1. Monitoring Title Volatility in E-book Subscription Collections: Using Data to Enlighten Acquisition Decisions and Demystify Aggregator-Publisher Relationships

2. Introduction Subscription e-book collections offer affordable alternatives to traditional acquisition models and streamline collection development processes through aggregator curation. Due to the proliferation of e- books and the realities of budget cuts and staff layoffs and/or re- appropriation, large subscription collections have enjoyed unchallenged acceptance and anointment as the panacea to the shifting marketplace and libraries’ financial woes. The cost-benefit of large subscription collections cannot be denied; The aggregate number of titles (75,000+) divided by the annual subscription rate equals pennies per title; 12 cents to be precise. Thus libraries can offer their patrons significantly more e-books than they could otherwise afford using traditional purchase models. In addition to their financial incentive(s), subscription e-book collections are curated by aggregators. Curation saves acquisitions, cataloging, bibliographers and collection development librarians valuable staff time and scarce resources that can be allocated elsewhere.

3. Title volatility challenges assumptions about cost and curation. Titles withdrawn and added impact the subscription’s price point per title and raise questions about curation, specifically the quality of titles being withdrawn versus titles being added to the collection. Therefore, title volatility is defined as the number of titles withdrawn and added to a collection over a period of time, in this case 7/01/2011- 7/01/2012. Ebrary’s Academic Complete collection is perhaps the best known and most popular subscription e-book collection in academic libraries and is the focus of this analysis. Evaluating title volatility in Academic Complete will aid acquisitions decisions and elucidate aggregator-publisher relationships.

4. Methodology The data for deleted titles was collected from ebrary’s “admin.” portal using the “MARC” tab. Deleted titles are available in MRC file and Microsoft Excel (ME) formats every time MARC records are updated. Titles were complied and sorted using ME. The data for added titles was collected using Musselman’s Library’s Integrated Library System (ILS) Millennium. The following ILS query was used to identify added titles: bibliographic cataloging date between 7/01/2011 and 7/01/2012; bibliographic OCLC # has “ebr;” and bibliographic alternate title equal to “ebrary Academic Complete.” MARC 730’s are added to all Academic Complete titles for identification and user license purposes. The list of titles was exported from Millennium into ME format including using the “Export Records” function. The following query was employed: bibliographic OCLC number, bibliographic title, bibliographic imprint and bibliographic MARC tag|c. ME was used to sort the imprint and publication dates sequentially, i.e., A-Z and numerically.

5. ME formulas were used to calculate mean, mode and median. Formulas were also used to calculate aggregate titles withdrawn and added by publication date, 1995-2012 and total titles by Library of Congress Classification (LCC). The 2012 edition of the Literary Market Place (LMP) and the 2013 edition of the International Literary Market Place (ILMP) were used to classify publishers as “professional,” “reference,” “scholarly,” “trade,” and “university press,” which can be located in the volumes’ “Type of Publication Index.” Due to the LMP and IMLP comprehensive coverage of publishers, it was determined that these resources were more appropriate than the American Association of Publishers (AAP) index, whose coverage is limited to the United States and Canada. It should be noted that the LMP’s and ILMP’s classification of publishers as professional, reference, scholarly, trade and university press are not mutually exclusive, e.g., University of North Carolina Press (UNC) and Princeton University Press are classified as “scholarly” and “university presses.” For purposes of classification and coding, presses and/or publishers with an academic affiliation were classified as “university presses” rather than “scholarly.”

6. Aggregate Titles Withdrawn and Added

7. Titles Withdrawn Statistics Average2004.616 Mode2008 Median2005 Earliest Date1932 Most Recent Date2012 Titles Added Statistics Average2009.335 Mode2010 Median2010 Earliest Date1934 Most Recent Date2012

8. Titles Withdrawn by Publication Year

9. Titles Added by Publication Year

10. Titles Withdrawn by LC Classification

11. Titles Added by LC Classification

12. Titles Withdrawn by Publisher Classification McGraw Hill withdrew 2,346 titles University of North Carolina Press withdrew 565 titles Princeton University Press withdrew 169 titles Earthscan withdrew 239 titles

13. Titles Added by Publisher Classification Oxford added 467 titles Princeton added 539 titles Wiley added 796 titles

14. Conclusions 4,915 titles withdrawn plus 11,102 titles added equals 16,017 titles or a 21% rate of volatility based on a collection size of 75,000 titles. Titles withdrawn account for 31% and titles added account for 69% of volatility. Older e-books are being withdrawn and newer e-books are being added. The average year of withdrawn e-books is 2004.6 and average year of added e-books is 2009.3. Top three LC Classifications withdrawn: “H” (1350), “Q” (640), and “T” (787). Top three LC classifications added: B (1435), “H” (2111), and “P” (772). More titles were added across all LC classification ranges with the exception of “T” than were withdrawn, e.g., (H +761), (Q +66), (T -19). Top three publisher classifications withdrawn: 2,422 “reference,” 1,361 “university press,” and 784 “scholarly.” Top three added: 5,431 “scholarly,” 3,880 “university press,” and 1,341 “professional.” More titles were added across all publisher classifications with the exception of “reference,” e.g., “professional” +1,057, “reference” -2,294, “scholarly” +4,647 “trade” +259, and “university press” +2,519. McGraw-Hill withdrew all of its titles from Academic complete, which accounted for 2,346 withdrawals or 21% rate of the annual volatility. The University of North Carolina Press (UNCP) withdrew 565 titles and added one (-564), Princeton University Press withdrew 169 titles and added 539 (+370), and Earthscan withdrew 239 titles (-239). Title volatility can be attributed to aggregators and publishers equally. Through the curation process, aggregators withdraw and add e-books based on currency, content, and publisher reputation. Publishers add or withdraw e-books based on contractual negotiations with the aggregator, which may include term restrictions or embargoes. In the case of McGraw Hill, who removed all titles from Academic Complete, the publisher opted to establish their own platform and collection model(s), therefore eliminating aggregator mediation. Academic presses, many of which are classified above as “university presses” are migrating e-book content to Project Muse’s University Press Content Consortium (UPCC). Due to confidential aggregator-publisher contracts it is difficult to determine whether exclusivity clauses will precipitate a mass migration of publishers from one aggregator to another. Ebsco’s new e-Book Academic Subscription Collection may increase title volatility as publishers negotiate with aggregators to maximize profits; there is potential for the development of aggregator-publisher alliances if aggregators or publishers insist on contractual exclusivity.