Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Who are the Winners? E-books Consortial Purchasing
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Who are the Winners? E-books Consortial Purchasing


Published on

Hazel Woodward (speaker), Helen Henderson (speaker)

Hazel Woodward (speaker), Helen Henderson (speaker)

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. informationpower Who are the Winners? Ebook consortial purchasing Hazel Woodward & Helen Henderson Information Power Ltd. Presentation to the Charleston Conference, 7th November, 2013 informationpower
  • 2. Ebook consortial purchasing  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 informationpower
  • 3. JISC Collections (UK) Ebook Consortia Pilot Project  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 20122013  Engineering ebooks chosen for pilot  Libraries to purchase ebooks  IPL, as Project Manager, to collect and analyse purchase & usage data informationpower
  • 4. The (very simple) business model  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 informationpower
  • 5. Libraries & Publishers       Cranfield University Loughborough University Newcastle University Brunel University University of Southampton University of Liverpool  Artech House  Cambridge University Press (CUP)  Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)  Taylor & Francis (T&F)  Wiley  World Scientific Publishing (WSP) informationpower
  • 6. Implementation (more challenging than expected!) 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 informationpower
  • 7. Implementation 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 informationpower
  • 8. Implementation 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 informationpower
  • 9. Finally… the pilot was up and running  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 informationpower
  • 10. So what were the findings (in a nutshell)  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% informationpower
  • 11. Overall analysis Library 1 Library 2 Library 6 Library 4 Library 5 Library 3 % bought 34% 25% 15% 13% 13% 0% % used 95% 52% 42% 49% 27% 20% % bought % used but but not not bought used 61% 1% 27% 11% 26% 8% 35% 6% 15% 9% 100% 0% informationpower
  • 12. Purchase Analysis Library 3 Library 6 Library 4 Library 2 Library 5 Library 1 No. of library’s No. purchased No. used but purchases used but not used not purchased by others 72% 189% 94% 50% 218% 77% 43% 154% 100% 42% 305% 100% 4% 185% 85% 0% 250% 0% informationpower
  • 13. Value analysis Library 3 Library 6 Library 4 Library 2 Library 5 Library 1 Value of Value library’s purchased but Value used but purchases used not used not purchased by others 77% 165% 105% 51% 176% 104% 49% 136% 100% 43% 396% 100% 4% 195% 118% 0% 2176% 0% informationpower
  • 14. Usage analysis Library 4 Library 6 Library 5 Library 3 Library 2 Library 1 Use of purchased 2246 1589 1491 320 252 0 Use of nonpurchased 4932 3532 1633 3828 48 1210 Use by others of library’s purchases 3753 3875 4675 1271 2497 0 informationpower
  • 15. Publisher analysis Publisher B Publisher A Publisher C Publisher E Publisher D Publisher F % of titles bought 8.1% 5.6% 2.4% 1.8% 1.3% 0.5% Av accesses per book 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 1.5 informationpower
  • 16. What did the librarians think of the pilot?  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” informationpower
  • 17. What type of consortia?  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 informationpower
  • 18. What did the publishers think?  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 informationpower
  • 19. What did the publishers think?  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 informationpower
  • 20. What alternative did publishers suggest?  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” informationpower
  • 21. Who are the winners?  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! informationpower