Is the Macmillan Boycott Working?

Dianne Coan, Division Director of Technical Operations at Fairfax County Public Library in Fairfax, VA., and Carmi Parker, a librarian and ILS administrator who serves on the executive advisory committee for the Washington Digital Library Consortium (and who is also a ReadersFirst Working Group member), whose systems have ceased to purchase Macmillan eBooks, have collaborated on a financial impact analysis of the boycott thus far and asked to publish it with RF. Thank you, Dianne and Carmi, for your work. RF hopes it will spark interest and create debate.

One may also see a their work here with better graphics.

Is the Boycott Working?

As of the date of publication, 79 library systems and consortia have ceased to purchase Macmillan eBooks in protest of their new sales policy, which limits library eLending. These libraries represent 1,163 locations in 28 states, and serve 47.9 million people, which is equivalent to the total population of California plus the population of New York City.

Is it making a difference?

Analysis shows that despite Macmillan’s claims about desiring to “restore balance,” the embargo is merely an attempt by Macmillan to boost revenue in the same way that they increased their base price to libraries from $40.00 to $60.00 in 2018. Here’s how it works:

Liane Moriarty’s Nine Perfect Strangers was released in November 2018. At Fairfax County Public Library (FCPL) which serves 1.1 million residents in northern Virginia, 400 readers requested the book before its release; in response, FCPL purchased 67 copies at $60.00 each. Adjusting for OverDrive’s negotiated percentage, Macmillan earned $2010.00.

What if Nine Perfect Strangers had been released in November 2019? According to Macmillan, 8%, or 32, of the 400 readers who wanted the book would have purchased it rather than waiting. These 32 retail purchases will have generated $336.00. After the embargo, the library purchases 62 copies to cover the remaining 368 readers who were willing to wait. At Macmillan’s new pricing, this creates $1845.00 in revenue for the company. In total, they receive $2181.00, which is an 8.5% increase over a release that was not embargoed.

However, FCPL has ceased to purchase Macmillan eBooks and Macmillan has traded $336.00 in retail sales for $2010.00 in library sales, a loss of 83%.

In other words, the boycotting libraries are making a difference, creating an 83% loss in revenue instead of an 8.5% gain. If about one in 10 library systems cease to purchase Macmillan eBooks, they will offset the gains Macmillan hoped to make and ensure that its revenue is flat. For every library that boycotts after that, Macmillan will see a net loss on the embargo strategy.

Are we at one in 10?

Not quite, although we are close. In the 2017 IMLS Public Library Survey, 7162 libraries recorded spending on electronic materials. Of those, 605 libraries are currently boycotting Macmillan eBooks, or 8.45%.

Other impacts to Macmillan authors

In the meantime, we are looking at the results of the boycott to determine impact to patrons. At the Washington Digital Library Consortium (WDLC), serving 826,000 Washington State residents, we saw that circulation in the last two months of the year (during the boycott) fell only 2% below expectation. Since Macmillan represented approximately 5% of our circulation in the prior year, we conclude that readers who normally would have discovered Macmillan books are discovering Macmillan’s competitor authors instead. FCPL saw no decrease in circulation over the same time period.

These numbers are in line with the findings of a library eBook reader survey conducted the Jefferson County Library in Port Hadlock, WA. When patrons were asked about their next step after deciding not to place a hold on an eBook (usually due to wait time), the 891 respondants reported the following: 56% reported that they went on to look for another eBook or eAudiobook that is currently available; approximately 30% reported that they searched for the title in print or as a book-on-CD; 8% go on to purchase the title (confirming Macmillan's assertion); 6% chose "None of the above.”

Conclusion

In the 2019 webcast launching #eBooksforall, Columbus (Ohio) Metropolitan Library CEO Patrick Losinski stated that libraries are not competitors with publishers; we are collaborators. This is true, but we are also, first and foremost, important customers. We predictably spend millions of dollars every year across the lists. And with eBooks, we are the only way for publishers to earn revenue from the millions of people who want to read books but cannot or will not pay retail prices.

And as cooperative customers who truly value Macmillan’s product, we have tried for five months to communicate our dissatisfaction with its new terms, requesting that it drop the embargo and explaining why it is important to us. In our opinion, a national outcry from a valuable customer is reason enough alone Macmillan to drop the embargo. However, it appears willing to gamble that despite libraries’ frustrations, we will continue to pay the bills. The boycotting libraries have said no, and we invite other libraries to join us. Collectively, we can ensure that embargoes are too expensive for any publisher to implement.

