Against the Grain
Volume 26 | Issue 6 Article 8
2014 Academic Publishing Is Not in Crisis: It's Just Changing John Hussey Ingram Content Group, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons
Recommended Citation Hussey, John (2014) "Academic Publishing Is Not in Crisis: It's Just Changing," Against the Grain: Vol. 26: Iss. 6, Article 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6943
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Academic Publishing Is Not in Crisis — It’s Just Changing by John Hussey (Key Accounts Sales Manager, Ingram Content Group)
verything changed in the fall of 2008, of these platforms attempted to provide an sities, this often meant a change in internal when I was a sales manager for the economical solution for both the publishers structure in terms of who university presses EUniversity Press of Kentucky and and the libraries. With models such as demand- should report to, or who would control their we had one of the most ambitious lists in our driven acquisition as an option, no longer subsidies. Within a few years, presses such as history. At my seasonal meeting at Barnes & would publishers have to print 10,000 units on Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, and Kentucky Noble, I received “large” trade buys, for a uni- comparable sales histories and libraries could were either folded into the library or saw the versity press, including more than 500 copies analyze what should be bought according to library control their funding. Claiming there of several of our titles. Additionally, we had a actual usage. were synergies within these two generally dis- regional coffee table trade book with amazing One of the benefits of the economic collapse tinct operating units, administrators attempted comparable sales figures, a $45 price tag, and and the model interrogation for both libraries to both maximize efficiency and reduce costs. a 10,000 unit print run. and university press publishers was a higher As a result, publishers and librarians, who By the end of October, though, I could see level of communication between these two for years didn’t co-mingle, were now sharing that dramatic change was underway. While our siloed groups. Prior to 2008, university press- office spaces. daily sales figures were strong, sell-through at es, especially within marketing and sales de- One of the unfortunate by-products of the major retailers and wholesalers was disastrous. partments, generally didn’t understand library economic crash was an overall increase in I warned my staff that in January or February purchasing and, to be quite frank, had no inter- prices for monographs. When publishers began of 2009 most of the stock we had pushed out est in learning about it. Sales managers took looking at internal profit/loss statements, the so heavily into the distribution channels would their approval plan num- obvious choice to help offset come flying back at us and we would have to bers from Blackwells, the decrease in copies sold bear the expense. Soon, it was evident — we Coutts, and YBP for was to raise prices by $5 weren’t alone. granted. There was an or $10 per book. Some University presses, like every other book assumption that putting of these decisions, as well publisher, fell victim to the economic crash. At stock in the hands of as increased prices across Kentucky, we quickly went into triage mode the approval teams was major textbook and journal where we analyzed every facet of the business. where their job ended. publishers, caused state The status quo was no longer accepted; rather, After the collapse, governments to take note. personnel had to defend decisions in a manner however, a dialogue between the two parties Large states with major budgetary problems that made us better employees who were more became necessary. At a Charleston Library stemming from the crash asserted there was a aware of the business we were in. Thanks to Conference roundtable in 2010, I was aston- crisis at hand: book costs were out of control strong management, Kentucky was able to re- ished at how poor the information exchange for their college students. define our business in months, instead of years. had been. For example, many of the acquisition What for decades was a relatively stable and But it wasn’t just publishers who were librarians assumed that most university press- rather staid industry faced a convergence of forced to examine costs and practices. Fed- es were selling 1,000 monographs (by then events. Simultaneously, university presses had eral, state, and municipal budgets were under monograph sales for a medium-sized university to account for decreased net sales, an eBook intense scrutiny, and as a result money was cut press were in the 400-500 range, now down to technological shift, a change in printing tech- that had previously been earmarked for acqui- 200-300), and many of the presses had never nology, a reduction in subsidies, a movement sitions at public libraries. State universities even seen the OASIS or GOBI library portals. toward library-university press partnerships, had tough decisions to make as enrollment This digital interrogation wasn’t just limited and a mandate from state governments to make numbers dipped and funding decreased. Li- to eBooks. As the eBook market was providing books more affordable. Articles in the press, as brary budgets, unfortunately, were one of the an economic bubble to help curb expenses and they seem to do every year or two, announced places they could trim. increase margin, another technology began to forthcoming doom for academic publishing. For university presses, this meant three explode. It was