Print-on-Demand Books: Changing the Library As We Know It?
Introduction
As digitization progresses and allows users access to a wealth of materials at their fingertips, these users often prefer the works be returned to a tangible form when utilizing them. In this spirit, print-on-demand (POD) was born. While libraries, both academic and public, employ this service, they have also discovered other creative uses for it, and many of POD’s early investors imagine this technology may play a major role in the library’s future. POD in libraries could potentially cause a shift in digital licensing, alter the size and form of library collections (possibly even eliminating the print ones), revolutionize the publishing industry, and help transform the library into a Maker Space and community pillar. However, POD is still a new technology that very few libraries have tested thus far; the bugs (and the cost) are still being worked out. Is the emerging technology of POD a good fit for libraries?
Literature Review
In 2011 when David Rapp wrote “Espresso Print-on-Demand Book Machines Making Inroads at Public Libraries,” less than a handful of public libraries owned an Espresso Book Machine (EBM), a distinctive contraption that prints books on-demand in a matter of minutes. On Demand Books (ODB), the company that produces and sells EBMs, offered libraries a choice of purchasing the machine outright or of opting for a less-costly concession agreement, in which ODB rents the library space, hires its own staff to run the machine, and kicks back a percentage of its profits to the library.
The EBM pulls from a database of over six million public domain and backlist titles, but it also offers the capability to print self-published material. Using EBM, a 200-page book will run the user about $10, but self-publishing a book of the same size is much costlier - around a few hundred dollars. Sacramento Public Library’s Director Rivkah Sass views this self-publishing service as a way of connecting with the community; she noted that POD has great potential for local groups, like “historical societies, genealogical societies, writers groups and schools” (Rapp, 2011).
Edmund Chamberlain’s “Investigating Faster Techniques for Digitization and Print-on-Demand” delves deeper into evaluating POD for an academic library. Cambridge University Library (CUL) created a workflow concept to streamline the process of digitization to printed book, surveyed library staff and students to assess their interest in utilizing digital copies and POD (finding both groups overwhelmingly receptive of these services but expecting to pay low, reasonable prices for them), and then presented the workflow to the library staff. Having received an enthusiastic reaction from staff and students, CUL evaluated the EBM to use for POD.
The only aspect of the EBM more impressive than its ability to print and bind books rapidly is the expansive collection of digitized works that is part of the package. ODB’s package grants users access to digital copies from Google Books, the Internet Archive, anyone who publishes through Lightning Source Print and allows access to their works, and many specific publishers who allowed such permission, including CUL itself. While CUL’s research found POD’s user cost to be within the range students and staff requested, it showed the quality of prints sometimes left something to be desired. The research also indicated the machine should be relatively easy to run and require little maintenance.
Theoretically, POD could render a library’s large, print collection obsolete, but CUL found its collection had few redundancies with ODB’s digital one. The research also suggested that POD may positively impact current services; it could replace lost, damaged, and worn materials, quickly and inexpensively fulfill ILLs, and even create bound course packets students require for classes. In the end, CUL decided against purchasing an EBM for now. They felt it too costly when already overwhelmed with maintaining current services and their collection and preferred to wait until EBM gained popularity and declined in price.
Unlike CUL, after much research, Rick Anderson decided to invest in an EBM for his library at Utah State University. In “The Good, the Bad, and the Sexy: Our Espresso Book Machine Experience,” he shares both his positive and incredibly frustrating experiences with the machine and its software. He realized that while ODB offers over 3,000,000 titles available for POD, most are old and out-of-print, not exactly in-demand with most of his patrons. He also found said titles difficult to locate due to the unfortunate combination of a keyword-only discover tool and the poor quality of Google Books’ metadata. Despite contacting ODB about this issue, Anderson does not expect it will be repaired anytime soon, owing largely to the newness of the company and overwhelming amount of content concerned. The main issues with the machine’s functionality are that the glue that binds the spine takes approximately 45 minutes to melt and that Anderson’s institution just happens to be in a desert climate, causing unforeseen issues such as the pages not stacking properly. Fortunately, ODB was able to fix this issue, and the few other technical problems that have arisen have been or are in the process of being solved.