DPLA and BiblioLabs Partner on Statewide EBooks Access

The Digital Public Library of America (DPLS) has issued a press release. RF runs it as becasue of the innovative nature of the new model.

The Digital Public Library of America has partnered with BiblioLabs to offer libraries the ability to license a growing collection of more than 16,000 ebooks, including independent author collections and titles from a number of major publishers, using a simultaneous multi-use model that allows an unlimited number of patrons to borrow books at the same time. BiblioLabs has been a pioneer in statewide ebook projects, using innovative and sustainable lending models to help libraries scale ebook programs in new and exciting ways. The partnership will give state libraries the unprecedented ability to provide ebook collections to every resident in the state. 

"The simultaneous multi-use model is a powerful way to reach new digital-first users who have yet to discover their local library. The model also provides expanded access for people who don’t live near a library or can’t get to one,” said Michele Kimpton, Director of Business Development and Senior Strategist. “We are excited to partner with BiblioLabs to offer unlimited access to a diverse and curated collection of books and work with state libraries and others to offer these to all of their residents.”  

“Forward-looking publishers and independent authors realize that libraries are an important asset to their missions. This is a true collaboration that helps libraries compete for digital attention in a way that provides readers what they want in a simple, easy-to-use model. We are proud to be working with DPLA to offer an ebook model that is inclusive and does not financially punish libraries for succeeding at their mission to drive literacy and reading across a wide spectrum of readers,” said BiblioLabs CEO Mitchell Davis. 

In addition to expanding its ebook offerings, DPLA has expanded its team, welcoming Jill Blades as ebooks outreach program leader. Blades comes to DPLA from Baker and Taylor, where she worked with both school and public libraries all over the U.S., most recently as field sales consultant to public libraries in the Southeast. With her deep expertise and knowledge of library workflows, Blades will strengthen DPLA’s partnerships with libraries across the country, helping them to improve patron access to ebooks and audiobooks through the DPLA Exchange.

DPLA’s ebook work has been supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. SimplyE, the open e-reading platform, was developed by The New York Public Library. To learn more about Open Bookshelf, SimplyE and other DPLA ebooks offerings, visit ebooks.dp.la.

DPLA will be sharing details about our 2020 work, including our national ebooks collaboration, at ALA Midwinter in Philadelphia later this month:

Saturday, January 25

3-4 pm:  DPLA: What’s New for 2020 in Room 201-ABC

Carmi Parker's Macmillan eBook Update 1/10/2020

The redoubtable Carmi Parker (disclaimer—Ms. Parker is member of RF’s Working Group) has shared a weekly Macmillan update:

“Happy New Year all!

We are beginning to draft a document on the impact that boycotting libraries are making, and we hope to share it with libraries that are still debating how best to respond to the embargo.  The doc will include:

  • Analysis of the financial impact on Macmillan

  • How close we are to the tipping point where Macmillan starts to lose money

  • How the boycott has impacted circulation so far

  • What patrons are saying

If your library is considering whether to stop purchasing Macmillan, is there other information that you would find useful?  Let me know.

In this week’s update, we have three new libraries who have ceased purchasing eBooks.

{Those are First Regional Library, serving Five counties in NW Mississippi, including suburbs of Memphis, with 300,000 patrons) Dedham Public Library, in Dedham, MA with 25,000 patrons, and Oakland Public Library with 429,000 patrons.]

Also, would you like to know: if the wait time on an eBook is too long, how many patrons turn to the print version?  Or how long patrons will wait in the first place?  The eBook reader survey results from Jefferson County Library will tell all this and more.

Please feel free to share this post.  Interested colleagues can sign up for their own email updates here.”

Thanks, Carmi, for all you do to enhance the library digital content experience!

Help with a Query, Please

Andrew Albanese from Publishers Weekly has a question for librarians, and I hope you will help.  Please respond to him at aalbanese@publishersweekly.com

“Has there been an upside to the recent Macmillan fight: has it finally, effectively publicized that, yes, you can get e-books from the library? Librarians in previous years have told me that about 10% of their library patrons used the digital collection, or less in some cases. I am sure that’s higher today, yes? But when I was researching for a panel I did at DPLA, I was surprised to see the most popular articles that came back during a Google search were “did you know you can borrow e-books from the library?” Now, that’s not the case, as you might expect!

