ACQNET v2n083 (August 31, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n083 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 83, August 31, 1992 ======================================= (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Ann Okerson SUBJECT: Co-publishing, Part 2 of 2 (152 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: August 31, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Brenda Whittaker Lucas Collection Development Librarian Harvard Medical School Library E-mail: BLUCAS@WARREN.MED.HARVARD.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:29:31 EDT From: Ann Okerson (ARL) Subject: Co-publishing, Part 2 of 2 [This completes the transcript of the discussion which started in ACQNET 2:82. -- C.] ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 From: Timothy Clancy (U Penn Press) Subject: Library Purchases of Co-Pubs David Perry reports North American sales of British editions of three co-pubs as "11 percent, 13 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of total North American library sales," based on an OCLC search. I agree with him that the situation is quite irritating, but we should keep in mind some of the limita- tions of the bibliographic services when drawing conclusions. I'm not a librarian (or an expert on library matters), but I've understood that services and networks such as OCLC and RLIN only represent a particular subset of the overall library market. Also, some libraries (such as smaller academic libraries) may use OCLC or RLIN as a resource, to capture cataloging records created elsewhere, or do searching for acquisitions or inter-library loan. However, they do not necessarily all post their holdings on the bibliographic network. Thus, we have a limited ability to draw broad market conclusions based on a search of one service. The pattern is disturbing, however, and this discussion list is a good place to consider options for limiting illegal sales activity in restricted territories. I can think of several possible strategies, but it's not clear at what point the effort is worthwhile: - Continue to complain to the other publisher involved. Sure, they do not control the distributors, but they can pass the complaint along. - Complain to the distributors involved. (But it will take some effort to find out who the offending party is in each case.) - Discuss the matter with the libraries involved, and do some general education of collection development librarians. Since most libraries are very respon- sive, a letter of complaint/inquiry directed to the collection development librarian (or director) will surely evoke a response, probably detailing the circumstances under which the questionable edition was acquired. If there is an AAUP-library liaison committee, this would be a fruitful topic of discus- sion. A reasonable goal would be to make acquisitions librarians aware of the issue and to ensure that they check for the availability of a U.S. co-pub edition for each imported title they process. - Evaluate the methods we UPs use to promote co-pubs to libraries. (If they do not know about the U.S. edition, how can they order it?) - The most drastic method of enforcement would be a cooperative lawsuit (like the Kinko's or Texaco cases). Whom do you sue: the librarians for buying "contraband editions" (that would do wonders for publisher-library relations!), the other publisher, the distributors, or all? Does anyone have the sense that this problem has a large enough impact on our revenues to make this worthwhile (I don't, since we really do very few co-pubs, and only a relatively small number of libraries seem to buy out of territory.) Discussion from others welcome! -Tim Clancy (U Penn Press) ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 From: Susan Lewis (Penn. State Univ. Press) Subject: Re: Library Purchases of Co-pubs I finally located the OCLC FirstSearch reports we ran last March to determine how many British editions of two of our copublished works had being purchased by U.S. libraries. These figures turn out to be approximately 5% for each title and reflect purchasing that occurred within about nine months of each title's initial release. Tim Clancy points out that the OCLC database doesn't include all libraries. (It consists of about 14,000 in the US and 46 other countries, according to an October 9, 1991, article in the _Chronicle of Higher Education_.) Thus it would seem that the North Carolina percentages of 11%, 13%, and 18% reported by Dave Perry, along with the 5% and 5% at PSP, are probably much higher than what the FirstSearch "hit list" indicates. I understand that about a dozen university presses have some kind of copub- lishing agreement with Polity, and know of at least two who are aware that British editions are being sold to US libraries. In these lean times, maybe we should, in fact, take some sort of collective action -- but without offend- ing our copublishers to the point where they no longer want to get involved in these agreements. Tim Clancy suggested having the AAUP Library Committee look into the matter, which seems like a good idea. We might also consider "bucking" this thread to a few library lists to get their input. While it's true that the problem can probably be traced to the distributors, it seems to me that the more library selectors are aware of the problem, the more likely it will be that they start checking their orders, especially if US prices are lower than British prices. (By the way, the RLIN database consists of nearly 1,000 libraries according to a listing I got from our local librarian. Searching is a lot more difficult on RLIN than on OCLC, however!) Susan Lewis, Penn State Press ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 From: "C. David Perry" (Univ. North Carolina Press) Subject: Library ordering of co-pub books [This posting was extensively edited. Much of it repeated portions of previous postings. -- C.] I am slow in responding to Tim Clancy's thoughtful response to my posting concerning library acquisitions of British editions of co-published books. We should get some information on the reliability of OCLC data and information from the online catalogs of selected libraries before drawing too many conclu- sions from such data. With respect to possible strategies, complaining to the other publishers involved is surely a good first step. Complaining to the distributors might also be a fruitful area for exploration. Libraries depend a great deal on their vendors. And vendors, competing for their business, supply services. Yankee Book Peddler, for example, sends bibliographic slips to its customers to notify them of co-published titles when they are aware of them. In some cases, though, a library may already have ordered the British edition because their ordering was prior to the availability of the book. We need to know more about how information on co-published editions is handled by book jobbers. It strikes me that this problem is a good topic for friendly discussion with the local library. I was interested to see that U. of Indiana Press and librarians from the Indiana Library meet regularly for roundtable discussions. Co-publication would make a good agenda item at such meetings. Clancy suggests that we evaluate the methods we UPs use to promote co-pubs to libraries. I agree. From just my limited sniffing around in an area that I will admit is far from my ken, it appears that the purchase of US rights to a UK title does not guarantee a monopoly license. (Should it? We may have to go back to first principles here. What are we buying when we buy US rights?) The timing of the two editions appears to be critical in some buying decisions. The generally lower prices of US editions of co-published books is a selling point. (See Betsy Kruger, "U.K. Books and Their U.S. Imprints: A Cost and Duplication Study," _Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory_, vol 15 (1991) 301-312.) Given timely information, many US libraries will prefer the US edition. Finally, I hope we are not to the point of contemplating lawsuits yet. I, too, would like to hear from others. It would help to have an idea of the size of the problem. David Perry (UNC Press) ----------END OF TRANSCRIPT AND MESSAGE -------------------- ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 83 ****** END OF FILE *******