Re: e-book acquisitions: aggregate vs. publisher purchase

From: <acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:49:59 -0700
To: ACQNET-L <acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org>
Dawn,

For years I have asked major e-book aggregators to allow/secure the 
right for libraries to have at least residual e-ownership/e-access 
rights with source publishers, especially since as a rule the 
larger/better publishers typically participate in e-archiving via 
Portico. Aggregators invariably ignore such requests, presumably because 
they have no interest in doing so and do not feel pressure from enough 
librarians to reconsider.

As for purchasing preferences, UNC Chapel Hill Libraries invariably 
prefer to acquire e-books directly from publishers rather than 
aggregators, because the former represent much greater value. Although 
the standard e-book list price when purchased on a title-by-title basis 
is typically congruent with that of the hardback print version—but 
without any vendor discount for libraries—regardless of publisher or 
aggregator, buying directly from publishers typically defaults to 
unlimited simultaneous users at no additional cost, imposes few if any 
DRM restrictions, often provides for e-archiving via Portico, and can 
result in additional benefits such as free alumni access. (For more 
detailed information, I will send upon request a copy of the UNC 
University Library E-Books Platforms Recommendations & E-books 
Collections Strategy.) Consequently, we buy e-books from aggregators 
only when we have to and no publisher option exists. As a result, titles 
from the major general aggregators represent >3% of the >1M cataloged 
e-books in campus libraries’ collections.

Within this context of value and user-focused utility, UNC has not 
joined the stampede to demand-/patron-driven acquisitions in large 
measure because the only options currently available consist of 
aggregator-supplied e-books. At Chapel Hill we do not consider 
aggregator DDA/PDA models a panacea—much less a substitute for an 
e-books strategy; rather, they are a potential niche component of a 
larger collections plan. Consequently, in planning for a potential 
DDA/PDA, UNC envisions relying on aggregators to supply e-books from 
small, marginal, and generally less expensive publishers while 
continuing to buy directly from publishers whenever possible. And we 
plan to implement a DDA/PDA model consortially—which parallels our 
approach to buying e-books directly from publishers—so as to get better 
value from these lower preference e-books providers.

This point brings me back to the subject header of your post: “e-book 
acquisitions: aggregate vs. publisher purchase”. The wording reflects 
the situation typical libraries are stuck with at present. In my view, 
what librarians and their users need is “publishers with aggregator 
purchase”—with the latter relevant only if necessary when better options 
do not exist. If we want to move beyond this unfortunate current 
dichotomy, librarians need to pressure publishers to develop platforms 
that allow for selling their e-books on a title-by-title basis directly 
or via DDA/PDA models. And, if they are too small do so on their own, 
publishers need to be encouraged to achieve integration with major book 
vendors, with latter developing their own DDA/PDA models that include 
both aggregators and publishers and with algorithms that ensure the 
publisher versions are bought before the aggregator ones.

DDA/PDA models that include both publishers and aggregators require that 
the former develop the following functionalities to work with major book 
vendors:
• Provide files of titles that can be made available for discovery;
• Activate titles for viewing that have not yet been purchased by the 
library;
• Manage automatic purchases (and possibly even short-term loans), and 
be able to pass that financial information back to the vendor.

Such capabilities are not simple, although perhaps the major book 
vendors themselves could be more proactive in creating these 
functionalities for publishers. In my view librarians need to urge 
publishers and vendors to move in this direction if we want to have good 
options for acquiring e-books.

Luke Swindler

*******************************************************************************
Luke Swindler Coordinator of General Collections
Davis Library CB #3918 swindler_at_email.unc.edu
University of North Carolina TEL (919-962-1095)
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA FAX (919-962-4450)
*************************************************“*****************************
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 AM, <acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org>
<acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

Hello.

Has anyone discovered that if an e-book monograph is purchased through 
an aggregate service, like EBL, ebrary or EBSCO, that you are also 
granted access to the content on the publisher's platform (assuming the 
title has not also been purchased directly from the publisher)? When a 
title is available for purchase through either an aggregate service or 
directly from the publisher, do your librarians/selectors/users have a 
preference? Thank you for any input.

-- 
Dawn Rapoza
Head, Electronic Resources & Serials Unit
Lauinger Library
Georgetown University
202-687-0774
des57_at_georgetown.edu

_______________________________________________
ACQNET-L mailing list
ACQNET-L_at_lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/acqnet-l
Received on Tue Aug 14 2012 - 17:54:48 EDT