Did you see an increase in demand/awareness for e-books in 2019? And while I know its hard to tie any rise directly to public awareness generated by the Macmillan fight, do you have any perception that this battle has helped get the word out about e-books and digital audio in public libraries?”

Thank you for considering!

Two Articles of Interest

The publisher changes in library e-book licensing continue to get notice in the media. In part it might be because controversy sells, but major outlets are showing a genuine concern for what these changes, especially of course Macmillan’s, mean for readers.

Thanks to RF Working Group Member Susan Caron for sharing an editorial from the Toronto Star, “Public libraries need a fairer deal on ebooks.” It uses examples of the impacts of publisher decisions on the Toronto Library, but makes many good general points and its conclusion is as succinct a statement of the issue for libraries:

“ . . . these restrictive rules and high digital pricing for libraries is really starting to look like price gouging and publishers taking advantage of publicly funded institutions. Publishers seem, at best, to be pursuing a short-term sales strategy. But it comes at the risk of fostering a love of reading over the longer term and increasing the troubling digital divide between the have and have nots. The major houses should rethink these polices and find a way to give libraries a fairer deal.”

Stephen Spohn, Director-at-Large, Association of Specialized, Government and Cooperative Library Agencies, has shared an article from WGBH , “Inside The E-Book 'War' Waging Between Libraries And Publishers,” that is wider ranging.

It notes that “the Massachusetts Library Association said they have reached out the state’s attorney general, hoping that her office will bring legal action against publishers. Librarians are also hopeful that relief will come from a Congressional antitrust subcommittee investigating competition in digital markets,” confirming that states other than Rhode Island and Maryland are seeking possible legal remedy.

After reviewing a 5 year period Andrew Albanese terms “a plateau of mediocrity” in which neither libraries nor publishers were happy, the article goes into the arguments and counter arguments of the current environment.

Perhaps most intriguing, however, are, first, the notes on how Amazon may benefit the most from “the war” (and tough the article does not state is, can if be inferred that Amazon is holding the publishers’ collective feet to the fire as Amazon benefits from its own “exclusive content.” Second, the article looks at the possible outcome of legal recourse. “Einer Elhauge, an antitrust expert at Harvard Law School, has looked into this topic. Elhauge parsed the arguments, and as far as he can tell from all the media reports, libraries would not have an easy time winning this case. The publishers do not seem to be violating the rules. There’s no single publishing house with monopoly power. In fact, from a legal standpoint, Elhauge said, there could be an argument against libraries.”

I’m not legal expect and I don’t play one on the internet. I wonder if a possible tack would be to look at collusion. When the Big Publishers and Apple lost on agency pricing, there was no house with monopoly power either. And perhaps if legislators are interested in putting pressure on Big Tech, Amazon’s failure to license to libraries and privileging of one library vendor over others might offer something to consider. It’s always going to have been a difficult fight. But readers should need credit cards to be informed citizens. Both articles are worth a read, and the publicity for our views is important. So, my fellow librarians, look at both and then saddle up Rocinante. We ride because the war, if it must be called that, is worth fighting. A truce based upon a new license model, such as the one we proposed to Macmillan some weeks back on this site, might be the best result we can hope for, but our readers deserve our best effort.

The Annual RF Cheers 'N Jeers and People of the Year

With the New Year fast approaching, time for the ReadersFirst Working Group’s Cheers ‘N Jeers for 2019.

Cheers!

  • Alan Inouye, the American Library Association (Thanks, Wanda) and the Public Library Association (Thanks, Ramiro) for your leadership in creating eBooksforAll and for advocacy in the industry (thanks, also, Sari), and federal and state governments. Thanks, to, for creating a new Digital Content Working Group, and to Lean Dunn and Kelvin Watson for chairing it.

  • Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly, for telling the library story factually and well. We are all better informed because of you.

  • The Canadian Urban Library Council, for advocacy with publishers and providing the template for the resolution that ALA adopted in July, leading to the creation of a new Digital Content Working Group, and while we are about it, the Urban Library Council and COSLA for fine advocacy work for library digital content..

  • Carmi Parker for leading the charge on Macmillan and Blackstone, the State of Washington (thanks, Lisa of KCLS and Cindy of WSL) , and all who have joined the resistance against “windowing.” Boycotts aren’t for everyone, but this one has its reasons.

  • The Digital Public Library of America, for continued development of the non-profit Exchange and for leading in the establish of of the SimplyE Advisory Council, especially to Michele.

