Who are the Winners? E-books Consortial Purchasing


Published on

Hazel Woodward (speaker), Helen Henderson (speaker)

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

  • Be the first to like this

Who are the Winners? E-books Consortial Purchasing

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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