The Good Library Blog

It is unfortunate that neither Tim's nor CBC's assertion can be tested in public as the terms of the CBC contracts are confidential. We have to accept our suppliers' assurance that our terms are among the best in the library supply business unless or until Tim makes the figures he is looking at public.
Liz Brain
Joint Chair
CBC library group

Liz

It's more than unfortunate. It's an extreme waste-- you have to find out. I am not alone in knowing this, I'm afraid.

The price of apples on a market is not confidential-- it is by making prices public that competition effectively brings value for money. I think you have to stop being confidential. It's not your money

I would be quite happy to reveal my source of information to the Minister, if she will pay me 25% of the extra value that can be obtained

I'm forced to say that "We have to accept our suppliers assurance that our terms among the best..." is no comfort at all to a taxpayer-

My friends in the library supply sorority are neither devious nor dishonest- but they are extremely experienced negotiators. I'm qite sure that what they said to you was "Given what you have asked us to provide, the terms we have offered are among the best" . The problem lies in what you ask for. That is why taxpayers (and local councillors) need much more transparency about the price they are paying for library books

It is time this whole operation was brought out into the clear light of day

Tim

So the CBC should disclose details of contractual arrangements with their commercial suppliers, including to those suppliers' competitors, to justify another Tim Coates pronouncement, which yet again remains unsubstantiated bacause it's a secret? That somehow sums up this blog.

Ken, thanks.

The purpose of raising these matters is so that those who manage the public service can find ways to improve the value for public money. It doesn't matter who says what- but if an opportunity might be available it should be explored

There is a great deal about efficiency that library suppliers could have said, and have said privately for a long long time. But they don't say them because to do so would risk their contracts. Nevertheless these things have to come out, for the sake of the public.

You don't have to act on what I say- but if there is a possible grain of truth in it, it should be explored. I have bought books for many many years and have managed the buying of books. I think that the terms obtained by CBC, for the volume of stock in their portfolio, are very poor indeed. Only another commercial buyer could say that- and I am.

What the suppliers would say, quite rightly, is that the reason that terms are not nearly as good as they could be lies in the totally daft specifications that are still being asked for by virtually every library authority in the country- even the big ones in CBC, who claim otherwise.

On the matter of confidentiality I can see why the terms obtained by a library supplier from a publisher are confidential, that is a matter of private business - but I cannot see why the price paid by the public for a book for use in a library is confidential at all.

Such exposure may embarrass some suppliers- so what? Actually I don't think it would, rather it would reduce the prices the public are paying. Councillors should be agitating for this information to be made public

Tim,

No you're probably right that the CBC don't currently get the best terms in library supply. This however is not surprising considering that the CBC was one of the first consortia to benefit from the increased terms that were being bandied around by library suppliers a few years ago when the discounts began to rise. Now we're a few years on, the discounts have continued to rise, with the contracted terms remaining fixed. Expect CBC discounts to go up when the new contract is negotiated soon (As you all know it's not far away now)

I agree with Ken that once again, as with most posts on this blog, the claims of possesions of figures and stats that would be damaging remain useless as they are never released.

We all know what terms are out there, 40%+ in some cases, and no, without major restructuring of procurement, or indeed the loss of a number of library suppliers, or library authorities going direct to pulishers, they won't get higher.