  • Georgia Public Library Service and Baker & Taylor for establishing an innovative state-wide digital platform of children, eReadsKids. Thanks for showing what can be done, and doing it above all for the children.

  • Harper Collins Publishers for NOT making any changes in their license models in the last 18 months. Hey, HC—want to earn an RF Gold Star Award? Add a one copy/one user perpetual license option—even one pr library system—to give us flexibility to your current metered model, which is (despite all past criticism) the BEST model offered by the Big 5 today.

  • Ijeoma Oluo, an author for speaking truth on Twitter for libraries and those who need them.

  • The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) for fostering work on Fasten to develop standards for library APIs, including Nettie, Christoper, and a brilliant international team.

  • The New York Public Library and especially to Risa, Leonard, and Tony, for their continued support of Library Simplified (app name—SimplyE). It’s a lot of work but RF applauds the development of the “one App to Rule Them All,” providing an easy-to-use open source non-profit way to harness library content across platforms. Other systems might have flinched—you have shown Patience, Fortitude, and leonine courage.

  • OverDrive, for providing data effectively challenging publisher claims that libraries are “cannibalizing” sales and for funding the Panorama Project.

Jeers!

  • Amazon, for all your fine work ensuring that people need a credit card to be informed citizens. We’d award you a 100,00 lumps of coal, but you’d just give one piece to each of your exploited warehouse workers for Christmas and use the rest to press a diamond for the CEO. Nothing for you, just like you give to us.

  • Blackstone Audio, you know perfectly well why. We award you with one black stone—a lump of coal for you

  • Hachette, for moving from perpetual to metered licenses on audiobooks. It isn’t bad enough that we have to renew most of our e-book collections every two years, you have to throw audio in as well? Thanks on behalf of all library users with visual or hand impairments who rely on libraries for content they need.

  • Macmillan, you know ever better than Blackstone why. We award you 231,842 (and counting) signatures on a petition.

  • Simon & Schuster, we appreciate you moving from one to two year licenses, but who factored your prices when you made the change? We award you a pocket calculator so you can multiply by 2 next time.

People of the Year:

This is a tough one—too tough for us! So, alphabetically by first name Alan, Carmi, Ijeoma, Michele, and NYPL Library Simplified Team, thanks for your great work this year. You are co-winners.

Thanks, too, to the ReadersFirst Working Group for all their advocacy work this year.

Thanks, finally, to every librarian who licensed content for your system or who helped someone get content this year. Your service to our readers is the reason for our service to libraries. Keep helping people get content! We’ll help try to make that content everything they want.

Ijeoma Oluo Takes a Brave Stand

Yesterday, writer Ijeoma Oluo (@IjeomaOluo) took a brave and principled stand on Twitter:

Dec 22 BOOK NERD RANT: some of you may know this, but audiobooks are near and dear to my heart. Accessibility in my work - especially as someone who writes on social issues, is a top priority. And as a writer with ADD, audiobooks are the only way I can still regularly read.

When it came time to sign my audiobook contract, I was surprised to find that certain audio publishers *cough* Audible *cough* were more hostile to library licensing than others.

I worked with my amazing agent to ensure that I worked with an audio publisher who would let libraries license my work. But right now there is an effort - rumors say led by Amazon/Audible - to make it even harder for libraries to license audiobooks.

And as more and more publishers limit library access to audiobooks - they are saying that they are doing it in our - the writer's - name. Because we are supposedly missing out on sales due to library lending. As a writer, let me say firmly: fuck that nonsense.

Dec 22 I want my book to be read. I want my book to be borrowed. I want my book to be bought. I want my book to be read regardless of how much money you have.

And less we forget - audiobooks are first and foremost an accessibility device for those who cannot read another way. Just because they are now popular in the mainstream doesn't mean we get to divorce audiobooks from their main purpose.

And making it harder for libraries to provide audiobooks to the communities that need them the most is a gross marriage of capitalism and ableism that I - and most of the authors I know - never asked for

We at RF appreciate authors making money, but we hope more will stand up for fair and equal access via audiobooks, and e-books too, for that matter.

Thank you, Ms. Oluo!

NO, You DON'T Own It

Ever read those fine print licenses to obtain software, etc.—you know, the ones so small and so long that you end up needing reading glasses and headache pills? If so, you know that you, the consumer, have something in common with libraries. You don’t really own your e-books. Not in the USA, anyway, and now probably not in Europe.

