Sargent Letter: Baloney Parts/Snub Panned

Macmillan CEO John Sargent’s Open Letter to Librarians of October 30 said “we are great believers in libraries,” explained that the license terms changes effective November 1 were “well considered and deeply discussed with over 35 library systems, with your suppliers, and with the ALA,” and went on to claim that “we are trying to balance the needs of the system in a new and complex world {and] believe windowing for eight weeks is the best way to do that.”

Librarians have been distinctly (and rightly) underwhelmed.

Andrew Albanese has pointed out that the ALA immediately described “glaring inaccuracies” and said the letter “misrepresents ALA’s longstanding and good-faith efforts to equitably balance the rights and privileges of readers, libraries, authors, and publishers.” Specifically, ALA’s Alan Inouye avers that “ALA (and all the library systems we are aware of) has consistently opposed any effort to delay or deny library access to digital content”; .”ALA has frequently requested but never received data or analysis that demonstrates that library lending undermines book sales. It is simply false to state otherwise”; “With contracts limiting library lending to one eBook per reader at a time, we can assure Macmillan there is plenty of ‘friction’ in our current system”; “Restricting access to authors’ works through libraries hurts discovery, reading choice, literacy, and the simple love of reading. . . . An embargo is the wrong answer to an unsubstantiated problem that no other major publisher seems to face.”

Sargent’s claim of library eBooks being frictionless has been assailed form outside libraries as well, with Nate Hoffelder asserting (again) ”the idea that only library ebook usage can hurt retail ebook sales doesn't really make sense given what we know about library patron behavior. To put it simply, when patrons browse libraries, we are looking for availability, not a specific format. Make the ebook more difficult to access, something the publishers have been doing for the past 8 years, and we'll check out the print book instead.” He adds that “Macmillan has poor ebook sales because in early 2010 they adopted a policy of discouraging ebook sales in favor of print sales. To pretend that Macmillan's poor ebook sales are a result of anything other than Macmillan's own policies shows a basic lack of awareness of consumer behavior, or a willingness to ignore the facts and lie.”

Sargent’s points sometimes defy logic. He says “We believe the very rapid increase in the reading of borrowed e-books decreases the perceived economic value of a book.” Really? And years of borrowing print in libraries, with (in large systems) thousands of people a waiting list, somehow didn’t decrease the perceived value? Let’s be honest. Mr. Sargent, it’s not libraries. It’s the format and it’s your individual prices. Many people just don’t want to pay $14,99 or even $12.99 for an ebook. Look at the huge growth of indie and small press ebook titles. What you want is to maintain the profitability of the hardback market, for the benefit of super best-selling authors, often at the expense of “mid-list” authors.

Here’s another: “We looked at . . . the perceived value of a book upon publication (when its value is highest).” If that is the case, why give libraries one copy for the first 8 weeks at half price? If that’s when the book is most valuable, why not double the price? Why not drop prices on all ebook titles over 8 weeks, since their value, like some new car driven off the lot, is no longer as high? It would seem Macmillan would like to use libraries’ power to foster discovery while limiting supply, trying to induce library readers to jump into purchasing.

Sargent’s October 30 open letter makes no different points than his initial announcement in July. He promises “with talking with many of you in the weeks and months ahead as we all begin to understand the effects of our new policy.” Has any talking so far done any good? Don’t expect any changes at Macmillan. They are a business. They will do what they think is right for their bottom line. And they will make noises about listening and count on libraries finally just giving up. Beneath the politeness and voiced support for libraries, see the snub. It’s a shame in a way. If at day of title publication they had had offered each library a single one copy/one user perpetual license, even at $75, and unlimited two-year (but drop the 52 circs, which we practically never see) licenses ranging from $35 to $70, they could perhaps have increased their library revenue, allowed even greater discovery of the writers, and maybe increased retail sales as well as people, having seen news of a title at the library, decided they didn’t want to wait for a library copy or, having sampled a book through us, decided they want to own it. Aren’t we and Macmillan both going to gain from increasing reading in a time when reading itself seems on a decline?

Instead, the best option seems to be joining the increasing number of libraries that are not going to get embargoed Macmillan titles. Not after 8 weeks. Not at all. Thank you to Columbus Metropolitan Library CEO Patrick Losinski, who said it well: “Columbus Metropolitan Library’s suspension of the purchasing of new Macmillan eBooks is a stand against limiting equal access to our customers,” said Patrick Losinski, CML CEO. “By limiting the number of copies our library can purchase, Macmillan is allowing only a certain segment of our society to access digital content in a timely manner – those who can pay for it themselves. And that’s unacceptable in a democratic society.” The RF Working group encourages libraries to join!

Now is the time for legislative and perhaps legal action. But while we work on that, let’s build ebook collections of works of the many talented newcomers as well as relying on the best sellers and authors backed buy the Big 5. There’s a wealth waiting to be discovered. books may never give us the return on investment (use per $ spent) that print does—but we can get closer than at least $6.07 for the average Macmillan title.