[mhypoq3vc7ajn2]

Creating a throwaway to post this.

I used to work for a big player in the digital books space.

This article is riddled with unsubstantiated claims. I can tell you for a fact that as digital library lending grows, publisher (and author) revenue declines on a per sale/borrow basis. It is not the same as physical lending. The difference in friction is massive, customers love painless instant book delivery.

Imagine being an author and seeing your units increasing but your earnings not.

Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing, it is on an unsustainable path. Macmillan tried windowing (ie for the first x weeks new releases can only be purchased, kind of like movies only being available in theaters at first) but the backlash was fierce and they abandoned it looking like a bully as COVID swept the globe. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...

[cpymchn]

> Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing

What do you recommend?

The artificial scarcity model they have now is broken. Pay-per-use seems better if the cost per read is adequate enough. All-you-can-eat-at-fixed-price (Oyster and Scribd) have the economics upside down.

[mhypoq3vc7ajn2]

I really liked the windowing approach that Macmillon wanted to try, which would funnel demand to purchases for new releases. Libraries already pay quite a lot for licenses, but I think there needs to be more scarcity too. The trouble is substitution ... customers just build a queue of free borrow options and read whichever comes available. Maybe tighter limits on the library side, instead of 25 concurrent borrows per library card make it 1. Or some way to introduce friction because instant wireless delivery is just so excellent.

Don't have a good answer, I'm an engineer not an economist :)