On Wednesday, Macmillan released three license models that might be considered for the future. They chose only a few libraries. The plan was to “open discussions on possible new library models.” My library as not one of them. Several librarians, however, who were uncomfortable about being asked on matters that effect the whole library community, have shared the models. I encourage the libraries originally approached to share their thoughts with Macmillan. I deem it best that the library community as whole have an opportunity at least to know the models. They could potentially affect us all. And why not seek feedback from many in our community and not just a select few? It is interesting for all of us to see what is being contemplated.
Macmillan was kind enough to share the models with the ALA’s reformed Joint Digital Content Working Group. I did not get my information on the models from that group or anyone in that group.
They may be seen here.
ReadersFirst is grateful that Macmillan is opening discussions but disappointed that none of the models we have often advocated for are represented.
A flexible model in which libraries could choose between a perpetual access one copy/one user (perhaps at a higher cost) and a circulation-based metered model (say 50 circs, with no time limit, at a lower cost than the perpetual model) at point of publication, or perhaps even choose some of both upfront, would allow us to use our limited funding to best advantage. If prices go down over time, so much the better. In all three models, Macmillan has at least forecast prices going down over time, and for that we are grateful. Macmillan is concerned about consumer sales in the period of highest demand: 8 weeks, they imply. They are a business. They need to make money for their authors, and others. We understand that, though we still think they underestimate libraries’ power to aid discovery (and even sales) of their authors.
Here are some quick thoughts, then:
Proposal 1: 80-60-50: Metered by circ period: The price is an increase of 33% ($80 up from $60) on titles for the first 8 weeks. But we understand why. This model is based on two-year licenses. Too many times we see licenses “explode,” not getting many circs before expiring. Best case for us in two years (at two weeks per) would be about 50 circs. Would you switch to a circ-based model (say 40 circs) and get rid of the time limit? Even with a time-based model, however, this option still seems the best of the three. And could you charge less for some titles? Not all are created equal—not every book is high-demand best-seller.
Proposal 2: Pay-per-use: I am assuming that the base cost we are working from is $14.99 (standard retail price?) but perhaps some costs would be lower? 70% in first 8 weeks is $10.49. That’s about what Macmillan what says they get from a consumer sale. 40% is $5.99 ($5.996 actually, or $6.00, but maybe they give us a penny). 20% is $2.99. Many librarians who order dislike pay-per-use. It is often a budget buster, with a few high demand titles eating up lots of the money. One must quickly cap circs per month per user, as many libraries have had to do with Hoopla. And at these prices--$10.50 a circ upfront? What library could afford it? Over time, the price is more attractive, but still high. This one would work if it were perhaps extended to some low-cost titles, perhaps the equivalent of mass market genre works, but not high-cost first run titles. Looks like embargo through price. Maybe offer on your backlist at $1.00 per circ or so?
Proposal 3: Metered per use and time: Two strikes here: Time-based expiration of circs (especially an 8-week expiration for the $7 price point) is troubling. Get rid of the time-based expiration and give us a metered cost-per-use model and maybe we’ll talk after 26 weeks at $2 per circ. But 10 circ bundles? Really? How often are we going to have to reorder bundles on best-sellers? At these prices, could I order, say, a 100 circ bundle if I want (not that many libraries could afford titles in the first 8 weeks, but again we get that you are looking to boost retail sales in the first 8 weeks), and not have the time expiration so I knew what I was getting for my money.
If I could only choose one model, Proposal # 1 is it. But how about a combination? On some titles, l want metered access, on a backlist I might like pay-per use at a reasonable cost, and on some select titles (by patron request?) I might like a small bundle. Throw in a perpetual access option—even one per library—and even with your up-front cost increases, I will be your friend.
RF salutes Macmillan for reaching out, but suggests that learning from your summer of 2019 experience (which made many librarians, even some of the few you spoke with, distrust you) would be a good idea. Maybe you meant to talk with a few libraries upfront and then planned to extend the conversation to more. Asking the opinion of a few, when we want to speak together as a community, is not ideal. You have at least started, though, and we hope you might consider a few reasonable tweaks, especially since I may not have interpreted every model correctly. Anything is better than an embargo of content to libraries.
