A Second Digital Transformation for Scholarly Monographs?

Scholarly monographs and other published books are among the most important resources for the humanities and adjacent fields. Unlike scholarly journals, which have become almost entirely digital-only, books have experienced a gradual, even extended, transition from print to digital distribution and demand may yet remain hybrid for some time. The pandemic accelerated this transition for monographs, opening up resultant opportunities for remaking not only their distribution but also the business models and marketplace in which they operate. 

In recent weeks, there has been much discussion about some of the changes that Clarivate has made to its books product offerings. While the shift to a subscription model, as noted in a previous piece in these pages, has both advantages and challenges, Clarivate’s announcement was unexpected and seems to have been rushed so that it could be incorporated into its February earnings announcement. In a subsequent letter to the library community, Clarivate leaders apologized for the frustration and announced some adjustments to their transition plan.  

My goal in this piece, however, is not to add to the pile-on. Instead, I wish to provide some broader context about several key drivers transforming the monographs marketplace. My hope is that some of this context can help libraries, publishers, and intermediaries together find digital-first models that best address access and sustainability going forward. 

Libraries Want Flexibility?

In the print environment, libraries had enormous flexibility in deciding which books to purchase, flexibility that was reasonable given that, over the long run, the costs of processing and storing tangible materials far exceeded the purchase price of a given title. The transaction costs of bibliographer-driven selection was enormous, however, and over time, a set of intermediaries formed to help academic libraries purchase the full list from preferred publishers, or create profiles that reduced the local labor and expertise required for selection. While offering this curatorial support, these intermediaries continued to provide libraries with nearly complete flexibility to return or refuse any book, providing far more than just an illusion of continued flexibility. 

Yankee Book Peddler was the leader in this intermediary business in the US, and it was ultimately acquired by EBSCO, which retired the YBP brand but invested in building out GOBI, the selection platform. Today, GOBI drives not only various kinds of print selection models but also a large array of ebook distribution models, including bundles, demand-driven acquisition, and individual title selection, not only through EBSCO channels and platforms but also through those of others in the sector. 

In the digital environment, which is actually a hybrid print-digital environment for most institutions, many libraries have wanted enormous flexibility in selection, mirroring the approaches they were able to take in the print environment and in some cases expanding upon them. Some digital models, for example demand-driven acquisition, actually provide libraries with a great deal more flexibility than they had in the print environment, essentially allowing them to “trial” every book and only pay when the book’s value is made clear by their patrons actually reading the ebooks. Models like this generated transaction costs for the platforms that distribute books while delaying publisher revenue recognition, offering great value to many libraries (and users) in the process. 

Libraries Want Ownership? 

Libraries also want permanent access rights. They secured these early on through journal subscriptions, where publishers found themselves happy for libraries to have permanent access to each year of a journal to which they had subscribed. The licensing models spearheaded by the Lib-License project and the preservation ecosystem developed by CLOCKSS and Portico provided the enabling infrastructure to ensure this permanent access. Journal publishers were happy because they had a recurring revenue model in the subscriptions, and libraries were happy because they had ownership-like rights — overall, a sustainable balance.

Many libraries similarly want to own books in digital formats just like they did in print. Perpetual access is always at the heart of this objective, and while some libraries focus on additional ownership-like rights beyond perpetual access, far more expect to have perpetual access to their ebook collections. That is to say that they want to know what books they have “purchased” and ensure that their user community has perpetual access to these materials without them having to pay recurring license fees for that access. One reason for this, particularly at larger institutions, is a desire to build deep topical monographic collections tied to institutional research identity. 

The most traditional perpetual access models have tended to drive revenue to publishers in the window immediately following publication, with a long tail of revenue that can be derived through the backlist accumulated across all of that publishers’ titles. Such models are similar enough to print book sales that they generate some of the same revenue patterns. One challenge for publishers is that revenue is not predictable as it is for a subscription. 

Tracking these perpetual access rights adds complexity and cost for the hosting platform. This is particularly the case if, as discussed above, books are selected at an individual title level. 

Digital-First Models

The economics of the digital ecosystem are different from those of the print environment, even if library practices, values, and preferences are more fixed. One direct illustration is that although individual book title selection might be less expensive in the digital environment as compared with print, it is borne by a different party. Specially, in the digital environment, cataloging and storage/access costs are borne by the hosting platform. As a result, there is nothing for libraries to weigh the transaction costs associated with individual title selection against. 

A number of publishing programs at least implicitly recognized this essential dynamic and have sought opportunities to build digital-first business models. 

• Several university presses identified opportunities to sell their entire catalog as a bundle, perhaps none more prominently than MIT, which did so under a subscribe to open model. 
• ACLS and my colleagues at JSTOR developed the Path to Open initiative, a beta program guaranteeing revenue for roughly 50 participating publishers, providing access to participating libraries immediately, and eventual open access to all. 
• DeGruyter had the key insight that publishers would prefer to distribute their entire catalog and some libraries would prefer to acquire the complete catalog of those publishers. This could make it possible to reduce the transaction costs for those libraries and publishers, passing along a portion of the benefit of bundled pricing. DeGruyter’s approach, called University Press Library and now offered through its Paradigm subsidiary, has provided some additional incentives, often offering at least certain books exclusively as part of the bundle, helping to drive library participation. 
• As noted above, Clarivate has announced a subscription package containing nearly three quarters of a million books, at the same time decisively ceasing transactional sales and future long-term library access rights, both in print and digital formats. This will advance its goals of transitioning a greater share of its revenues towards recurring models, yet has generated substantial library community objections. 

Each of these digital first models brings certain benefits with it, in terms of expanding access and reducing transaction costs, and several serve as alternatives to one another, either from a publisher or library market perspective. At the same time, Ebsco released a statement saying that it “remains steadfast in its support of,” among other things, “Perpetual Access E-books [and] Comprehensive Print Book Fulfillment.” Even if the market shows signs of looking to move beyond these approaches, it is clear that there remains substantial demand for transactional models including for print and at least a near-term opportunity to serve them. 

Looking Ahead

One question that emerges is whether there is a way to marry a subscription-like recurring revenue model so valued by content distributors with the kind of ownership-like model so valued by libraries. There are probably a number of opportunities to do so, both for closed as well as open access materials, and we are likely to see more models created and tried out before any form of market consensus is generated. 

Several of the subscribe-to-open flavors have shown initial success with something approaching this model. That said, these models have not yet proven themselves as durable in the face of a resource downturn facing libraries. 

For monographs, the pay-for-access landscape remains stubbornly important. Looking ahead, it will be fascinating to see whether there are opportunities to build models there that work for libraries and publishers alike while providing the kinds of access that users most need. One of the biggest challenges in doing so is to find ways to provide adequate revenues to publishers to enable them to continue publishing excellent monographs — which is not an afterthought but absolutely foundational to success. 

Ultimately, the transition beyond single title purchase models for ebooks seems to be picking up, suggesting a sort of second digital transformation for the monograph, not unlike the Second Digital Transformation we are experiencing in other parts of the sector. What model or models for books will achieve market acceptance remains the key open question.