informationpower Who are the Winners? Ebook consortial purchasing Hazel Woodward & Helen Henderson Information Power Ltd. Presentation to the Charleston Conference, 7 th November, 2013 informationpo wer
May 17, 2015
informationpower
Who are the Winners?Ebook consortial purchasing
Hazel Woodward & Helen HendersonInformation Power Ltd.
Presentation to the Charleston Conference, 7th November, 2013
inform
ation
power
informationpower
Consortia worldwide are struggling to find sustainable and cost-effective business models for purchasing ebooks
JISC Collection, the UK national consortia, has had some successes with the purchase of ebook collections, but less so with individual titles
This pilot is an attempt to trial a specific business model for individual titles, changing publisher driven selection to patron driven selection
Ebook consortial purchasing
informationpower
Based on a consortial business model trialled by Max Planck Institute (Germany) and CBUC (Spain)
No data analysed by MPI & CBUC
JISC Collections (UK national consortia) set up one year pilot 2012-2013
Engineering ebooks chosen for pilot
Libraries to purchase ebooks
IPL, as Project Manager, to collect and analyse purchase & usage data
JISC Collections (UK)Ebook Consortia Pilot Project
informationpower
Consortium of 6 academic libraries with large Engineering Faculties
6 publishers of engineering books (some large engineering publishers excluded as libraries had existing big deals)
Whenever one of the libraries purchased an ebook, all libraries had access
‘Price multiplier’ negotiated with each publisher. In the pilot this was paid by JISC Collections. In a ‘real life’ consortia it would be split among the libraries
The (very simple) business model
informationpower
Libraries & Publishers
Artech House Cambridge University Press
(CUP) Institution of Engineering
and Technology (IET) Taylor & Francis (T&F) Wiley World Scientific Publishing
(WSP)
Cranfield University Loughborough
University Newcastle University Brunel University University of
Southampton University of Liverpool
informationpower
Hosting service
Libraries consulted: took time to reach a consensus. (All used multiple ebook aggregator platforms)
Dawson Books (Dawsonera) chosen
Negotiation & agreement: also took time
Implementation (more challenging than expected!)
informationpower
The ebooks
Libraries slow to start ordering titles & requested title lists from publishers
Ebook title lists supplied by publishers
Workflow issues for libraries & hosting service
First orders placed December 2012
Implementation
informationpower
MARC Records
Research by CIBER & JISC Collections has demonstrated that MARC records in the OPAC are vital to discovery
Delay in provision of MARC records to libraries at start of pilot may have had a bearing on usage
Implementation
informationpower
It had been hoped to run the pilot for a full academic fiscal year
In reality the pilot began in earnest in December 2012 & ran until July 2013
Books were being ordered and used
COUNTER ebook usage statistics (BR1 & BR2) were being collected
Finally… the pilot was up and running
informationpower
Very high usage of books purchased
98.6% of books were used by at least 1 library
All libraries got more value than they purchased
Percentage bought and not used by individual library averaged 7% - very low compared to recent PDA/evidence-based studies in Germany and the USA which were closer to 85%
So what were the findings (in a nutshell)
informationpower
% bought % used
% used but not bought
% bought but not
usedLibrary 1 34% 95% 61% 1%Library 2 25% 52% 27% 11%Library 6 15% 42% 26% 8%Library 4 13% 49% 35% 6%Library 5 13% 27% 15% 9%Library 3 0% 20% 100% 0%
Overall analysis
informationpower
No. purchased but not used
No. used but not purchased
No. of library’s purchases used
by othersLibrary 3 72% 189% 94%Library 6 50% 218% 77%Library 4 43% 154% 100%Library 2 42% 305% 100%Library 5 4% 185% 85%Library 1 0% 250% 0%
Purchase Analysis
informationpower
Value purchased but
not usedValue used but not purchased
Value of library’s
purchases used by others
Library 3 77% 165% 105%Library 6 51% 176% 104%Library 4 49% 136% 100%Library 2 43% 396% 100%Library 5 4% 195% 118%Library 1 0% 2176% 0%
Value analysis
informationpower
Use of purchased
Use of non-purchased
Use by others of library’s
purchasesLibrary 4 2246 4932 3753Library 6 1589 3532 3875Library 5 1491 1633 4675Library 3 320 3828 1271Library 2 252 48 2497Library 1 0 1210 0
Usage analysis
informationpower
% of titles bought Av accesses per bookPublisher B 8.1% 2.6Publisher A 5.6% 2.5Publisher C 2.4% 2.7Publisher E 1.8% 2.8Publisher D 1.3% 2.5Publisher F 0.5% 1.5
Publisher analysis
informationpower
5 out of the 6 libraries said they would be interested in pursuing consortial ebook purchasing using this business model
In the light of the data they were pleased with both the level of use of titles they had purchased, and their use of titles purchased by other institutions
They would be happy to put money into a consortial ‘pot’ to widen their access to ebook titles (funds permitting)
One librarian commented: “Increased access is the real benefit and saving money is a bonus”
What did the librarians think of the pilot?
informationpower
Librarians commented that the important factor in a consortia is having synergy between the libraries (e.g. research/ teaching focused)
The majority favoured subject-based ebook consortia
The portfolio of publishers participating in the consortia was very important
Most favoured a minimum level of financial commitment from participating libraries
What type of consortia?
informationpower
The majority of publishers were disappointed with the sales figures
However, on the whole, they were pleased and very interested in the usage data
An interesting finding from the pilot was that none of the publishers examined ebook usage in detail at company level (only ejournal usage)
All publishers said that they only had access to usage data from their own platform – ebook aggregators did not supply them with usage statistics
What did the publishers think?
informationpower
In general, the smaller publishers were most enthusiastic…”our role as a publisher is to get our content out there…. we need to get our brand noticed”
All publishers commented that they needed to protect the value of their titles
Of the 3 larger publishers only one was positive about the business model. However, they felt that a variable price multiplier would be necessary to enable them to offer both back list and current high demand titles
What did the publishers think?
informationpower
One publisher said they were very interested in evidence based purchasing and would like JISC Collections to pursue that model
Another publisher stated that they did not like the business model saying “it is not sustainable”
They went on to say “we are keen to work with library consortia but we don’t like shared ownership/collections… we would rather give a discount”
What alternative did publishers suggest?
informationpower
Librarians. The majority felt that the business model worked well and they got good value-for-money
Publishers. Were not enthusiastic about the business model but suffered no financial detriment
The Consortia. Obtained valuable, unique data about the business model & usage of the shared collection
But the REAL WINNERS were the USERS who had access to much more content… and used it!
Who are the winners?