I can understand not allowing just anyone/everyone to link indiscriminately to something I’ve bought, ur, licensed, but I can’t reassign it without cost to one person who then has ownership?

Apparently not:

Bill Rosenblatt reports the following:

“This week the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark ruling that digitally downloaded files are not subject to exhaustion (the EU equivalent of first sale in U.S. law). This means that consumers don't have the right to resell (or give away, lend, or rent) ebooks and other digital files. This ruling brings EU law into line with the U.S. precedent established by the Second Circuit Appeals Court in the ReDigi case a year ago.

With this ruling, the CJEU took the expected step of following the opinion that one of its Advocates General, Maciej Szpunar, issued back in September. The CJEU was asked by a Dutch court to answer questions of law that would help it reach a decision in a case involving the online sale of "used" ebooks by Tom Kabinet, a Dutch startup.

The questions referred to the CJEU boiled down to one issue: does making a file available by digital download implicate the right of distribution or not? The principle of exhaustion only applies to the right of distribution, so if downloading doesn't implicate distribution, then exhaustion doesn't apply, and the copyright owner can control whether the user has the right to alienate downloaded files. The court ruled that distribution doesn't apply, that the only right implicated in digital downloads is the right of communication to the public. In fact, the CJEU held that distribution only applies to physical objects.

The court also held that making a file available for download through a specific technical mechanism counts as communication to the public even if no one downloads the file. In other words, if Tom Kabinet makes ebooks available on its website, then it still could be infringing copyrights even if no one buys them (or more accurately, spends "points" on them).

The CJEU reached the same conclusion as the U.S. Second Circuit did almost exactly a year ago regarding ReDigi, the digital music resale startup. Judge Pierre Leval found that reselling a digital file involves making a copy of the file rather than sending that file to the buyer. Advocate General Szpunar reached the same result in his opinion.

This brings EU law regarding digital exhaustion/first sale into line with the prevailing precedent in the States... except for one thing. Along the way to reaching its decision, the CJEU also ruled (relying on its own precedent) that making a digital file available for downloading counts as communication to the public even if no one downloads it, as long as the file is made available by "specific technical means, different from those previously used" or is made available to a different set of people from the ones to whom the copyright owner originally sent the files. In U.S. law, the question of whether "making available" implicates any of the rights in the copyright bundle is not settled, although the U.S. Copyright Office took the position in 2016 that it implicates the right of distribution.”

Another loss for readers.

Carmi Parker's Macmillan Boycott Update 12/20/2019

Carmi Parker, ILS Administrator for Whatcom County Library System, continues the advocacy:

“Ten more systems came to our attention this week, so there are now 74 library systems and consortia suspending the purchase Macmillan’ eBooks. These represent 1,144 library locations in 26 states, and serve over 46 million U.S. residents, approximately 14% of the total population.”

The most recent systems, with uses, are as follows:

Connecticut State Library 3,537,000

South Carolina State Library 5,084,000

Handley Regional Library System (Winchester, VA) 131,000

Chesapeake Public Library (Chesapeake, VA) 250,000

James L. Hamner Public Library (Amelia County, VA) 12,900

Massanutten Regional Library 158,000

San Diego Public Library 1,426,000

Santa Cruz Public Libraries 214,000

The Public Library of Brookline 359,000

North Carolina Digital Library 3,368,000

See the full list here.

“Data from Indianapolis: Indianapolis Public Library was one of the top 30 libraries by eSpending in 2017. It details some of the trends it has seen in the last several years in this article in the Indiana Business Journal, with illustrative charts.

Indianapolis Public Library is responding to publisher restrictions by adjusting “its default lending period for e-books and e-audiobooks, from 21 days to 14 days, and it’s lowered the limits on how many e-materials patrons can check out and put on hold.”

Note: my consortium considered changing our checkout maximum to 14 days, but found that almost half of our patrons manually switch from the 14 day default to 21.

Embargoed Tor titles: where are they now? In an effort to understand better the impact of embargoes, several libraries in U.S. and Canada are contributing data to an analysis of Tor purchases and circulation before and after the 2018 “experiment”. Stay tuned for results in early – mid January, and many thanks to our cheerful contributors thus far:

  • eLibraryNJ

  • Maryland’s Digital Library

  • Sacramento Public Library

  • San Antonio Public Library

  • Seattle Public Library

  • Toronto Public Library

  • Washington Digital Library Consortium”

Thanks for your continued work, Carmi! If RF had a “Person of the Year” Award, you’d share it with Alan Inouye.