ACQNET v8n021 (June 8, 1998)
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v8n021.txt

                                                      ISSN: 1057-5308
         	        			      ***************    
                                 
            ACQNET, Vol. 8, No. 21, June 8, 1998
            ====================================    

(1) FROM:	P. Stevens 
    SUBJECT:	Report from Feather River: part 2 of 2 (153 lines)

(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington) <stevens@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Feather River report, continued

[Ed. Note:  This is a continuation of Peter Stevens' report, begun in Vol.
8, no. 20]

PUBLISHERS ON THE WEB:  FROM ADDISON TO ZIFF (Virginia Scheschy,
University of Nevada Reno, scheschy@unr.edu) 

	The Web has rapidly become extremely popular with publishers, as a
way of not only making available information about their publications but
also as a method for direct sales to consumers (sometimes at a discount). 
There are sources on the Web for locating publishers who are represented
on the Web, as well as for finding traditional book stores and online
bookstores.  There are even sources for locating authors' homepages.  Some
online bookstores cover all types of books while others specialize in
particular types of books (such as cookbooks), often providing services
far beyond what traditional bookstores could provide.  Online bookstores
have extended to many countries worldwide.  

Saturday, May 16, 1998:

WHO'S NUMBER ONE:  EVALUATING ACQUISITIONS DEPARTMENTS (Peter Stevens,
University of Washington, stevens@u.washington.edu) 

	Libraries tend to avoid competitiveness, just as they tend to
avoid comparing themselves in terms of the excellence of their services.
Competition can also be seen, however, as a way for people (or
organizations) to improve their services by delineating what constitutes
excellence.  For acquisitions librarians, discussions of what criteria
distinguish the top-performing acquisitions departments should help weaker
departments become stronger by providing a common yardstick for measuring
their level of excellence. 
	A two-page handout of 21 suggested criteria for large academic
acquisitions departments was handed out, complete with suggested scoring
values as a basis for discussion.  Of those librarians completing the
scoring sheet, the top scorer was Stanford, followed by the University of
Vermont, with the University of Washington in third place.  There was
general agreement that the criteria and scoring values were heavily
weighted towards larger acquisitions operations that exploit approval
programs and electronic mechanisms.

LIBRARIES AND VENDORS WORKING TOGETHER FOR A CHANGE (Keith Schmiedl,
Coutts Library Services, keith@wizbang.coutts.on.ca)

	Library book vending has become savagely competitive around the
world, with the only competitive advantage to be gained by taking business
from another book vendor, since the book market for institutional sales is
declining.  Book vendor costs are rising faster than book prices while
library materials budgets are acquiring fewer units.  Discounts from
publishers to vendors are shrinking at the same time that libraries are
pushing for higher discounts from vendors.  Publishers are increasing
their freight charges to vendors at a time when many vendors give
libraries free freight.  Vendor discounts have now risen to unprofitable
levels in an industry characterized by extremely small margins.
	Despite this gloomy marketplace, library vendors must also make
major investments in technology.  The kinds of decisions that book vendors
must make have become much more complex, as the library arenas have grown
more complicated.  In the past, fewer than a handful of library staff made
decisions about vendors; now, vendors often face committees or groups of
up to 300 library staff, many without any knowledge of acquisitions or
approval programs.  Books are no longer the number one topic for vendors; 
today it's shelf-ready processing, the Web, interfaces with integrated
library systems vendors.  Consortia have emerged as major players, with
consortial tender decisions more widespread, narrowing the number of
customers and greatly increasing the leverage and impact of these major
players.  Higher education funding is tighter and library materials
budgets are under great pressure from inflation and from the costs of
library technology.  Increasingly, the value-added services that vendors
offer will be critical to their survival in the library market.  Getting
the right book fast at the right price is merely the floor for all vendors
now--not enough to distinguish the best vendors. 
	The trend towards fewer, larger vendors will continue, as will
outsourcing and increasing reliance by libraries on approval programs. 
Publishing will continue to become more diverse and remain highly
disorganized as a result.  Vendors have to rely on the distribution
channels of publishers, which are appallingly bad.  What's badly needed is
the ability to exchange information electronically, including orders,
claims, reports, invoices.  As a community, libraries, publishers and
vendors need to come together and implement standards that permit
electronic communication among all these sectors.  The technology is
available today.  Strategic business partnerships need to be formed for
the mutual success of all parties.  Longer term relationships need to be
established among libraries and vendors that provide mutual benefits of an
exclusive nature, based on contracts that benefit both sides equally. 
What is needed is more trust and more flexibility in these contracts and
in these relationships and a greater appreciation by libraries of the
business realities of vendor survival. 

LIBRARIES 'IN DUTCH:'  THEIR RESPONSE TO THE ELSEVIER-KLUWER MERGER (Carol
MacAdam, Swets) 

	The number of library consortia has now grown to huge numbers. 
With 20% of all academic journals, the merger proposal between Elsevier
and Kluwer galvanized the library community.  One of the first major
library responses came from European library consortia, who banded
together to assemble licensing principles in October 1997.  While
publishers were concerned about authors' rights and profitability,
libraries were driven about concerns for serials costs, inflation in those
costs, archiving, copyright and incompatible technologies. 
	These European library licensing principles focused on libraries
acting together consortially, aiming towards better access for more users,
with as many titles as possible, without any no-cancellation policies. 
Libraries need to be able to provide access to all their users, including
walk-ins, with downloading and e-mail, plus electronic interlibrary loan,
plus archiving.  Other European library licensing principles included
abstracts at no added cost, electronic full-text to appear before or
simultaneously with print, a maximum 7.5% added cost for electronic access
the first year, then no added cost for subsequent years.  For
electronic-only access, the cost should be less than print, to a maximum
of 80% of print cost.  Searches had to be anonymous, with use data
available to libraries and with sharing of such data permitted. 
	In the U.S., the Consortia of Consortia discussed the European
licensing principles and decided to draft its own principles from scratch
in time for ALA Midwinter.  The European consortia then joined the U.S.
consortia in an international coalition of library consortia, numbering 60
consortia, which came up with joint licensing principles, endorsed by all
consortia. 
	These new licensing principles addressed a number of major areas,
starting with budgeting, fair use, archiving and moving on to the goal of
obtaining valid information for more users at a reasonable cost, with
risks to be shared equally.  Publisher research and development was to
come out of shareholder costs rather than recouped from current product
prices, with electronic access to be less costly than paper.  MARC and
Z39.50 standards were to be fully supported.  What is needed now is to
hear from the publishers themselves, as publishers and libraries move
tentatively into a new arena of services to library users. 

OPEN DISCUSSION

	By this point in late afternoon, attendees were understandably
tired, so this discussion was relatively short.  As with the questions and
discussions that followed each speaker, there were lively interchanges
among acquisitions librarians, collection development librarians and
representatives of library vendors.
	The first issue discussed was the value of personal visits by
vendors to libraries and to library conferences, particularly state
library conferences.  Increasingly, vendors are noting low traffic volumes
in the exhibit spaces of conferences, particularly at state and smaller
conferences.  Another issue of discussion was library selectors and the
increasing demands on their time, which impacts acquisitions efficiency.
Yet another discussion topic was decentralized acquisitions, with central
acquisitions departments dispersed to branches (usually with disastrous
consequences in efficiency).
	All in all, conference attendees felt that this year's topics and
discussions were relevant, timely and provocative.  All that is needed in
the future (besides sunnier weather) is higher visibility and attendance
at this high-quality, small and intimate conference. 

****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 8, No. 21 ****** END OF FILE ******