For a variety of reasons, libraries have explored new acquisitions models, in particular the use of short-term loans (STLs) and demand-driven acquisitions (DDA) of ebooks. The reasons for embracing these options are diverse: shifting collection development practices, assuring use of purchased materials, coping with lower budgets, offering access to supplementary content, expanding library services, etc. As popular as these options have become, libraries do not undertake implementation lightly. It can be challenging to gain acceptance of the DDA/STL models and achieve a balance with traditional collection development practices. Once a DDA/STL program is in place, it can be a winning situation for libraries and publishers. Libraries can offer access to larger ebook collections than they could buy outright and pay only when content is actually used. Publishers can earn STL fees on titles that would otherwise not have been purchased, and benefit when more titles are made accessible by their customers. When libraries leave DDA titles in place, publishers benefit in terms of fees and purchases that accumulate over the long term. An equilibrium of sorts was achieved between the new and old. But in May 2014, it was announced that several publishers decided to dramatically increase the cost of STLs for their DDA content, a decision that has caused widespread angst in libraries. Librarians from four small consortia will discuss their very different DDA/STL programs and their before and after scenarios: how DDA was working, steps or plans to address the impact of recent publisher decisions, and why DDA/STLs should remain an acquisitions option. Join us for an open discussion about this overall situation and how it might play out in the long run. Speakers: Lorraine Huddy (CTW), Susan MacArthur (CBB), Mike Persick (Tri-Colleges), Pamela Skinner (Five Colleges)

1. Charleston Conference 2014
Lively Lunch

2. Lorraine Huddy, CTW Librarian for Collaborative Projects
Connecticut-Trinity-Wesleyan (CTW)
Susan MacArthur, Electronic Resources Librarian
Bates College/ Colby-Bates-Bowdoin (CBB)
Mike Persick, Head of Acquisitions & Serials
Haverford College/ Tri-College Consortium
Pamela Skinner, Head of Collection Development
Smith College/ The Five Colleges Consortium

3.  To have an open conversation about the DDA
model and STL increases
 To provide the library perspective:
◦ Why the DDA/STL model was chosen
◦ How it benefits our libraries
◦ The reaction to and impact of STL fee increases
 To gain publishers’ perspectives on STL fees
 To discuss the short & long term impact;
assuring the DDA/STL models remain an option

4.  Recaps of our four DDA/STL programs
 Questions for the Audience
 Group Discussion

5. - Steve Smith and Ido Peled
From the abstract for their Charleston
Conference Poster Session entitled:
Evidence-Based Collection Development.
(Thursday, November 6th at 6 pm)

7. Connecticut College
FTE: ~1875
Trinity College
FTE: ~2200
Wesleyan University
FTE: ~3000
• History of in/formal collection development
• Shared ILS and eResource purchases
• YBP Profiling for New Title Notifications
o No YBP Auto-Ship Approval Plans
o Softcover Preferred

8.  Assessment of Library within Institution
 Budget & Staffing Issues
 Research & Teaching more Multi-Disciplinary
 Collection Development >> Collection Services
 Unique Content vs. Format Preferences
 Vying Expenditures: Monographs vs.
Serials & eResources

9.  Monographic Budgets are 41% below
pre-2009 levels and remain relatively flat
Result: more protective of book funds
Prefer buying what students and faculty
actually use vs. what they might use.

11. “…Most academic publishers are witnessing
declines in sales per title.
To offset this loss and protect their financial
strength, many are publishing more titles and
raising their list prices…
eBook pricing in the academic library market
is closely linked to print book pricing…”

12. Price Margin: E vs. P
FY2012: eBooks 16% over Cloth
FY2013: eBooks 28% over Cloth
FY2014: eBooks 30% over Cloth

13.  Journals and eResources demand a larger
and larger share of our Acquisition Budgets
Outcome: Flat budgets = Re-Allocations
Shifting funds from Monographs
to help pay for Serials & eResources
“Robbing Peter to pay Paul”

15.  Positions subject to review & defense process
Staff vacancies or changes
= more responsibilities
Outcome: Shrinking staffs amid rising
expectations = more to do, less time overall

17.  January 2010 – June 2014
 Collection: ~6,500 titles; $150 price cap
 Deletions: price increases, publisher
withdrawals, overlap w/ ebrary ACC
 No STLs >> Purchases on 2nd CTW use
 Share access & purchase of a single CTW copy
 2014: Publishers put an end to shared purchases

18.  Sept 2012 – Feb 2014: Manual DDA
 Mar 2014 – Current: Automated DDA
 Collection: 13,000+ titles; $200 price cap
 Deletions: publisher withdrawals, overlap w/
EBSCO and ebrary
 Shared Pool of Titles >> Individual Purchases
 Individual LibCentral accounts & STL settings

19. Image Credit: http://www.keepcalmandposters.com/poster/keep-calm-because-everything-
everything-has-changed

20. University Press
Former
1-day STL
New
1-day STL
%
Change
Former
7-day STL
New
7-day STL
%
Change
Cambridge University Press 15% 30% 100% 20% 60% 200%
Fordham University Press 10% 20% 100% 15% 30% 100%
Louisiana State Univ Press 15% 30% 100% 20% 40% 100%
Oxford University Press 15% 25% 67% 20% 40% 100%
New York University Press 5% 25% 400% 10% 45% 350%
University Press of Colorado 5% 20% 300% 10% 30% 200%
University Press of Kentucky 5% 25% 400% 10% 50% 400%
UP Average STL Fees 10% 25% 150% 15% 42% 180%
EBL Customers may access the complete list on LibCentral’s homepage.

