- Email: [email protected]
Angling for an Anglo-American acquisitions agreement
Librury Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, Vol. 7, pp. 207-212, I983 Printed in the USA. AI1 rights reserved.
Copyright
0364~6408/83 $3.00 + .OO Q 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd
ANGLING FOR AN ANGLO-AMERICAN ACQUISITIONS AGREEMENT An Expedition in Search of the Ten Percent Sotution
CHARLES Chairman,
WILLETT
Acquisitions
University of Florida Gainesville,
Department Libraries
FL 32611
ABSTRACT The ~blisher~ Association in London administers the Net Book Agreement, which prohibits British booksellers from offering discounts. An exception permits 10% discounts to British public and university libraries which apply for licenses. The writer describes his trip to London in July 1983 to lobby for a similar license for the University of Florida Libraries. Their application is a test case following an RTSD resolution in January 1983 calling on the Publishers Association to judge American libraries by the same standards as British libraries. The writer attacks the Net Book Agreement as an artificial obstacle preventing the marketing of British books in the U.S. He calis for an Anglo-American Acquisitions Agreement whereby American librarians would more actively promote and acquire British books in exchange for incentive discounts from British booksellers. Title response of the ~b~ishers Association is not yet known.
In early July 1983, I went to London for two weeks to lobby for the University of Florida’s application for a library license, which would permit us to buy new British books at a 10% discount. My first appointment was to be at the lovely old offices of the Publishers Association, which overlook Bedford Square near the British Museum in Bloomsbury, the literary center of London. It had been almost three years since my last visit. At that time, as chair of the Acquisition of Library Materials Discussion Group, I had been seeking information on British bookselling to present at a panel discussion at the 1981 ALA summer conference in San Francisco. I had been directed to Peter Phelan, Deputy Secretary of the P.A. (as it is called), to learn about the Net Book Agreement [I]. 207
208
CHARLES
WILLETT
Peter had been most courteous and informative on that occasion in his office at the top of the winding staircase. He even provided me with a set of forms for a library license and said that no American library had ever applied for one. Applications from Australian and Danish libraries were pending. No library outside the United Kingdom had ever been granted a license in the entire W-year history of the Net Book Agreement [2]. The NBA stipulates that British booksellers may not sell “net” British books at prices lower than those set by the publishers. Publishers decide whether a title is “net” or “non-net” and so specify on dustjackets and invoices. “Non-net” books are not covered by the NBA and may be sold at a discount. In practice, however, almost all British books are published “net” other than school textbooks, the Bible, and certain children’s books. There are certain exceptions under which “net” books may be sold at a discount: 1. Any publisher may sell any book direct at any price; 2. A foreign bookseller may do the same; 3. Certain municipalities in Britain have licenses dating from many years ago granting substantial discounts on bulk orders; 4. Public libraries may be granted licenses permitting a maximum ten percent discount from the booksellers listed in their applications; 5. University libraries may do the same provided that they are open to the public and spend at least f 100 per annum on new books. In 1962, consequent to the passage of the Restrictive Practices Act of 1956, the NBA was investigated by the Restrictive Practices Court. In a judgment much celebrated by the book trade the Court declared that “books are different,” and that the NBA is legal, unlike most resale price maintenance agreements established by other trade associations [3]. The NBA was adjudged to be in the public interest: The reasons why the Net Book Agreement came into operation on 1January I900 are largely those which led publishers and booksellers to defend it before the Restrictive Practices Court sixty-two years later: namely the need for an orderly and healthy trade in which booksellers could afford to stock a wide range of titles, secure in the knowledge that they would not be undercut on the best-selling, quick-selling titles, thereby providing publishers and the book-buying public with a multiplicity of outlets offering good service. The Court, in its judgement, stated that it was satisfied that abrogation of the Agreement would lead to fewer and less well equipped stockholding bookshops, more expensive books, and fewer titles. It considered that all purchasers and users of books, including public and academic libraries, would be adversely affected by a decrease in the number of books published on account of the smaller range of choice which would be available to them, and it therefore found that the Agreement was not contrary to the public interest [4].
The San Francisco meeting of the Acquisition of Library Materials Discussion Group brought several surprises [5]. Matthew Evans, a British publisher (Faber & Faber) who was on the panel, turned out to be a vigorous opponent of the NBA. He said the British have always prided themselves on their exports but have not learned to sell to the U.S. market. Most British exports are to protected markets, he said. He questioned the validity of the NBA for export, since its purpose was to protect the internal trade of retail book shops. He suggested that the ALA might consider approaching the P.A. for library licenses granting 10% discounts, such as are granted to many British libraries. As a member of the P.A. Council, Matthew would personally support such a move. In the question period that followed 1 asked for a show of hands of persons in favor of Matthew’s suggestion. Most of the iibrarians present raised their hands, Then Peter made an unexpected appearance in the audience and delivered a ringing defense of the NBA. The Publishers Association believes it has a responsibility, he said, to protect book shops which stock British books not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. The sun never sets, apparently, on the Net Book Agreement.
