ACQNET v4n008 (January 27, 1994) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v4n008 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 8, January 27, 1994 ======================================= (1) FROM: Scott Wicks SUBJECT: Pre-publication orders(32 lines) (2) FROM: Karl Debus SUBJECT: Purchase requests (45 lines) (3) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Purchase requests (20 lines) (4) FROM: Barry Fast SUBJECT: Publisher discounts (47 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Scott B. Wicks (Cornell University) Subject: Pre-pub ordering Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 09:50:51 -0500 In ACQNET 4:7, Penny Swanson (Douglas College) mentioned that they stopped ordering pre-pub titles over two years ago. I am curious to know if there are others who follow this rule. What was the reaction from selectors when you informed them that they'd have to hold their pre-pub orders and resubmit them at a later time? How have you benefitted from such a change? I can understand not wanting to place pre-pub orders for some of the output from the reprint houses as these pre-pub announcements are often the publishers' means of testing the marketability of each title. I can identify some of these houses as they frequently appear on claim alert lists. It's at the point-of-claim that we attempt to prove a title has been published and received by other peer institutions--only after such a review will we issue a claim. How do you prove that a title is not yet published at point-of-order? Do you expend the staff resources to search each new order in the appropriate "books-in-print" for each country? Do you return only those order requests which clearly show a projected publication date? How far into the future is pre-pub? two months? four? one? While Cornell will place orders for pre-pub titles, we do draw the line at projected pub. dates of more than 11 months to the future. Unfortunately, it's those "test-the-waters" publishers who tend not to stipulate a projected publication date. (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Karl Debus (National Agricultural Library) Subject: Purchase requests Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 10:55:46 -0500 At the National Agricultural Library we have begun accepting book requests through our local e-mail system. In order to standardize the information we receive on e-mail, I created a file that contained all the pertinent information needed to order a title: author, title, ISBN, publisher, place, date, series/edition, cost, requested priority, copies, location, requestor, OCLC number (if available), and online catalog bib-id (if available). Selectors can import this file into their e-mail message, fill in the fields, and send it to a central e-mail mailbox. This mailbox is reviewed by me on a daily basis. After reviewing the request, I import an additional file, which includes acquisitions related information: Fund Code, Priority, Vendor Notes, Internal Notes, and Source. I then send the request via e-mail to my order technicians, who search the title and establish an order record in our Acquisitions system. Unfortunately, the technicians still need to print out a copy of the e-mail request in order to complete their searching. Once the order technicians complete their work, they import a file to the original e-mail order request, which contains order status information: whether the title was ordered or not, the order id, if it wasn't ordered, the reason why (already on order, received and in process, cataloged, serial at NAL), their initials, and date. The order request is therefore returned to the original selector with all of the information he or she needs to know about the status of the order. The above may sound time consuming, but it is actually as fast or faster than processing a variety of requests in different paper formats (printouts, announcements, etc.). The selectors seem to like it more than filling out paper request forms. They are on their computers most of the day, so requesting through e-mail is one more thing they can do from their workstations. I have been surprised by the number of selectors who have diligently typed in correct ISBN and OCLC numbers. Requesting through e-mail does not work well for complicated orders that require extensive explanation or attachments. For those orders, I have asked selectors to still send me written requests with attachments. Our next step is to figure out some way to import the e-mail request into our Acquisitions system. Once that is done, we will have eliminated paper completely from the order process. (We have also begun ordering titles electronically with two of our domestic vendors.) (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington) Subject: Purchase requests Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 12:47:15 -0500 Most progressive acquisitions operations these days no longer require that purchase requests from collection managers be on a prescribed paper form. We still make such a form available, chiefly so that some collection managers can provide them to their faculty contacts. Most modern acquisitions operations accept any working copy where fund and location are provided. The vast majority of our purchase requests here at the University of Washington arrive via electronic mail from collection managers, often in the form of downloaded records from _Books In Print_ which is available online to the campus community over the campus network. Having just switched from Geac to Innovative acquisitions this past summer, we are now training collection managers' staff to input purchase requests (and gifts) directly into Innovative where we can collect them, search them and turn them into actual paper or electronic orders. We developed a similar system on Geac which was very popular with collection managers. (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Barry Fast (Academic Book Center) Subject: Reduced publisher discounts Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 11:06:20 -0500 Librarians should be aware that two publishers have recently reduced or eliminated discounts to booksellers. In each case the publishers told us that they could not raise the price of their books to recover increased costs because they felt that they would meet price resistance from the library community. Instead, they have reduced discounts to your vendors. This forces vendors to add a service charge on these books, effectively raising the price. Librarians expect that books from societies and associations will bear a service charge; there is a long standing tradition of selling to vendors at the list price. But these two publishers are mainstream presses whose market is primarily libraries and the academic community. There is no way librarians can predict a service charge on publishers like these. The problem for librarians is that they don't know the real cost of the books when they select them. The list price is not the effective price due to little or no discount, resulting in the imposition of a service charge by vendors. The publishers are fully aware that vendors will be forced to add a service charge. They can't sell books at cost and neither can we. If publishers need to charge more for their books, or just want to charge more, that is certainly their right. But the new higher prices ought to be subjected to a vote by the marketplace. Librarians, voting with their acquisition dollars, decide to purchase or not, and do this in part as a function of the price. Isn't it fair that the publishers tell you the price so that you can make an informed decision. By their own admission in this case, they do not think they will sell as many books if they raise the prices. Instead of raising the price for all to see and judge, they reduce or eliminate the discount resulting, in most cases, in a higher effective price anyway. C'mon folks, let's work together instead of against each other. Would you buy underwear at KMart if they said the price is around $9.95 at the point of sale, but then costs a dollar or two more when you take it to the cash register? Publishers who sell to libraries ought to have policies that enable librarians to know the real price before they buy the book. If publishers think that the real price of the book is too high, they have answered their own question about whether they should publish the book. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 4, No. 8 ****** END OF FILE ******