As a woman who is 6’2”, I am very familiar with the reality
that one size does not fit all. (A recent dip into old college photo albums
confirms that in the days before online shopping made finding special sizes
easier, I apparently never owned a single pair of pants that was long enough.)
Though I am finally comfortable with this concept in my personal life, it took
me a bit longer to understand how to apply it in my work as a scholarly
publisher.
Before becoming a press director, I worked on the marketing
side of publishing, and for years I operated under the erroneous belief that
there was one way to sell books to academic libraries and that libraries all
wanted and needed the same things. In joining the University Press of Mississippi
in 2008, I was quickly set right on this point. Mississippi is a consortium
press, so in the first few months on the job the editors and I traveled to our
eight state campuses to meet faculty and administrators and talk about the work
of the Press. Based on the suggestion of the state’s library association
director, I also made appointments to meet the library deans.
What an education in a very short period of time. After
three meetings, I realized that in many ways, librarians view scholarly publishing
as a mysterious process with equally mysterious business models behind it, and
I saw that as a publisher (who should know better), I was unaware of a number
of the significant changes taking place within academic libraries. Though my
academic background is in English and I don’t possess an MBA, it did seem
obvious to me that this way of conducting our joint work—making decisions
without the benefit of a great deal of mutual understanding of business
practices and needs—could be greatly improved.
Publishers, even within the classification of academic
publishers, operate in many different ways and under different publishing
models. Commercial academic publishers are a class to themselves, the force
behind much of journals publishing, textbooks, and new electronic content
aggregations. There are Open Access publishers and academic societies who
publish their own journals and other materials. And then there are the
university presses. Even within this group, there is an incredible range of
press size, income, and operating strategies.
University presses are most often alike in the fact that
their editorial work is grounded in the peer review process, and yet what they
publish—and how—can vary widely. Monographs to regional trade titles and
everything in between appear on their lists, and book pricing, formats
(hardcover, paperback, or simultaneous), and ebook models and pricing (when the
ebooks are even available, that is) are all over the map. The Association of
American University Presses offers a number of excellent meetings and
professional development and networking opportunities annually where best
practices are discussed, but member presses formulate their own business plans
according to the expectations of their own host institutions, funding formulas,
available technology resources and partners, and guidance from editorial and
advisory boards. What works beautifully for one press may be unrealistic or
even undesirable for another.
As I learned and am still learning, the same is often true
of academic libraries. Within Mississippi, the academic libraries serve
campuses ranging in enrollment from just under 3,000 students to more than
20,000. Some of these campuses have distance learning programs or multiple
campuses, though all of them seem to be finding that increasingly their
students want to access materials online and that these students feel more
comfortable texting a question to a reference librarian rather than asking in
person, even when that student is sitting at a table within sight of the reference
desk.
Though this will come as a surprise to none, money is often the
chief differentiator between libraries, dramatically affecting the services
they offer and the collections they develop. Before beginning this column, I
emailed a few of my library contacts to ask how students were accessing
material and how/if budgets were shifting to accommodate changes in student and
faculty needs and preferences. In my own conversations and work over the past
four years, I had become aware that university presses frequently formulate strategy
and pricing based on the operations of ARL libraries. While I do not in any way
mean to minimize these institutions as important customers and campus partners,
it struck me that there are many, many libraries in this country that fall
outside this group—far greater in number than those within the ARL
classification—and I wondered if we as publishers were meeting their needs
well.
When I reached out a few weeks ago, one dean sent a
thought-provoking response to my question about how libraries were handling the
issue of resources in electronic format: “I think you’ll find two primary camps
trying to address this transition: the haves and the have nots.” I had also
asked him what he thought about the new monograph aggregations being launched
this year and next, and he noted that while he thought the students and faculty
on his campus would benefit from such subscriptions, he avoided “new ongoing
annual expenses like the plague.”
He concluded, “Perhaps you could consider the mindset of the
two camps as you write articles and alternate the discussion of strategies for
those with ample resources looking to aggressively build their
collections/access and others who are looking to creatively economize until
more stable funding materializes.” His suggestion stuck with me, providing both
the inspiration for this piece and a framework for future columns.
Both the haves and the have nots want to grow their
collections with electronic scholarship and to serve their faculty and students
well. According to their means, however, each library will go about this
process differently. Large libraries will likely acquire monograph aggregations
and find room in the budget for annual subscription fees, while smaller
libraries may look for programs offering one-time purchases that offer
perpetual access.
Publishers, take note. Like these libraries, we have been
(to use this dean’s phrase) “creatively economizing” like mad since the 2008
crash, doing more with less. An essential part of the “doing more” should be
ensuring that we offer our quality scholarly content through many avenues and
in many forms and formats. One size, or one access model, does not fit all.
Publishers have the opportunity to deliver scholarship in more ways than ever
before: in traditional print, in digital form, as part of an aggregation, on a
short-term loan, in whole, or in part . . . there are many possibilities. Those
that we serve—readers and libraries—don’t fit a single mold or model, and accordingly
we must be flexible and savvy enough to develop and take advantage of the
programs that meet the needs and budgets of both haves and have nots.
Comments