Libraries and Publishers: Improving a Tense Relationship

Libraries seek opportunities to collaborate and work directly with publishers—and hopefully alleviate the difficulties and restrictions presented by distributor-middlemen

When you see headlines discussing the staying power of print and the decline of ebooks, it’s important to remember those headlines are describing only sales of traditionally published books. Such headlines aren’t factoring in other market trends, such as digital subscription services, self-publishing, and—perhaps the most overlooked sector—library lending.

In the US, libraries have seen digital lending increase dramatically, putting significant pressure on their resources. We covered the problem last fall, and a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer pulled back the veil on the expense of ebook licenses; a bestseller like The Woman in the Window costs the Free Library of Philadelphia $1.04 per ebook checkout but only 16 cents per print book checkout. Over the last year, Big Five publishers have been adjusting licensing terms and even embargoing—creating more challenges for libraries.

We heard high-level discussion of these concerns and others at DPLAfest this year in Chicago. (Jane moderated a panel about the intersection of indie authors and libraries.) DPLAfest is hosted by the Digital Public Library of America, a nonprofit aimed at providing public access to digital holdings. It isn’t meant to replace libraries but to create a common resource for them. Based on what we observed at DPLAfest, DPLA is attempting to help libraries better face the challenges of the digital age, and it offers an organized and collective approach that can improve a library regardless of its size or budget. Here are a few of the key points we heard.

First, librarians are eager to tear down communication barriers with publishers. Historically, there has always been tension between publishers and libraries. Publishers can see libraries as dampening sales or profits, while libraries see themselves as increasing interest in reading and demand for books. Right now, direct communication between the two is difficult; ebook vendors or platforms (e.g., OverDrive) sit in the middle of the publisher-library relationship, creating a game of telephone. Throughout DPLAfest, there was lots of talk of “coming together at the table” to achieve more progress through face-to-face conversations and collaboration.

Specifically, librarians want to work more directly with publishers on ebook licensing terms. DPLA has been working on reducing reliance on existing (and often restrictive) distributors’ terms through its project DPLA Exchange. The exchange is a marketplace where libraries can purchase digital content for their collections as well as gain access to thousands of public domain works. (So far, 300,000 titles are available.) The New York Public Library is one of the pilot partners using the DPLA Exchange; furthermore, NYPL has developed SimplyE, a free e-reader app that essentially competes with OverDrive’s Libby, as open-source technology any library can use and implement.

Libraries also want to better own the relationship with their patrons; both SimplyE and the DPLA Exchange help libraries do that. The chief digital officer of the NYPL, Tony Ageh, said, “We were forced to [launch] an intervention to try and recalibrate that clumsy relationship that the publisher had allowed to evolve that forced us to have a complete reliance on one vendor [OverDrive].” SimplyE is now the default e-reader for NYPL, although they haven’t eliminated other options. “OverDrive wants to make as much money as possible, and that’s not the libraries’ goal. Optimizing for the needs of the vendor or platform reduces the efficacy or impact that a library can have,” Ageh said.

Also, the DPLA hopes that by developing a direct relationship with publishers through the Exchange, they will find out what the real limits are to licensing; currently, they know only the constraints imposed by distributors. Micah May, an ebooks consultant for DPLA, hopes the existence of the Exchange will push distributors to offer multiple license types. “We can reset the expectations. That’s the power of having the DPLA option in the marketplace,” May said.

While authors have generally been predisposed to liking libraries, authors’ organizations have lately been focused on safeguarding access to digital content and even increasing income from libraries. Publishers Weekly’s Andrew Albanese said that when he attended the annual meeting of the International Authors Forum in New York City, fully half of it was about libraries and controlled digital lending—which the forum considered an affront—and attempts to establish a public lending right in the US. (Such a right would most likely benefit bestselling authors.) Much of Europe has a public lending right; Albanese said that libraries in the UK are starved for funds and now “fighting about pennies” for authors. “The author associations are not being helpful,” he said. “Of all the issues affecting authors, [libraries] are far down the list of concerns. I don’t know how we got to that point, where author organizations feel libraries are a threat to them. My sense is that it’s almost a religious belief that every time someone reads something, that it should be paid for.” Later, a librarian suggested that rather than looking to libraries for a payday, authors ought to be asking publishers for more money on ebook sales.

Bottom line: The good news is that most publishers—especially those outside of the Big Five—are open to more collaboration and flexible agreements with libraries. Research is also underway to help quantify how library use supports book discoverability and sales. As of today, publishers are being given little or no data from distributors about library lending for their titles. If libraries could somehow collectively offer market insights to publishers about lending activity, that might assist publishers in better selling their books on both a national and regional level—and demonstrate how libraries increase demand for authors. Albanese pointed out that publishers’ royalty reports don’t break out library sales information, so authors don’t have a sense of how libraries directly affect their incomes. He said, “If we didn’t have libraries supporting the endeavor of reading, that would be a problem for authors. … I would really love to see [authors’ organizations] take a more collaborative approach, because authors and libraries are in it together.”