Re: ebook acquisition collectives

["Mary Murrell" <murrell@berkeley.edu>]

I second Joe on this. Although there may be exceptions, I think 
most university presses would cringe at a description that has 
them publishing books mainly to be bought by libraries. They 
would associate that with the a prior stage in their development, 
some twenty years back. They, I believe, now see themselves as 
publishing to the trade and to students and individuals in the 
academic penumbra. And the idea that they might sell off a large, 
contested bundle of rights to libraries strikes me as unlikely, 
especially given that their boards are full of trade folks. I, 
however, can imagine them managing their truly specialized 
monographs via electronic databases with a print-on-demand option 
because (1) such books are precisely what they are *not* focused 
on and (2) it might be a way of lowering overhead on the 
monograph publishing.

> Sandy and I are not in agreement here, though some of the 
> difference may be matters of definition.
>
> First, though, let's be clear that even university press assets 
> may sometimes be offered for sale.  When I was working as a 
> consultant, I was asked to advise on such matters.
>
> But as to the numbers, my comment was for books from U. presses.
> Sandy introduces an important distinction:  monographs vs. trade
> books.  Of course, if you can tell me what is a monograph and
> what is a trade book (besides the discount schedule it is offered
> under), we might be able to resolve this.
>
> Two years ago I worked on a project, funded by the Mellon
> Foundation, that involved my surveying U. presses.  I conducted
> 50 interviews, covering 30 presses.  The public version of that
> report can be found here:  http://j.mp/8TWlC8; see in particular
> Section II, Statistical Snapshot.  What the survey revealed,
> among other things, was the extent of the erosion of library
> sales.  I would say that it is a stretch to think that libraries
> comprise more than 25% of U. press sales.  No two presses are
> identical, of course, but my notes are pretty clear about this
> the market percentages.
>
> Of course, if you are able to separate monographs from trade 
> books, you might get a different answer.  On the other hand, 
> this still wouldn't change the thrust of the argument, because 
> trade books are part of the revenue picture for many presses. 
> I would add that making these kinds of distinctions introduces 
> bizarre exceptions.  For example, one of the most important 
> titles from an economic point of view for the entire press 
> community is the Chicago Manual of Style. Monograph?  No. 
> Trade book?  No.
>
> No matter how you slice it, if publishers switch from selling
> copies to selling copyrights, as Eric's proposal suggested, the
> economic ramifications are very large and entirely negative from
> the point of view of the publishers, who are required to earn the
> bulk of their income from revenue.
>
> Joe Esposito