a new way of printing that Unequivocally, however, university presses simultaneous hits: their retail sales were would eliminate the need to overprint, ship to have responded to these challenges. down as a result of a sagging economy; their a warehouse, ship to a customer, and then ship Rather than relying on pre-2008 publishing university subsidies were decreasing; and their back to a warehouse if the book didn’t sell. models, university presses continue to experi- most trusted revenue stream, libraries, weren’t This new solution to a gigantic economical ment as a means to respond to all of the various buying at the same rate. Ultimately, this was publishing problem was POD. economic factors facing them. This year, for unsustainable. Print-on-demand (POD) technology had example, the University of North Carolina Over the next few years, university presses existed since the late 1990s when Lightning Press launched a series of open access mono- devoted enormous resources to stabilize their Source first burst onto the scene, but only after graphs, which exist for free in digital form and businesses. With Amazon’s Kindle emerging the economic crash did its value proposition re- for a small cost in a POD print format. As a way as the first legitimate eBook retailer and with ally make sense for university presses. Because to foster a closer relationship with its library, the new iPad showing the potential of what POD didn’t quite match its offset competition the University Press of Kentucky made its enhanced content could look like, publishers from a quality perspective, publishers often entire out-of-print library available in a digital had to revolutionize their internal workflow overlooked POD and continued with printing repository for free. In Florida, The University and develop new ways to distribute their books. large quantities for better unit cost and better Press of Florida helps offset high costs for its From contracts and royalty structures to data quality. However, as overprinting and obsoles- college students with its open access textbook management systems and book design, this was cence became a larger problem with publishers program, Orange Grove. The University of no small undertaking. who hadn’t adjusted their business models and California Press has a position open for a Additionally, an eBook market in the library sales expectations quickly enough, finance marketing manager whose responsibility is to space also began to take shape. Aggregators teams began cost-benefit analyses of what a help lead an open access initiative, and even the such as ebrary, NetLibrary, MyiLibrary, and shift to POD might mean for their companies. largest university presses, such as Princeton, University Press Scholarship Online were As publishers continued to work on their have experimented with one-off OA projects. first to market. The University Press Content publishing programs at a high level, university There’s no going back to the days of large Consortium powered by Project Muse and administrators and state governments began seasonal buys at Barnes & Noble and standing Books at JSTOR were quick to follow. All some evaluations of their own. For univer- continued on page 16 14 Against the Grain / December 2014 - January 2015
he Pennsylvania State University es- Although presses range widely in terms of are service-oriented; their “performance” does tablished a press-library collaboration in size, audience, and mission — University of not depend on generating revenue to pay for T2005. In due course, under the auspices Chicago Press is not like the University of costs. Although they obviously need money of a newly created Office of Digital Scholarly Oklahoma Press, and University of Michigan to offer services, the work that libraries do Publishing, it successfully launched an Open Press is not like Kent State University Press does not itself typically generate that revenue. Access monograph series, collaborated on sev- — most generally face outward to scholarly Presses, on the other hand, are product-driven, eral library book-publishing projects, a journal associations, researchers, and society writ and they are product-driven precisely because archive, a reprint series from the libraries’ large, rather than inward toward their campus- their product’s sales performance determines special collections, and another monograph/ es. Libraries, however, typically look inward, their financial outcome. They’re not spending database project. I arrived in 2007, when locally, toward their faculty and students. from a pot of money, but are trying to fill that things were just beginning to take shape. We Understandably, that means libraries, com- pot. But presses do more than cover operating were probably not unlike many press-library paratively, have enviable influence and power costs when they sell a book or article. They are relationships that were being formed, doing our inside the university. They have solid networks also generating a positive return (Tenure and best to “make our way in the world today.” It and access to campus resources. They have the Promotion) for their authors, societies, uni- wasn’t perfect, but it was decidedly a step in ear of the provost, may have contact with the versities, and other partners, and they squirrel the right direction. president, and have a deep institutional history. away money for the future. Libraries acquire One aspect of the partnership became clear Plus, people — donors — give libraries money. their enormous clout and influence on campus early: Our respective, different cultures did In contrast presses construct networks with precisely because they are