Why the Macmillan ebook clusterf**k matters
It’s a one-size-fits-all chokehold that ultimately hurts the people who most benefit from ebooks and audiobooks.
Librarians across the country (hi!) are pissed off because Big Five publisher Macmillan decided that starting November 1, 2019, they’re selling only one copy of each of their new ebooks and audiobooks to libraries for eight weeks after publication. Macmillan’s CEO John Sargent says because so many people are checking out ebooks instead of buying them, it was a decision between this or raising libraries’ initial purchase prices per copy.
This one copy rule isn’t adjusted based on libraries’ relative sizes, budgets, or checkout stats. It’s a one-size-fits-all chokehold that ultimately hurts the people who most benefit. Notice I didn’t say who profits the most.
Plus, libraries already pay more than the individual retail price for ebooks. Publishers have built in the perceived revenue loss of more than one person reading the same “copy” (scare quotes there because the artificial scarcity of treating an ebook/audio book file just like individual physical copies is some copyright overreach bullshit, which trust me I will get to in its own article/series/continuing rant until something is fixed about it). (Check out this post from the Cheshire Library Blog for a primer on the process and economics of libraries acquiring ebooks. And here, Overdrive founder and CEO Steve Potash explains stats on reader purchasing behavior when exposed to ebooks from libraries with, be still my heart, outside objective empirical evidence.)
And public libraries don’t just magically get all their inventory gifted to them because they’re not-for-profit. They have to buy all their materials, too, and convince considerably more gatekeepers (taxpayers) that it’s a good idea. (Fortunately, a lot of politicians and other folks who give public libraries support and money are lending their support to combat Macmillan’s bullshittery.)
Macmillan’s move is just piling onto all this.
So why should you care?
Because Macmillan is a huge publisher. If you’ve ever read an ebook, you’ve read something from Macmillan, whether you like adult literary fiction (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), science fiction or fantasy (they actually tested this shit with TOR ebooks first starting in July 2018), young readers stuff (Kingfisher), or even Scientific America.
(But wait, there’s more! I’m not going to bore you with the whole list myself but check out Macmillan’s official publisher’s list.)
Ebooks and audiobooks are huge gains for reader accessibility. Have physical issues that keep you from comfortably reading a physical book? No worries, the e-edition lets you change lighting, contrast, font, size, and lots of other stuff - not to mention it’s available across devices so you can access it wherever you go with an internet connection (and there are a few ways to get past that part too). And of course audio books have a long tradition of helping those with vision impairment; they’ve gotten a mobility makeover as well through the advent of mp3 files and players and smartphones. Macmillan’s deliberate limiting of these offerings mean less people will get the information they need on time and in the ways they can best absorb, and less people will be able to afford access to that information in the first place. Not to mention how much less of a hassle it is to log onto your library’s website instead of having to go to a physical branch. (The Milford Daily News in Massachusetts explains the effects of the embargo on those who depend on public libraries the most.)
Even if you don’t read ebooks or audiobooks, this is still your fight. Giving in to Macmillan’s embargo demands on ebooks and audiobooks sets dangerous precedents for publishers to withhold other materials from libraries. If they see they can delay libraries getting ebooks and audio books, I guaran-goddamn-tee you they’ll try it with physical books next. All in the name of profits.
I’m calling this “capitalism creep.” When a business puts an arbitrary limit on goods/services for no reason other than to make more money, hey guess what, that’s capitalism creepin up where it doesn’t belong.
(Another great example that immediately comes to mind is those “limited edition” makeup products that sell out in like an hour and then companies “generously” “decide” to “make and release more” like bitch please we know you’re just waiting for your thirst trap to spring so you don’t have to watch all your extra shit go bad in Sephora’s sale section.)
Fortunately, library folk immediately shot back with “How about NOPE” and are enacting a massive boycott of Macmillan ebooks until this gets resolved in their (our) favor. The American Library Association, in partnership with a bunch of other library professional organizations like the Urban Libraries Council, has a site set up with an explanation, petition, and hashtag (#eBooksForAll) and I myself found out about the whole thing when I logged into my Overdrive account a few months ago and saw the banner warning I’m using for the main pic in this story.
My own county’s public library system isn’t participating in the boycott, so I got in touch with their Communications and Media Relations Coordinator to see why. She said that they’re making all library users fully aware of the embargo situation and linking them to info about the petition and general boycott with messages on their website as well as expressing solidarity with those libraries that choose to boycott. But my county’s library doesn’t want to compromise their accessibility, which I totally get. Macmillan is making libraries choose between (kind of) having their usual array of ebooks while giving into unreasonable demands, or temporarily depriving their patrons in order to get back their full range of usage in the near future.
One county over, they ARE participating in the boycott, and they’ve set up a webpage that lays out their reasoning and what the boycott means for their digital materials. (InfoDocket put up a handy list of libraries who are participating, but double check with your local library if you don’t see it on there because I noticed a couple gaps from my own state when I cross-referenced with their websites and local news sources.)
Both choices suck, and it’s all Macmillan’s fault, but ultimately, banding together to make them see that capitalism creep won’t work is the best way to prevent all this shit from snowballing. Unfortunately, Sargent is sticking to his guns (which are supported by anecdote and not, like, actual data) for now.
I’m keeping an eye on this story and will let y’all know any updates I see. Read on!