Re: Building collections in a bad economy

[richards1000@comcast.net]

On demand purchase/license of ebooks (and to some extent of 
printed books) has already been implemented in several academic 
libraries, notably the Charleston School of Law Library.  See 
e.g., Gordon Russell's presentation, starting at slide 17, 
http://bit.ly/5Iauu .

I don't know whether any journal publishers offer academic 
on-demand pricing for ejournal articles (i.e., at a discounted 
rate substantially less than the $30-$60 per-article standard 
retail rate), or, if so, which academic libraries have 
implemented on demand purchase/license of such articles.  I agree 
with Joe Esposito that such on-demand acquisition seems 
inevitable for many higher educational institutions.  It's a 
logical step in the disintermediation process.

Robert C. Richards, Jr., J.D., M.S.L.I.S., M.A.
Law Librarian & Legal Information Consultant
Philadelphia, PA
richards1000@comcast.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 6:56:29 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Building collections in a bad economy

I have been pondering several of the public statements about
collection-building in these very difficult times and have been
struck by the fact that there is little discussion of testing
on-demand services.  I say "testing" advisedly, as a
comprehensive on-demand system is bound to throw up unanticipated
items, and it is best to solve a problem with a small set of
elements rather than a large one.

By "on-demand" I refer to the practice of only purchasing
something when it is actually used.  This is not the norm with
libary publications, of course, where most publishers sell things
that include many components that are literally never used.  I
know there is a case to be made for collecting everything even if
some parts are never used, but it is a case I personally find it
hard to make.

There are at least three large problems with establising an
on-demand service; and if we spend a few minutes on this problem,
we will find three more.  The first is simply the systems issues,
which cannot be underestimated.  To sell things by use requires
reliable systems that enable proper feedback, without endangering
the privacy of individual users.  This means publishers would
have to "look" into libraries' internal systems.  The second is
the back-end production process on the publishers' parts.  When
we say "on-demand," at what point in the process is the demand
created?  Print on demand?  Digitization on demand? And what the
heck, how about authoring on demand?

And then there is the arena of endless argument, the third point,
which is pricing.  For an on-demand system to work, individual
units would cost more, perhaps MUCH more, than their pro rata
share of collections.  Think of the world of the audio CD.  A CD
costs $10 for ten songs.  Therefore there is an erroneous
expectation (call this The iTunes Fallacy) that each song should
cost $1.  When the numbers are crunched, however, two or three
songs will cost $3 or $4, and the rest will, in a special sense,
be free--free because no one wants them.  (I listened to Bob
Dylan's "Freewheelin'" album today while jogging:  15 for 15.
What a batting average, what a bargain!)

I don't believe on-demand purchasing will lower libraries' costs.
I believe that on-demand will better align the expenditures to
patrons' use.  If I may borrow (or abuse) a phrase from
economics, this is "hedonic" price adjustment, where the quality
improves even if the cost does not rise.

We will inevitably be moving in this direction.  The operative
word is "inevitably."  Therefore in these very difficult times
for everyone, we should get started, when the motivation to try
just about anything is keener than in the fat times.  Seven years
from now we will regret not having taken action.

Joe Esposito