding physical book. In fact, the digital list price is generally 20% lower than the print version, and sold to distributors at a discount.
But librarians contend that a print bestseller can be borrowed over 26 times before it starts self-destructing.
An article by Martin Taylor on the TeleRead blog supports HarperCollins’ policy:
Ebooks don’t wear out, they’re easy to find and hard to lose, so chances are libraries will need fewer to service the same level of borrowing. And new technology is making the effort required to borrow minimal. These facts underpin concerns about how the paid ebook market will be affected if borrowing (especially from public libraries which are open to anyone) offers few disadvantages over purchase. Borrowing ebooks can be made as easy and accessible—24/7 from anywhere—as buying them.
To me, this is the sort of wrangling that goes on when changes occur in any kind of industry. But I hate that it’s happening for libraries. I mean—come on. Libraries are getting absolutely shafted right now in every possible way…cut-backs, layoffs, closures—you name it.
My long-term strategy is to develop a relationship with my readers and increase my reader base as much as I can. One of the ways I do this is by making sure that my book is in as many public libraries as possible. I feel like the library is the #1 place for a reader to discover a new author or series. There’s absolutely nothing to lose when you check a book out. It’s risk-free. That means that you might be tempted to read something you ordinarily wouldn’t buy at a store. This opens an opportunity for authors to find new readers.
The publisher’s take on this, to me, seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to financial anxiety. And I know publishers are worried right now—I think most of us are. Bookstores are going bankrupt, libraries are closing, and it’s a brave new world out there with ebooks (and one where we haven’t figured out all the kinks yet.) But I just can’t see where these types of policies are going to ultimately be good for the reader (or, by extension, the writers.)
What do you make of it? Have any ideas on strategies that can make both parties satisfied? Feel free to leave any thoughts or ideas on ebook library lending here in my comments, or to email HarperCollins, who is inviting discussion: library.ebook@HarperCollins.com
Elizabeth – Thank you for bringing up this topic! It is indeed a different world out there with E-books, and HarperCollins is like any other company in the sense of looking at economic factors.
That said, though, in my opinion, the most important aspect of conducting business is meeting customer needs and working with them. The long-term relationship with the customer, which ensures loyalty and lots more sales in the long run, is much more important than earning a few more dollars on one copy of a book. I may not be seeing the whole picture, I grant you, but that’s my thought.
And as an author, I wonder about anything that limits a reader’s chance to “meet” me and decide whether to read what I write. Reader taste should determine whether or not someone wants to read my work – not money.
You would think that once the library purchased the ebook it would be able to loan it out as many times as it wanted to. No one limits the number of times a print book or audio book can be loaned.
Elizabeth your take on readers trying a book is definitely true. Years ago I was given a copy of one of the Eve Dallas books by JD Robb. I thumbed through it but wasn’t sure the sci fi aspect was my type of reading. I came across a copy of another book in the series on audio at the library and thought ‘why not.’ It is now one of my favorite series. Without the library being there for me to try the book (even though I had a copy), it probably would have been a lot later.
I said of all of this to say, I think HarperCollins is being unfair.
Mason
Thoughts in Progress
What do they say is their intention? And what does it SEEM to be? I think those two questions should be used whenever we see this sort of mumbo jumbo going on.
Jan–I’ve wondered about it, and all I can say is that it’s clearly financial. I *think* they’re worried at the prospect that somehow maybe the e-version of a bestseller would go out simultaneously to 200 people or something…and then they wouldn’t get folks buying it at the store. With a single copy of a print bestseller, readers wait on a waiting list for the print copy. But that’s not the way it would work–it wouldn’t get that many loans at once. One of the solutions proposed by readers/librarians is for the library to pay some sort of extra surcharge for a digital copy. That might work.
Margot–That was my feeling on it, too. I want exposure through the library and I don’t want my book’s loans to be limited. Plus the fact that I think HarperCollins’ approach really stinks from a PR perspective. (Why do I have a feeling I may never write for them? :) )
Mason–That’s what I think. I really do worry about the future of libraries…and I think that readers like yourself are looking for new authors and series and the library is the best place to foster new readers.
Sometime ago I had written this blog on physical books vrs ebooks.
http://indrasishblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/digital-books-versus-conventional-books.html
This is one of those complications to the brave new world of publishing that no one really has a good answer for yet. The thing is, publishers didn’t have a problem with libraries lending out hardcopy books, why would ebooks be any different? As long as it can’t be copied it should be handled the same. But I don’t know all the details that go into how ebooks operate, I’ve not ventured into that world yet. ;)
Sounds like they are trying to fit the ebook into the print book mold.
I’ve discovered many new authors at the library and gone on to buy their books. If it weren’t for the libraries, I’d own far fewer books!
I was just thinking about library e-books the other day. Wow, that policy seems harsh. I wonder if it would decrease sale of e-books. A hard copy will stick around way longer. I agree that libraries are a good way for a reader to discover a new author.
I really don’t see any difference between borrowing print books and ebooks. I use my library’s ebook collection avidly, but I can’t borrow an ebook if someone else has it out. Most of the ebook titles are usually not available, so I put myself on the hold list for them – the same way I do with physical books.
I agree that the lack of physical limitations like shelf space means libraries will be able to acquire more books, and that can’t be anything but good for everyone overall. Sure, you can read library books for free, but that’s always been the case, and it’s never been a problem for publishers before.
This is, absolutely, a knee jerk reaction from a publisher who isn’t sure what to do in the face of all these changes. But seriously, publishers need to get creative and start brainstorming new business models. If ebooks aren’t going away (and they aren’t), then they have to figure out how to adapt. Hurting libraries isn’t really going to do anything for them in the long run.
Indra–Thanks for the link! I’ll go by and check it out.
Heather–The ebooks are DRMd to death. I mean, really. It wouldn’t be a casual reader who would be able to hack the DRM on the books, I don’t think.
Alex–Exactly. Which clearly isn’t going to work.
Plamena–I almost wonder if it’s *meant* to discourage a library from purchasing an ebook?
Jemi–Me too. That’s how I find my favorite series. And I always BUY my favorite series.
Belle–I’m glad you cleared that up, because that was one thing that I was curious about–if a library had a digital copy, how many times could it go out simultaneously? It sounds like the answer is “once.”
I couldn’t agree more. It seems to me that they’re just taking stabs in the dark, trying to figure out how to deal with ebooks and their solutions are falling short.