From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:16:34 -0800
Alex,
Your figure of 5-10% digital for U. presses is very interesting. I
know things are headed in that direction, but I am surprised to see
that they are there already except for a small number of presses that
have been assiduous in pursuing digital opportunities.
We may be using different definitions of two items, however. First, I
was not including books sold as part of library aggregations in my
figures because such sales (through Ebrary or Netlibrary, etc.) are
perhaps better construed as subsidiary rights sales. I am aware that
the question of what is a sale, what is a license (hence a subsidiary
right) is a vexed one in the publishing industry right now, with very
significant sums of money potentially hanging on the interpretation,
but I am not referring to that open question as I put the numbers
together.
The other matter of definition is what is a university press book? I
define a U. press book as any book published by a U. press. Others
distinguish among the various types of U. press publications--e.g.,
trade vs. monographs. How one construes the output of a press will
alter the figures.
I think, however, that whatever formulation one uses, we may not agree
on one aspect of digital publishing where libraries are the target
customer, and that is that I believe that the terms of sale of some
aggregations may in fact lower U. press sales overall. I don't wish
to address any particular program, but will explain my thinking as a
hypothetical.
Let's imagine a U. press with total book sales of $10 million. Using
my definition of what a U. press book is (that is, anything published
by a U. press), the sales of this press likely fall into a few
categories. About 25% of total sales go to libraries. About 25% are
for course adoptions. About 10% are sold as exports (where they
ultimately end up is unknown for this example). That leaves 40%,
which are sold to individuals. Now, who are these individuals? My
hypothesis is that the majority of these individuals are members of a
U. community. Let's put that number (based on no evidence) at 75% of
the individuals---that is, 75% of 40% or 30% of the press's total
sales volume. If that number seems high, take a look at the lists of
U. presses and imagine their readership. Who will read Yale's
biography of Jonathan Edwards? Who will read Rutgers' books on
women's studies? It seem probable that these are academic books sold
to academicians. Someone like myself, with no U. affiliation, but who
nonetheless may purchase a U. press book or two each year must
represent a tiny minority of U. press customers.
So out of 100% of total revenue, 25% goes to libraries and 55% goes to
students and faculty and U. staff. Now we take U. press books and
make them available in digital form, including remote access, to the
entire U. community. Now, instead of the library representing 25% of
sales,the library may in fact reach to the other 55% affiliated with
the U. community. In other words, the library has now extended its
reach into individual sales and course adoptions. This is a role the
library never had before.
The word for this is cannibalization. A digital aggregation of U.
press books stands a chance to diminish or even eliminate sales to
U.-affiliated individuals and students. If such a program is not
carefully crafted, it could serve to weaken some already tottering U.
presses even further.
The general point to make is that the real question is not print vs.
digital but the marketing issue: Who is the customer? It's necessary
to solve that problem first and then look to the format that best
serves that market afterward.
Joe Esposito
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:31:13 -0500
>
> Joe,
>
> I think for university presses it's getting to be more like 5-10%
> electronic now. I agree overall numbers will trail trade publishing
> for a bit, but if UPCC and other efforts succeed to the degree I think
> they may, then the scholarly monograph that sells only 300 copies (or
> fewer, heaven help us) will be more like 75-80% electronic in pretty
> short order. The monographs are overwhelmingly sold to libraries and
> what we're hearing is a preference for electronic, Chuck's good points
> about difficult archiving issues notwithstanding. PDA seems likely
> only to accelerate the e-trend.
>
> Of course I could be entirely wrong.....
>
> Alex
>
> Alex Holzman
> Director
> Temple University Press
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://www.temple.edu/tempress
|
