After a major publisher removed its frontlist from the EBL short-term-loan (STL) program, the Wake Forest University library (in a fit of pique) removed the affected books from its Demand-Driven Acquisition pool. What happened next? Did individual librarian selectors start buying more print from this publisher, offsetting any savings? Did the publisher make more sales from WFU before or after the change? In addition to comparing this one publisher before and after the change, I will compare outcomes with another publisher that did not change its participation in STLs during the study period. Along the way, I will share the methodology I used so that this limited study could be broadened in the future to encompass other publishers and other libraries.

1. A TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT?
COMPARING SAME-PUBLISHER
SALES BEFORE AND AFTER DDA
WITHDRAWAL
CAROL JOYNER CRAMER
WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
CHARLESTON CONFERENCE 2017
SHOTGUN SESSION

2. WAY BACK IN FY2015…
• When EBL was still EBL
• Some publishers dropped
frontlist titles from the STL
model
STL=Short Term Loan
DDA=Demand Driven
Acquisition

3. WAS THIS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE PUBLISHER?
WAS THIS GOOD FOR WAKE FOREST?
• Would librarian selectors buy
more print from this publisher
because the titles were no
longer available in EBL?
• Note WFU spending ≠
publisher profit

4. FY14 VS. FY16: WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY
FY2014
• FTE: 7,487
• Monograph Spend: $741,833
• Monograph Spend/FTE: $99
Monograph spend includes print books and
e-books regardless of acquisition method
(firm, approval, DDA, etc.)
FY2016
• FTE: 7,676
• Monograph Spend: $818,275
• Monograph Spend/FTE: $107

5. ABOUT PUBLISHERS A & B
• Both major trade publishers
• Both publish in many disciplines
• Both publish under multiple imprints
• Both offer their own e-book platform
• Publisher A dropped out of STL sometime between July 2014- June 2015.
• Publisher B continued with STL through at least June 2016.

6. PUBLISHER A (DROPPED OUT OF STL)
FY14 FY16
Print Spending: $ 9,506 $ 9,572
Titles Acquired: 125 130
Firm E-book Spending: $ - $ 3,151
Titles Acquired: 0 16
DDA Spending (Frontlist): $ 3,094 $ -
Unique Titles Accessed: 111 0
Total Spent: $ 12,600 $ 12,723

7. PUBLISHER B (STAYED IN STL)
FY14 FY16
Print Spending: $ 43,951 $ 40,865
Titles Acquired: 430 380
Firm E-book Spending: $ - $ -
Titles Acquired: 0 0
DDA Spending (Frontlist): $ 1,564 $ 6,398
Unique Titles Accessed: 128 105
Total Spent: $ 45,515 $ 47,263

8. WFU “MARKET SHARE” COMPARISON
FY14 FY16 Decline of
Publisher A (Quit STL) 1.70% 1.56% 8.46%
Publisher B (Continued STL) 6.14% 5.78% 5.86%

9. LESSONS LEARNED: EVERYONE LOST
• Both publishers lost “market
share”
• Publisher A’s Strategy (Quit STL)
not as successful as Publisher B’s
strategy (Raise STL prices)
• WFU lost access to many titles
from Publisher A without any cost
savings.
• However, WFU could not afford to
keep paying for DDA in a no-STL
model.
• Will Access-to-own solve all our
problems?

10. COULD THIS METHOD BE EXPANDED?
• More libraries
• More publishers
• More alternate history
scenarios

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Thanks to GOBI and Steve Hyndman for providing spending statistics.
Creative Commons Photos:
• President Obama: NASA
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/16286939004
• Newton’s Cradle: Martin Weller
https://www.flickr.com/photos/edtechie/6683410305
• Snowflake: Mattosberger
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129602379@N03/23784892043