Join the Movement
We are making library renewal happen together. Give us feedback and interact with your colleagues to create the library access your community needs today.
Join the MovementSearch the Site
Outrage is Not Adaptive
March 6, 2011
Posted in: Board Member Posts, Buzz
So, another warning shot has been fired in these early days of the Information Revolution. Of course it’s outrageous. The disenfranchised are often outraged when they’re reminded of their disenfranchisement. So what can we do about it as an industry? Well, the first thing to consider is to not be outraged. What did we expect would happen? We’re not at the tables where these things are discussed. The rightsholders hold all the cards. The intermediaries are completely dependent on the rightsholders to have a business. The rightsholders know they have leverage, and they want to maximize the revenue stream their assets can produce by setting contract terms. They call this practice “business.” To consider this behavior outrageous, and express outrage when it happens, does not help libraries to adapt to market conditions far beyond our control, or position libraries as valuable partners to rightsholders. Libraries need to adapt to these conditions and find new value propositions, and that’s pretty hard when the guy holding all the cards thinks we’re a bunch of credulous, irrational n00bs who peek at the hand we were dealt and immediately storm off in a huff.
There’s lots of talk of boycotts, and voting with our dollars, and trying to explain it to our patrons, in hopes that the businesspeople will see how hurt we are, and how angry everybody is, and find some other way. But that’s not business. The reality, as beautifully explained in this excellent post by Sarah Glassmeyer, is that if you do the math, you’ll find that even if libraries boycotted ALL publishers, and each library patron wound up buying just 1 book or ebook per year as a result, that the publishing industry would come out significantly ahead. That leverage thing? Yeah. We don’t have any. Publishers only stand to gain more revenue by restricting library use of their materials. That’s not outrageous, it’s just business, and as the internet’s relentless downward price pressure continues to put the squeeze on big publishers over the next several years, the things rightsholders can control (like licensing terms) are only going to change more, in ways that will likely make us nostalgic for the current frissom.
Sure, we can be outraged. But that’s not going to help anybody, and it does not help our institutions, or our partners, to adapt to changing market conditions. If we want to continue to have access to commercial content, we need to go to the table and make deals with publishers, creators, and rightsholders who will work with us. This may ultimately mean that the days of the bestseller or blockbuster at the library at launch are numbered. But Libraries were here before there were bestsellers, and hopefully, we’ll be here after there are no more bestsellers… or when the bestsellers don’t even have publishers.
So what can we do, if not take our ball and go home? Start making the case. With your colleagues, with your staff, with your bosses. The case that libraries cannot rely on intermediaries to act in our best interests. The case that libraries of all sizes must develop the technical and political infrastructure to negotiate for and host digital content on our terms. The case that the publishing industry as it now stands could walk away from libraries en masse tomorrow and come out smelling like a rose… and that such a move may be inevitable as the squeeze continues… and the case that we can’t buy our way out of this problem, even if we had the money. We need to invent our way out of this problem, and adapt to changing market conditions with solutions that work for patrons, for libraries, and for creators.
In other words, don’t rage against the dying of the light. There’s darkness ahead, but a new dawn awaits.
- eli neiburger, library renewal board member
A boycott is still a tactic and I don’t think those that support it don’t understand the problem. People will have a variety of reactions to this move. A more extreme reaction allows more negotiation to rational terms. HarperCollins shouldn’t have forced Overdrive into this without talking directly to libraries. I hope that maybe some of these actions will force them to rescind, to think twice about these kinds of actions, or to set something up where this is discussed before implemented.
I don’t know if the boycott or twitter outrage will do anything, but I think a variety of reactions is a good thing. I don’t hear any other good options. I just hear, “Why are you surprised?” and we really don’t make dent in their budgets. Which I sumise is, “we are already screwed” oh well.
I think the outrage is evidence of the fact that we have no coherent, national level political voice when it comes to dealing with “business” because we are not a business. Individual libraries, even massive systems like universities don’t have the clout, really the only potential organizations that could help would be the ALA, ARL and their ilk, but they all seem a touch too slow moving, and frankly, ineffectual.
Bring on the rage, if only to get our own house in order.
I’m interested in your ideas, but I’m not sure where libraries could begin. Could you offer potential examples of “technical and political infrastructure” we could develop? Are you suggesting that libraries should become publishers, or at least become somehow embedded in the publishing process? If so, how do you envision this happening?
I don’t intend to give up my outrage, but I agree that innovation is a better response than digging our heels in. It all depends on how we harness the power of our outrage.
great to read from inside the box of an alternative to outrage over #hcod.
but i disagree with joe’s comment that “we are not a business.” libraries may not have the cash, wardrobe, or breathtaking profits of “business” as we know it, but we are a business. how can we expect a seat at the table if we think of ourselves as anything less?