so good at serving not always make communication or working societies, researchers, institutes, and authors, the campus community with the resources they together intuitive or straightforward. In an often in subject areas only loosely connected receive. A library accomplishes its mission by Against the Grain article that appeared in with the university. Consequently, presses serving its campus. Presses, however, facing an issue co-edited with my friend and former historically built few if any powerful allies outward and being output- or product-driven, colleague at the Pennsylvania State Univer- inside the university. Moreover, presses only are not a service culture (though they serve sity Libraries, now the executive director of rarely receive significant capital support. Once their university in other ways, e.g., in repre- the HathiTrust, Michael Furlough,1 I wrote a press was moved under a library, for good or senting the university). This crucial distinction about those different cultures. I reflected on a for ill, it quickly learned what a difference a dictates that libraries say yes far more than university press’s “assets” in the press-library library could make vis à vis recognition and they say no. Presses are exactly the opposite. relationship. I proposed that presses were access on one’s own campus. For the first Presses say no far more than they say yes. “assets,” and I discussed these, not in contrast time, a few presses found institutional support Presses simply cannot afford to say yes to every to the liabilities of a library or vice versa, but and political cover in their relationship with local or external publishing opportunity, even in terms of how presses and libraries differ the library. when their mission begs for them to do so, culturally. I was spinning the differences be- Presses operate on the basis of a (theoreti- because measured use of resources is directly tween presses and libraries using the language cally) revenue-generating, cost-recovery mar- tied to their ability to meet their goal of output of finance, but, in reality, I was obliquely ket model; libraries operate on a subsidized, (=revenue). And their survival depends on pointing out that businesswise we were from expenditure-based budget. As I have said achieving their goal. two different planets, even if located on the often, libraries are given a pot of money out What has transpired since the firstAgainst same campus. of which they must control their expenditures the Grain article appeared? Are there any Over time my take on the cultural differ- and operate successfully. Presses, in contrast, lessons to be learned about how presses and ences in the ATG article was reinforced, and I are given a largely empty pot (an average libraries can better cooperate, collaborate, pointed to those differences whenever I talked allocation applied to operating expenses is and survive? Evidence from the AAUP report about Penn State’s press-library relationship. 8%–13%2) and are told to fill it with money. on press-library collaborations and from the Three assets — more properly cultural differ- While neither is easy, those two approaches Library Publishing Coalition3 confirms that ences — continue to hold import for me, and I to managing finances are wildly different. library-press collaborations are on the rise and suspect they could hold for other press-library Understanding existentially the difference be- here to stay. It seems fairly certain, too, that relationships. Understanding and managing tween the two approaches is nearly impossible “best practices” continue to be in relatively these cultural differences, as nearly as I can tell, for either side and is the source for ongoing short supply. There are as many models in the continues to play an ongoing and determinative misunderstanding. relationship as there are presses and libraries. role in how presses and libraries will or will A third difference is linked both to the The differences, for example, among Penn not work together. With a little elaboration, I inward/outward and to the difference in how State, Michigan, Indiana, and Temple, are review them below. finances operate. On the one hand, libraries legion. Press-library partnerships remain in ferment, and no single template for how these partnerships work exists. Over time, both presses and libraries have evolved. Cultural differences shaped that method, and business model will evolve, and evolution, motivating presses and libraries to Academic Publishing Is Not ... each publisher will strive for the proper balance adapt. Some early players, like California from page 14 among brand, efficiency, and external pressures. Digital Library, which is specifically designed One thing does remains certain, however. As to “support the University of California orders at library wholesalers. The concept of long as tenure exists and the monograph remains community’s pursuit of scholarship”4 have an plugging books into a traditional profit-and- the most important criterion for promotion, uni- established reputation and a decidedly local fo- loss spreadsheet to find the correct margin is as versity presses, as the gatekeepers of knowledge, cus. Others, like MPublishing, serve a broader antiquated as printing for two years of invento- will remain essential. I feel confident, having community, including outside the campus.5 ry. The future isn’t completely figured out for been there, that they will respond to any chal- Despite initiatives like the 2012 Amherst Col- any university press. The format, distribution lenge, foreseen or unforeseen. continued on page 18
16 Against the Grain / December 2014 - January 2015