Random House’s New Library Policy
I’m conflicted when reading an article from The Digital Shift discussing Random House’s decision to recommit to library ebook lending…while raising prices on said ebooks for wholesalers who sell to libraries.
I’m glad they’ve decided to keep their entire selection open for library purchase without limitations, unlike the other Big 6 publishers who are either avoiding the market entirely, restricting the available collection, or trying to establish arbitrary limits on how their ebook copies can be purchased and used.
They at least offer some rational explanation for their price increase only for library copies: their audiobooks have always been sold to libraries at a higher price point, so they’re just switching to that business model.
But how does that business model really impact their sales? Amazon just announced that their Kindle Lending Library program has higher sales compared to a group of users not using the service. A study conducted by Library Journal discovered that “over 50% of library users report purchasing books by an author they were introduced to in the library.”
How does the cost of marketing compare to the buzz the libraries create…and yet still pay for? It’s a little weird to think about, but every time a library features an author or title on display, we are advertising it…and we pay for the privilege.
Many in the library community believe that Random House’s new plan is at least palatable, a best possible option when the reactions of the other Big 6 seem outright hostile, even abusive to libraries. Publisher’s Weekly is reporting the arrangement as a “fair trade.”
I still don’t see that. This deal may be the best possible option of those that have been put on the table, but the entire deal reinforces that publishers are still clinging to business models that tend to view libraries as competition rather than collaborators.
Or a security risk to be evaluated and assessed, as described by the statement that, “Random House has confidence that its encryption technology is strong enough to support “all-out” library elending.”
More DRM, like libraries are a particularly risky market for piracy. Of course the problem is not in a publisher’s business model, pricing structure, or overall demand for product.
At least Random House is willing to play ball with libraries on a generally level playing field. But it’s a shame we have to set the bar for good relationships with publishers that low.