21.  Mediation OK (in testing phase)
 Cambridge removed from DDA profile
 Alerts for ALL STLs
 New Caps on STLs: by Price or % List Price
 STL Loans offered: One Day and One Week
 Limit on # Loans per Week: 10 per Patron
 New Auto-Purchase Price Cap
 Reinforced decision to de-duplicate against
ebook subscriptions

22.  To regain sales and retain the monograph’s
rightful place in more library collections:
◦ E vs. P pricing must be reasonable and stable
◦ Assess all your pricing practices: could they be
negatively impacting your book sales?
 To take advantage of the long tail of DDA/STL
revenue streams:
◦ Lower STL fees will encourage libraries to cast a
wider content net and decrease de-duplication
efforts.

23. CBB Consortium
Colby-Bates-Bowdoin
Susan MacArthur
E-Resources Librarian
Ladd Library
Bates College

24. Ladd Library
Bates College
Miller Library,
Colby College
Hawthorne-
Longfellow
Library
Bowdoin
College
Shared Collections: Book Approval
Plan, Ebook Collections, and
Numerous Databases
Approximately 6000 users

25. One-time Purchases
(Mostly Books)
Ongoing
Expenditures
35%
65%
Why DDA?
Book budget holding steady at this point (chart for Bates)
We have a number of ongoing publisher plans which expand our
approval plan.
We still wanted to explore DDA possibilities and realize some savings.

26.  YBP / ebrary plan begins August 2013
 48 Trade Publishers, No University Presses
 Price Cap of $125
 DDA profile parameters same as CBB Approval plan;
Selectors may add titles to DDA pool
 DDA titles held maximum of 8 weeks for e-book to
become available.
 Discovery record produced and loaded into CBB
catalog.
 If e-book is not available within 8 weeks, print copy
sent.

27.  Initially, opted to use STLs for e-preferred titles
 4th use would trigger a purchase
 Point of order MARC record is then created
 Invoice is generated on DDA invoicing account
 Invoice covers the MARC record and purchase
 Deducted from CBB’s Deposit Account

28.  Review of data after a year, notice STL Fees have
increased
 Very few STLs and Purchases, but fee increases raise
concerns
 Current pool of DDA titles: only ~226 titles
◦ 8 weeks too short for e-book availability?
 Some major publishers don’t offer DDA/STL on new
titles so CBB has received more print than expected.
◦ e-preferred “DDA” is costing more than anticipated

29.  STL costs (on top of price) are a concern.
 We consider even one use significant for our
approval universe (August 2014).
 We decided to remove short term loans and
explore the use of Auto Purchase.
 We are now receiving more e-books from
publishers with no short term loans.
 Ongoing evaluation as we get more data.

30. Content needs across CBB are very similar
ACLS Humanities
Cambridge Histories and Cambridge Companions
Ebrary
eDuke Books
Harvard University Press (current titles)
Loeb Classical Library
Oxford Handbooks and Oxford Scholarship Online
Springer ebooks
University Press Scholarship Online (UPSO),
(ex.) Florida Scholarship, Fordham Scholarship

31.  No plans for significant expansion, but plan to
add one new publisher to DDA plan soon.
 CBB will continue to evaluate platforms - expect
few/no DRMs, good discoverability, and favorable
consortial pricing.
 Continue to expand with new packages, balanced
with appropriate single title print and e-book
purchases.

32. Mike Persick
Head of Acquisitions & Serials
Haverford College

33.  4500 FTE total

34.  Unique degree of cooperative decision
making
 Avoid unnecessary/undesired duplication
 Done jointly since 2004
 (BMC & HC since 1972)
 Working to engender that level of cooperation
with DDA plan & e-books in general

35.  Shared catalog
 Want to provide equivalent access for most
e-resources
 Users tend to prefer print to e-book for
academic use
 2014 Student and Faculty Ebook Survey
 Budgets differ, but relatively healthy

36.  Begun in 2011
 Large pool, no limitation by subject matter
 Much duplication of print holdings; no
attempt to prevent
 STL/purchase of titles already owned in print
 Tweaked this fall
 Now only duplicate print holdings deliberately

37.  To offer broadly, beyond core subjects
 Peripheral or supplemental to print collection
 Want access to be simple & instant
◦ No mediation
 Chose EBL because STL model was so
appealing
 Didn’t have to make a lot of purchases after
only minimal use
◦ Purchase upon 9th paid use

38.  Agnostic about changes
 Don’t see as “unreasonable”
 Don’t feel need to change pubs’ minds
 Need to deal with the situation responsibly
 Avoid spending too much on peripheral
materials

39.  Initially, $40 max on STL
 Shifted profiling to YBP – can’t limit profile by
STL cost
 $200 list price limit
◦ At 20% STL cost, would mirror $40 STL limit
 Retain titles with use for 1 year
 Separate YBP profile for pubs over 20%?
 Limit STL via EBL LibCentral?

