The Good Library Blog

You know, most of this makes sense.
I can even let go the non-naming of these libraries and the lack of context for the 'discussion.' ;)
I have worked with shelf-ready books before. They *do* charge for this service ;) It could well be cheaper than local processing, although it's not without its problems- I spent a lot of time remedying mistakes.

I would agree with most of this, books should be processed as soon as possible (by suppliers as well as libraries) and having orders arrive pre-prepped saves a lot of time and effort.

The universal library label would be a problem in areas where library authorities overlap because readers would return books to the wrong libraries (this already happens but with different labels the error can be easily caught).

Believe it or not a lot of readers actually like the fact that we have date labels on our books as it helps them to remember when they are due for return.

Miriam

Keep the date label - but don't print anything on it except to indicate that this is a library book

Can you calculate how much money you would save in processing specifications and at library suppliers?

And it would be possible to buy certain books from publishers direct.

Surely none of the problems is worth the extra number of books this would buy with a book fund.

If your supplier offered you several extra points discount for using standard national servicing, would you do it? -- or if they deducted several points for not doing it?

Won't it all save the planet as well.

Who will join the revolution? We can do it on this blog!

If the suppliers could print details onto blank labels that could possibly work as it wouldn't be very different from the processing that's done at the moment.

Remember that fiction genres and Dewey sequences are not identical in all libraries and changing current stock manually so that they all match would take up a lot of staff time (which was one of my objections to the Price Waterhouse Coopers report).

As long as there is room to tailor services to different areas and there was some guarantee that any money saved would not be cut out of the book-fund the following year then I have no major problems to the idea.

I don't doubt it would save money- but £50m?

Pete

Think about it. .. and remember that when we analysed the cost of handling and processing books in Hampshire for "Who's in charge" we found that the actual cost of acquiring a £10 book was then £24.

Remember too that the whole cost of the UK library service is £1.2bn per annum- so £50m is not a huge percentage and that the purchasing budget is about £120m for all materials

Read the PKF report in which it explains that the simple fact that each library authority has a different processing specification results in a huge cost in the library supply chain. In fact it is the reason why library suppliers exist and why the library service is not able to buy directly from publishers as book shops do. They called the cost in England alone £30m alone- and they were being conservative.

Realise that sticking all the labels on books, as we do, as inefficiently as we do it, each book different to the next one as it comes down the production line, actually costs a lot more than printing the books in the first place.

Then believe that I am probably right- or tell me what the sum should be.

In your own council what it means is that your supplier would be open to renegotation both of the discount they give you and the servicing charge they make. Do you want to try?

You can't extrapolate directly from the Hampshire figures. The cost of processing in one authority does not relate directly to the cost in any of the others.

Library consortia (consortiums?) may be able to get discounts by buying in bulk but even if every authority in the country bought together we would never get the discounts that bookshops do because we wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) buy individual titles in the same numbers.

Remember that not all books bought are newly published, many are replacements for obsolete or worn stock or titles which fill a particular stock-gap. It would not be so easy buy these in bulk. We get discounts from suppliers because we guarantee that we will spend X amount with them during the financial year, could we get that kind of deal with publishers?

Miriam

Firstly you are right that I cannot extrapolate from my analysis of Hampshire for which the figures were published. ButI have now worked in a lot of councils and you would be astonished if I were to show you the cost of processing. Most councils don't know how to work out what it is, but it an extremely large figure in every case- even those who will swear that they have no money at all to spend. (These are instances for which I cannot, for obvious reasons publish the figures)

Secondly I am not suggesting that libraries should buy all their stock from publishers at all. But I am suggesting that if we were to adopt one standard national process then that would open up the market to the possibilities of buying some titles from some publishers. This would, I believe, also be very interesting for publishers because there are certain of their works which are intended for the library market more than the retail market. The development of print-on-demand makes this even more possible. With this technology a publisher will specify several different print formats of the same book - and there is no reason why one of these could not be for public library use. Similarly there is no reason why one of these should not be "large print" for library use.

Thirdly, curiously, (and this is a field I know very well) publishers give discount in exchange for a commitment to buy X amount worth of individual titles during a financial year just as much as they give discount for buying large quantities of one title. Bookshops spend far far more on what you call "stock gaps" than they do on newly published titles; far far more.

Believe (would you just!) the only reasons why libraries don't get the discounts that book shops get other are a. that they ask for expensive processing to be done on each book and b. no one in libraries ever asks the publishers for discount in a way that makes economic sense for them to give it. I can assure you there are many reasons why a publisher would give just as much discount- but librarians won't listen to what they are. I would be happy to come to your council and tell you them.

I don't doubt it's expensive Tim, and fair enough, if accountants say so it must be so ;)It's not a matter of not believing you personally, so much as reservations about methodologies and assumptions.

I think libraries need to negotiate better deals with publishers, that much is certain. Even use their collective shelf clout in the way bookshops do. If Private Eye are to be be believed, a lot of bookshop discounts come from the purchasing power of the shops.

A central processing system isn't a bad idea, but would need to reflect local issues as Miriam asay.A central purchasing agency is a problem. Or a sole central purchasing agency at any rate.

Firstly, I am not simply doubting you. I am sure that there are places where the cost of processing is very high. That said, I also know from experience that some processing is very necessary and whether it is done by library staff or by book suppliers or publishers it will cost something.

I am all for measures which will reduce the cost as much as possible as long as it does not affect the service adversely or make things difficult for our readers.

I am extremely interested in what you have to say about print-on-demand, if publishers could help to expand the number of large print versions of non-fiction titles at a reasonable price that would prove very useful for all of us.

I love the idea that we should read Private Eye to find out about the techniques of obtaining discounts for buying books. Tell that to the lady at WH Smith. It's certainly true that Private Eye books sell extremely well- and also that the magazine has been cheerfully ruthless in the pursuit of the dafter behaviour of libraries and councils.

Well I think PE give some idea of what goes on. I know they're a bunch of occasionally hypocritical public schoolboys, but I can forgive them some of that ;)
What I found interesting was their comments on the placing of books within shops. I'd rather PE than the MD of the shop's view; or, no, I'd rather both :)
I am fully aware of Library News, including its comments on Sheffield University's Info Commons.

Not just PE that discusses this trend of bookshop power.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6305509.html

Re:- Miriam Palfrey May 24th comment.....

"The development of print-on-demand makes this even more possible. With this technology a publisher will specify several different print formats of the same book - and there is no reason why one of these could not be for public library use."

Yes, it is possible to have various formats of the same title but two factors get in the way. The first is the cost of setting up the print-ready file - even a slight variation has to be stored (and charged) separately, then the other problem is the Neilsen Bookdata / ISBN issue which requires even a slight variation to have a different identifier / book database entry, etc.

The second problem could be circumvented if libraries were prepared to accept "Private Publications" which do not require Neilsen entries nor ISBN but our enquiries to date reveal that libraries will not accept any book that does not carry a valid ISBN as well as having been lodged with British Library and the other statutory bodies.

All of the above only applies to POD publication.