As for the machine’s successes, the library’s patrons have been excited about using POD books but warmly welcomed its self-publishing aspect as well. Anderson notes that EBM-printed journals, which are basically blank pages with a high-quality image from the library’s digital collection printed on the cover, are also top sellers. Overall, Anderson states that he is happy with the purchase but hopes that the product improves over time.
Koerber, on the other hand, views POD as a natural fit for the Maker Spaces into which many libraries are evolving, and he believes libraries’ success with using POD to self-publish can be attributed both to this natural match and to the demystification of the publishing process. In the article “Espress Yourself,” Koerber argues the EBM really shines with self-publishing because the user can take their product from a .pdf file to holding “a copy of their book, warm and real in their hands” (2012) within minutes. POD completely eliminates the publishing company from the publishing process.
“Hands-on creation, the sharing of results and process, post-consumer customization, and the ability easily to manufacture just one of something” (Koerber, 2012) are all ideas that align Maker culture with the self-publishing aspect of POD. The cost of purchasing an EBM still runs over $100,000, which seems rather unideal for most public libraries, but costs are expected to decline, as they did for 3D printers. By keeping the publishing process local instead of sending the digital version to online self-publishing companies, the EBM allows the libraries to connect with these local authors and to see the process from beginning to end. One librarian even hypothesized that in the future, an author could begin his writing project on the library’s site and see it all the way to finish with the EBM, possibly giving the library a copy of their book too. While this idea may be far into the future, many libraries today do wish to offer their users Maker Spaces, and POD would undoubtedly be at home there.
Usage & Application of POD in Libraries
Today, only four public libraries and a handful of academic libraries in the U.S. own EBMs (On Demand Books, 2014). This technology is still very new to libraries, and not very affordable, unless the library has a grant or other special circumstance. The libraries that do have an EBM have had the most success with the self-publishing aspect, but they also use it to print digital copies of books from the database for users who request it, as well as to print journals and notebooks either the libraries or other individuals create to sell. The literature mentions using POD to serve administrative library functions, such as to fulfill ILLs, to supplement course materials, and to use as back-ups for lost/damaged materials. However, the little evidence I did find of follow-through for these ideas suggested that POD was of such little consequence in these instances that it was not really worth mentioning with print copies and self-publishing.
Challenges and Issues
The acceptance and future application of POD in libraries will depend on its ability to overcome both major and minor challenges, the smallest of which being consistently good-quality prints. The pitiful state of the ODB collection’s metadata and interface make finding digital titles a hassle for the user, but the main two issues are the same ones sited over and over again in the literature: popularity and cost.
With so few EBMs (less than 70 worldwide, according to www.ondemandbooks.com), how can publishers expect to offset their cost by allowing free digital access to the book? Therefore, most decline digital access to the in-print materials most library patrons so desire and would make an EBM worth the library’s money. And it’s a lot of money - over $100,000 - and that will just purchase the machine. Most libraries will also need a staff member to run it, and with many being understaffed and underfunded, extra staff is unlikely. If the cost decreased, it would be more popular; if it were more popular, the cost would decrease. As Rick Anderson says, this relationship “raises something of a chicken-and-egg conundrum” (2011).
Conclusion
POD could change the way libraries look and function; it could help progress the digitization movement, while still allowing users their print copies, and could become an integral part of the Maker Spaces libraries and their communities seem to crave. While this technology’s functions appear to be on track with the library’s aspirations, I have to agree that cost and lack of relevant digital materials cripple POD’s potential. Currently, most of the venues that own EBMs are bookstores (On Demand Books, 2014). If more bookstores buy the machines, I can see the cost decreasing enough to be more affordable for libraries. Even then, they will have to decide whether the self-publishing aspect is worth the price tag when the digital collection is not up to par. If costs decline and libraries invest, POD may one day be as permanent and popular a fixture in libraries as copier machines.
Link to Google Doc: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6BuSTHftixNVWV0Q1VjcFZLTEk/edit?usp=sharing
Link to Google Doc poster: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6BuSTHftixNZExMVTAyQ25NQ3c/edit?usp=sharing
