February 21, 2013
This week, Library Journal’s Barbara Hoffert analyzes trends in circulation and budgets of public libraries. This is a survey of 175 libraries who responded to questions sent out to Library Journal subscribers. Here is the link:
Among those reporting, 65% of circulation was fiction vs non-ficion. The top fiction genres were mystery, general, romance, and thriller; while non-fiction’s most popular subject areas were cooking, health, how-to, and arts/crafts. No big surprises there.
More revealing, perhaps, are the discussions of eBooks, self-publishing, apps, and social media marketing opportunities. One particularly interesting fact: eBook circulation was still only 3% of the total but grew close to 70% among libraries serving over 250,000 residents.
This information paints a panoramic backdrop against which we can highlight our own data from Collection HQ and other sources.
January 28, 2011
this week is the Digital Book World Conference & Expo 2011. on Wednesday, a panel of publishers convened to present “A CEO’s View of the Future.” the panel consisted of Brian Napack, President of Macmillan, Jane Friedman, CEO of Open Road Integrated Media, David Steinberger, CEO of Perseus, Michael Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson, and David Nussbam, CEO of F+W Media.
during the question and answer period of the session, Sarah Wendell, of the oft quoted Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, asked a very pertinent question (and kudos for her advocacy!):
Macmillan books are not available for digital lending in libraries. After making pronouncements about a publishers job being to unite the creators with their audience, and the importance of building a community, how can either of those things happen without library lending? I want to borrow Macmillan digital books in libraries, and I can’t – why not?
LJ summarized Napack’s answer:
Napack responded that Macmillan had “spent a long time looking for a business model” for putting Macmillan ebooks in libraries, but did not confirm when—or if—it would happen.
so while Macmillan is busy counting its money from library print sales, they’re unwilling to entertain the notion of making money off of library customers through ebook lending because of DRM and fear?! how long is it going to take for publishers to recognize that people who borrow from the library don’t stop buying books and do much in the way of word of mouth in recommending books to others – we’ve all seen it. Sarah passionately agrees on this point:
I find the idea of struggling with the question of a library business model absolutely barmy, because it demonstrates a lack of understanding about how libraries serve as a gateway to readers, to potential word-of-mouth sales, and to more book purchases by individuals who must own copies of books they loved. NOT having books available in the libraries for digital lending is a loss and a bad business model. Yet I don’t see Macmillan changing their position on this one.
and Jane of Dear Author put it quite succinctly in a retort to Napack:
Apparently publishers believe that the library patron is not a book buyer. I am not sure where publishers get this idea as it is well known that publishers don’t view readers as their customers and thus have very little data on consumer spending habits.
Napack did little to change the impression that publishing is a business based on outdated models that responds too slowly to change. i also can’t help but wonder if any librarians were at the Digital Book World Conference.
posting by marin who bids adieu to the readers of this blog – thanks for humoring my ramblings and engaging in a conversation, both online and in-person.
January 19, 2011
at the end of last year, Amazon announced Kindle lending which is similar to nook lending:
Eligible Kindle books can be loaned once for a period of 14 days. The borrower does not need to own a Kindle — Kindle books can also be read using our free Kindle reading applications for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android devices. Not all books are lendable — it is up to the publisher or rights holder to determine which titles are eligible for lending. The lender will not be able to read the book during the loan period.
of course, it didn’t take long for strangers to create their own facebook lending library for Kindle copies (via GalleyCat) with an active good reads counterpart (via Dear Author) and a web site dedicated to Kindle Lending (via lifehacker). but as Jane on Dear Author points out, Kindle lending is quite restrictive (link to handy chart comparing Kindle and nook lending, as well as a list of participating publishers); lending is determined by the publishers or rights holder (see above verbage from Amazon) who aren’t likely to jump on this band wagon.
in fact, it should come as no surprise that in the last few weeks, it appears that the number of lendable titles on the nook is decreasing. again, Jane from Dear Author:
Apparently publishers really don’t like digital lending even though they want to keep charging us print prices without giving digital readers corresponding print rights for the digital books. In other words, charge the consumer the same price but don’t allow her to trade, resell, or loan the book out.
oh publishers, when will you learn?! when did lending become a bad word? haven’t publishers made big money from library budgets for years?
at least from a device perspective, Barnes & Noble and the nook are willing to play with libraries and allow lending via that route, small victories.
posting by marin
August 19, 2010
August 11, 2010
in the last several months, reported ebook sales from Kindle, Apple, and Barnes & Noble were bandied about leading to some pretty funny numbers. with Kindle reporting about 80-90% of the market and Apple and Barnes & Noble claiming 20% each respectively, it’s clear that something is amiss.
in an interview with CNET, Ian Freed, Kindle’s VP, was asked about the validity of these numbers:
Honestly, something doesn’t add up because we’re pretty sure we’re 70 to 80 percent of the market. So, something, somewhere isn’t quite working right. I encourage you to do some more research. Obviously, from the beginning of Amazon we’ve been very metrics-focused and we don’t typically throw out numbers we don’t firmly believe in. Take that 70 to 80 percent number and add up all the others and something somewhere isn’t going to add up.
this from a company that has yet to disclose the numbers of Kindles sold?! sure Freed, in Amazon we trust.
(via Slash Gear)
posting by marin
June 17, 2010
Robert Berry, the illustrator of “Ulysses Seen,” said that an image of a woman with exposed breasts was one of the offending panels in the comic version of the book. He offered to pixelate the image or cover it up with a fig leaf, suggestions that were rejected by Apple.
thankfully, Apple reversed its decision and is allowing the app to be published as is. said Chad Rutkowski, the business manager for Throwaway Horse, the publisher of the comic:
They basically apologized. They said they gave it a second look and realized that it wasn’t obscene or anything like that. They’re clearly drawing a distinction now and they understand what we’re doing.
this is not the first time that Apple has made it its business to save the world from the “offensive.” a couple of classics in the iPad bookstore were bowlderized including “Moby Dick” in which “sperm whale” became “s***m whale” and Joseph Conrad’s “The Nigger of the Narcissus” becomes “The N****r of the Narcissus.”
a Gawker post from this spring does a nice job of gathering some of the cartoons initially banned by Apple including one from Pulitzer Prize winning Mark Fiore (deemed unacceptable because it ridiculed public figures). two of the three decisions were eventually overturned by Apple.
further evidence of Apple’s policy comes from Steve Jobs himself who responded to a customer questioning Apple’s role as the “moral police” with
We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.
clearly, this guiding philosophy also applies to the iPad. nowhere does Jobs define “porn.”
are publishers ok with this? is it really worth aligning themselves with Apple at all costs in order to diminish the Amazon stranglehold? and what about libraries? if we’re able to support ebook versions that are compliant with Apple products, will we in turn be supporting this censorship (guilty by association)? as a library user, it’s my responsibility to choose what is and isn’t appropriate and i appreciate that freedom.
A variety of viewpoints are represented in the library collection and the library upholds the right of the individual to obtain information, though the content may be controversial, unorthodox, or unacceptable to others.
can Apple users not be allotted the same responsibility?
in a PW editorial mostly focused on Apple’s DRM, Cory Doctorow asks an important question that is relevant here, “Can You Survive a Benevolent Dictatorship?” definitely many things to think about.
posting by marin