…I’m not quite convinced. Sometimes, without the outrage, you won’t get a response at all. I’m not convinced the n00b characterization is fair (and I’m fairly confident the term might be outdated =P)- and I might suggest the wording and the given characterization might not be conducive to a discussion within the community… I also don’t find the “it’s just business” excuse compelling to explain industry actions (and not just the publishing industry).
I mentioned this to someone around these parts yesterday; when librarians have tried to sit down and have discussions with industry folk in from a position with little to no leverage, the industry folk have no incentive to negotiate. I loved the Section 108 Group. Read the report. One group had most of the cards, and came to the table knowing what they were willing to allow. That’s not a negotiation.
That almost contradicts my next point: the idea that librarians are powerless is not entirely accurate. We need an effective way to use what power we do have, and that’s difficult.
Of course, outrage is a tactic- and not just within the community, but as a communication with the public. We can argue that it’s not an effective tactic, but I think that the responses we’ve seen already are more then we would have seen otherwise. The whole “smelling like a rose” part on the industry if even more likely to occur if the outrage- the demand for better behavior overall- doesn’t happen. I would argue that outrage is an expression of power rather than powerlessness.
One other significant issue is that you’re not going to be able to adequately quantify the benefits that libraries bring to the industry with these types of analyzes. That’s something the profession needs to work on.
But I don’t think your conclusions are altogether incompatible with anything I’ve said.
We need multiple responses, I think.
First, we need to communicate to the public, not just each other, that some publishers won’t sell econtent to us at all, and that others have unilaterally changed licenses to mean that you only get what you pay for, no more collective purchasing! Every librarian should post the ebook user’s bill of rights on every OTHER non-library blog or website they can. And write articles for the popular press about it. Here’s my own piece for the local and regional newspaper: http://laruesviews.blogspot.com/2011/02/march-10-2011-you-own-nothing.html. Feel free to use, repurpose, with or without attribution, any part of it you please.
Second, we do indeed need to build our own systems for publishing, managing, and integrating econtent into our own catalog and local cloud all digital content. It’s not hard. Buy Adobe Content Server Break the dangerous dependency on vendors, and their fragmented and clunky interfaces.
Third, we need to reach out to smaller and independent publishers, much as the music folks did. Smaller houses are eager to gain greater access to library audiences.
Fourth, we need to become publishers ourselves, in a more deliberate way: grow authors, build an ecosystem of editors, indexers, book designers, and research assistants so the library becomes a hotbed for local content creation.
Fifth, we need to actively acquire free and creative commons content, developing our econtent management skills in the process.
Sixth, we need to step up our visibility as tech trainers: comparing ebook readers, teaching people about downloads, developing our own mobile apps. The public will either see us as a friend who leads us to the future, or a backward looking institution that just couldn’t cut it in the 21st century.
When should we start? ALL of these are perfectly doable beginning this moment.
A few quick thoughts:
1. If an action is going to work, it needs to be done sooner, not later. Library power is greatest in a first-sale, paper world, and while the dynamics of the ebook lending market are still largely untested. We are still largely in that world, but leaving it.
2. It’s so “library” to fret over whether outrage is a good tactic or not. Let’s form a committee to study the issue! No, fuck it, stand up for yourselves and your patrons. The library world’s problem is not that it is too assertive!
3. I agree that your market power is limited, but your political/moral power is not. Libraries may only represent 4% of the book market, but they represent a far greater percentage of books read. I’ve seen numbers around 40%. The “American Library” circulates 2 billion books a year—seven for every man, woman and child in this country. It has many times as many outlets as Starbucks. Even people who don’t USE libraries support them!
What will come of this? I don’t know. Ideally, I’d like to see some sort of library-lending principle established–one that every publisher assented to and won’t break for fear of consumer anger. More left-wing types will, I think, prefer a law. Either way, outrage can affect change.
[...] So what can we do, if not take our ball and go home? Start making the case… The case that libraries of all sizes must develop the technical and political infrastructure to negotiate for and host digital content on our terms. The case that the publishing industry as it now stands could walk away from libraries en masse tomorrow and come out smelling like a rose… and that such a move may be inevitable as the squeeze continues… and the case that we can’t buy our way out of this problem, even if we had the money. We need to invent our way out of this problem, and adapt to changing market conditions with solutions that work for patrons, for libraries, and for creators.[full post] [...]
[...] there provide context we must consider. As Eli Neiburger said in a recent Library Renewal post, Outrage is Not Adaptive….even when it is [...]
[...] Outrage is Not Adaptive [...]