40.  Limit DDA pool to less expensive titles,
control STL & purchase expenses
 Allow deliberate access to expensive books
too

41. Pamela Skinner
Head of Collection Development
Smith College Libraries

43.  Student FTE: > 36,000 total
 AC: 1,785
 HC: 1,400
 MH: 2,183
 SC: 2,689 (plus 400 in grad School for Social Work)
 UM: 28,140 (22,000 undergrad; 6,140 grad)
 Long tradition of cooperation, including shared ILS
 YBP print approval plans at MH & SC
 Added copy policy for print

44. Late to the DDA party! Run a pilot to assess use/appeal
Budgets NOT a motivator
Circulation data: 40% of print books purchased in recent
years never circulate
Pilot offered a huge array of titles
24 x 7 access
Distance Ed programs (UMass)
Long field placements for social work students (Smith)
Desire to totally automate workflow and avoid mediation

45.  138,000 titles (new titles loaded weekly)
 Imprint date: 2005+
 All EBL titles handled on YBP approval (any plan)
 All publishers
 Max price: $250/title
 De-duped against ebrary Academic Complete
 Not de-duped against print
 ~70% of our auto-purchases are available in print in FC
 5th Short-Term Loan (STL) triggers purchase

46.  Wildly popular!
 Expended 2/3 of our $220,000 STL pool within the first
six months
 See the Five Colleges dashboard site for the full picture
 Or, come to:
 “Data Analysis from Consortial DDA Programs”
 Friday, Nov. 7 @ 3:15-4:00 PM
 Courtyard Marriott, Ashley Room

47.  Selected publishers announce increases to their Short-
Term Loan rates
 New STL rates typically double (old STL rates ran 10%-
25% of list)
 Five College EBL use becomes unsustainable under the
new rates

49.  Removed all EBL titles > $100
 79,555 titles removed
 66,550 titles remain
 Kept auto-purchased/firm-ordered titles >$100
 $100 price cap applies to new titles added
 Reduced STL from 7 days to 1 day (add’l 5% savings)
 75% of our users don’t access loaned book for a 2nd
day
 Did not target specific publishers, but . . .

50. Publisher:
# titles
Pre-purge:
# titles
Post-purge:
Taylor & Francis 23,586 892
Springer 22,999 5,202
Wiley 14,708 9,122
Cambridge 9,938 1,884
Palgrave 7,211 4,396
Brill 2,226 125
Elsevier 2,180 2
Oxford 2,085 959
Ashgate 1,800 748

51.  Keep criteria for inclusion/exclusion clear for selectors
 Avoid all mediation between users & titles
 Chose not to set maximum STL percentage in
LibCentral, since less clear for selectors

52.  EBL DDA pool:
 Access to a huge array of titles that FC had not purchased
initially & would not now
 Users become selectors
 Recent FC experience with EBL firm orders & reserve lists
 $18,119,413: Total list price of eBooks in pool, pre-purge
 $ 3,575,384: Total list price of eBooks in pool, post-purge
 Long tail of revenue: $$$ for publishers from use of titles
we had already purchased in print – and for items we’d
never purchase in print

53.  Researchers want immediate answers from vast
resources
 Libraries must be able to offer enough titles – print &
online - that the book remains a viable scholarly
resource
 An economic model that enables libraries to offer
more—not fewer– books is critical
 Reasonably priced access model = The best hope for
books as an academic tool
 What can we do to make this happen?

55.  What do you consider to be reasonable STL
fees?
o For 1 day; 7 days; 14 days; 28 days?
o How did you determine these?
 If STL fees were lowered, what would
be your response?
o What changes would you make to your DDA
program?

56. ◦ What was taken into consideration when
you determined your new STL rates?
◦ How were rate increases justified within
your company? ...to your customers?
◦ What did you expect to happen in
response to the rate hikes?

57.  What would be the “perfect DDA/STL program”?
How would it work
...for libraries?
...for aggregators?
...for vendors?
...for publishers?

58. ◦ Would an embargo period on new* ebook
titles be acceptable?
- no DDA/STLs until the embargo ends?
◦ How long an embargo period would be
acceptable?
* “new” refers to newly published titles; not older
titles now available as ebooks

59.  What else might assure that DDA/STL remains
an acquisition option?
 What expectations or practices should change
to assure a long term/sustainable outcome?
 What measures might be taken that will have a
positive impact?

60. Lorraine Huddy (CTW) lhuddy@wesleyan.edu
Susan MacArthur (CBB) smacarth@bates.edu
Mike Persick (Tri-Colleges) mpersick@haverford.edu
Pamela Skinner (Five Colleges) pskinner@smith.edu