Re: ebook acquisition collectives

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

With scenarios like this, it's often useful to put oneself into 
the position of people on the other side of the arrangement.

The primary side in this example is that of the librarian.  The 
librarian is asked to contemplate an *outright* purchase of a 
book or books.  We will have to think about what an outright 
purchase means, but the benefits to the library are clear, if the 
price could be met.

On the other side of the arrangement is the publisher.  This 
publisher sells books that have little or no market outside of 
libraries. (There are fewer such publishers than many people 
believe.  Books are not humanities journals.  Even university 
presses sell 75% of their books to individuals.)

>From the publisher's point of view, the proposal is not to sell 
copies but the right to make copies.  This is effectively the 
sale of an asset; it is a liquidation strategy.  After the sale 
of the asset, what is left?

Thus from the publisher's point of view, the outright sale is 
tantamount to the sale of a piece of the publisher's company. 
This may not be how it looks to the librarian, but it is how it 
looks to the publisher.

I doubt many publishers would participate in such a program. 
Books are for sale, companies mostly are not.  On the other hand, 
a financial owner--that is, an owner who is not an operating 
executive but who views the publishing company simply as an 
investment--may take a different view (and demand for the sale of 
the asset a huge multiple, perhaps 8-10 times the projected 
lifetime cashflow of the asset).

And that's the key:  to buy an asset, you have to pay asset 
prices, not the sum of all the book prices.

Let's go back to publishing good books, buying them, and, hey!, 
maybe reading them as well.

Joe Esposito