« Library services in other countries | Main | District Auditor »
August 17, 2006
Publishers and public libraries
There is a now a lot of book trade press comment about the PWC report and an article has appeared today in the Bookseller about supply routes (below).
I need to explain to members of the public that this rather technical debate about the route by which libraries purchase their books is really peripheral to the main problem. It seems that the same explanation needs to be made to publishers, too.
My view is that one of the reasons the stock in local libraries is poor is because the seat of influence over their stock is already too far away in the County or Borough Council offices. There needs to be more empowerment of individual local librarians and they need more budget of their own to spend. The best people in the service need to be in libraries, not offices, experienced at selecting their stock to meet their very local needs. Any wholesaler or library supplier can sift the welter of new publications- that is a separate job from holding the best local stock.
One of the calculations which underpins this report is that 90% titles bought by one council are bought by all the others. That may be true, but if one measures the overlap between individual libraries (especially the essential small rural and community ones) the overlap can be as low as 30%. Moreover a large portion of a library budget needs to be spent replacing copies of titles which have become damaged or lost: good backlist is essential as Miriam Palfrey emphasised here the other day. Obviously there is no consistency between either individual libraries or councils as to which those will be. That is why "buying" on a regional scale can end up with worse individual libraries.
The programme proposed by Price Waterhouse moves selection responsibilty from council offices to regional offices; and even more important, it does nothing at the same time, to address the inefficient expenditure in those council offices, which will actually become worse. That inefficiency is the other (even larger) reason why the stock in individual libraries is poor- not enough money is left for buying books, after all the wages have been paid.
Those of us in the book trade who have seen all these things know full well the arguments between central and local buying. WH Smith shops have central buying and independent shops have local buying. Local buying can be dreadful, but in the right hands in can be wondeful and infinitely better than central buying, which is always in the middle of the road.
Whether a publisher supplies via a wholesaler, a library supplier or state run regional depot, is a tiny point of detail of minimal interest to the public. To argue over it from a publisher's perspective is of no value to the people who use libraries, and is a matter that will anyhow be very easily left to the market place which already exists; it is already an exacting market as Kevin Holden says in the piece below. It is a red herring in the context of the extreme problems of the service, and Andrew Stevens of the MLA should, by now, have understood that. If he had insisted that PwC provided proper figures to support their report (as they were asked to do) it would have been clear to everyone else, too.
There is a saving of £200m available which is ignored and the report has recommended extreme action to address a possible saving of £10 -£20m, half of which has already been taken in increased discounts in the past 18 months.
That is why this report is akin to folding the napkins on the Titanic as the ship goes down with the silver.
To be more candid- publishers need to get involved in this subject and I wish they would- but they need to understand the whole matter properly first, which they currently are not doing. Whatever the serious problems of the library service are, they are not about discounts of supply; and actually by taking the position they are, publishers are allowing the MLA to be distracted from the main problem. I would be happy to meet any publisher or group of publishers and explain why. (for a fee!)
August 2006
Libraries may buy direct
Libraries may end up bypassing wholesalers and buying stock from publishers direct, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) has claimed.
The plans were set out in a PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) study, Better Stock, Better Libraries, published by MLA and DCMS.
The shift would be led by publishers looking to increase their margins, and facilitated by PwC plans to introduce into the market a single, simplified set of servicing standards.
The m.d. of one major publisher said: "If there's nothing that wholesalers can supply that publishers can't, then we'd certainly go direct to libraries to regain our margin. We don't want to supply the market on retail terms, but wholesalers have forced the issue."
These comments follow the row sparked by the Bertram Group in February, when it announced plans to draw more stock for its library supply division from its trade arm--leaking wholesale discounts into the library supply sector.
Bertrams c.e.o. Terry Reilly was unfazed by the PwC report. "I don't think that they've yet decided on whether servicing, bibliographic data or supply selection is going to be in-sourced or out-sourced," he said.
But other wholesalers expressed concern. Holt Jackson chairman Kevin Holden said: "Publishers can always sell cheaper themselves because they know precisely what discount we're getting. If this goes through, there is no future for us at all." He was also sceptical that a market with publisher-suppliers would be more open. "[PwC] are trying to set up a competitive marketplace, but they're doing that by introducing publishers who each have a monopoly on their titles."
But MLA senior policy advisor Andrew Stevens defended the move: "The new standards would be really, really stripped down. The less and less different [library processes] become from the rest of the marketplace, the more opportunities they have to have a choice."
PwC will launch a more detailed implementation study in September, and the MLA will set up the infrastructure by 2008.
Sceptics of the PwC report have raised concerns that the money saved by greater efficiency will not be ploughed back into the library service.
Desmond Clarke, chairman of libraries charity Libri and a former director of Faber, said: "Local government is under considerable pressure and there is a real risk that the savings will be taken elsewhere."
Library consultant Tim Coates said: "Councils don't hand back money they have begged from central government."
Their comments follow Minister for Culture David Lammy's announcement that the PwC report offers libraries "the tools to save money that can be reinvested in longer opening hours, in better computer and internet access, and of course in more books".
The £100m library service budget is controlled by local government rather than at national level, so Lammy has no legal power. "These are local decisions, and we cannot guarantee that every penny will continue to go to libraries," a DCMS spokesman said. "But on the other hand, it seems equally unlikely that every penny will not go to libraries."
MLA policy advisor Andrew Stevens said the PwC reforms would still "protect libraries" from council cuts. "Councils would be grabbing that money anyway. Far better to take it from backroom services than putting library closures or the book fund up first," he said.
Posted by Perkins at August 17, 2006 5:00 PM
Comments
OK, we meet, you buy the coffee.
Posted by: SUSAN HILL at August 18, 2006 8:44 AM
I am a bit shocked that none of the library and information mailing lists I am on have mentioned this yet. At this point the only statements responding to the report seem to be from publishers or suppliers (and a post from someone working for the MLA which seems to have been largely ignored).
Perhaps everyone feels that the whole thing is just too far fetched and not worth discussing.
Posted by: Miriam Palfrey at August 22, 2006 2:04 PM
I think all the libraries from all over the country should make an alliance to give them buying power - then they could buy one copy of each book at wholesale prices - much cheaper because they can buy in bulk.
Posted by: wholesale books at September 7, 2006 1:20 AM