Anglo-American
Acquisitions
Agreement
209
The interest displayed by the audience in library licenses was considered by the Bookdealer/ Library Relations Committee and the Executive Committee of the Resources Section in the months that followed. In January 1983, a resolution was passed by the RTSD Board: . that the British Publishers Association extend to ail American libraries the right to apply for a Library Licence and that applications received from American libraries be judged using the same standards as are applied to British libraries.
I was asked if the University of Florida Libraries would be willing to apply for a license as a test case. My director agreed, the forms were unearthed and the appli~tion sent off. Having done that much, I decided to go one step further and lobby for the license. I borrowed a little money, gathered up my unprotesting wife, and set out for Bedford Square. Peter received me this time in the large, ground floor office of the Secretary, who was out of town. With him was Graham Greene, nephew of the writer, who is Managing Director of Jonathan Cape, Chairman of the publishing group of Cape, Bodley Head, and Chatto & Windus, and on the boards of the British Museum, the British Library, and the British Council. He is past president of the Publishers Association and chairman of the Book Trade Research Committee, a joint committee of the P.A. and the Booksellers Association. When Graham began to extol the virtues of the NBA, I’m afraid I was a little rude, but I don’t think he minded. I said I had not come all the way to England to hear about the Net Book Agreement, but to change it. That launched a lively discussion, during which Graham admitted that the time was right to reconsider the entire question. At the end he said I had not convinced him that offering discounts to American libraries would increase sales, but that he would like to share my views with other members of the P.A. Council. Could I put them into a letter by Monday? So over the weekend, I hunched over a borrowed typewriter and wrote a letter (see Appendix A) while my wife Nancy gently observed, more than once, how lovely it was at Kew Gardens. On Monday I had a second meeting with Peter, this time in the council chambers on the first (European) floor. He read the letter, remarked that it summed up my point of view, and then helped me make appointments with a number of persons whom he and Graham thought I should see. They included: (Publishers) Bryan Bennett, Managing Director of Edward Arnold and Chairman of the Book Development Council of the P.A. (its international division); Norman Franklin, Managing Director of Routledge & Kegan Paul and former Chairman of the University, College, and Professional Publishers Council; Roger Kirkpatrick, Group Marketing Director of Cape, Bodley, Head, and Chatto & Windus, and Chairman of the North American Working Party of the Book Development Council; (Editors) Louis Baum, Editor of The Bookseller (the British counterpart of PubEsherS Weekly), published by Whitakers; Rosemary Hood, Editor of British Book News (the British counterpart of Choice), published by the British Council; and (Others) Peter Lewis, Director General of the Bibliographic Service Division of the British Library, who in turn introduced me to David and Sally Whitaker, Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, of J. Whitakers & Sons, Ltd. (the British counterpart of Bowker). Most of these individuals were sympathetic to my point of view and a few were emphatic that it was time to change the NBA. The only one who seemed staunchly opposed to any change was David Whitaker, whom I met by timely coincidence in Peter Lewis’s office. He and his sister Sally had an appointment just after mine. When we were introduced, David picked up on the word “Florida”: “University of Florida.. . University of Florida. . . ? Oh, yes! You’re the chap who wants a library license!” The word was getting around. A meeting of the P.A. Council was scheduled for July 21. 1 was told that my application
210
CHARLES
WILLETT
would probably be referred to the Book Development Council, which would not meet until September. Bryan Bennett, Chairman of that Council, gave me a friendly reception. Leaning forward across his desk in a spacious office just across the square from the P.A., he beamed down on me, sunk in a battered old leather armchair without springs. “You’re sitting in Matthew Arnold’s chair!” he announced. I hope that the ghost of that old inspector of schools beamed down also at that moment on the University of Florida’s application for a library license. Nancy and I returned to Florida without having seen Kew Gardens and without knowing what would happen to the application. The Australians, 1 was told, had abandoned all hope. The Danes were still waiting. Is there a 10% solution? EditorS
Note: On July 27, 1983, Charles Willett was informed by Peter Phelan of the Publishers Association that “detailed consideration of [Willett’s] application, with all its attendant implications” had been deferred to the Association’s September meeting.
REFERENCES 1. An incisive analysis of operations of the NBA is found in Curwen, Peter J., The I/. K. Publishing Industry chapter 3. Oxford: Pergamon, 198 1. 2. For the early history of the NBA, see Kingsford, R.J.L., The Publishers Associarion 1896-1946. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 3. The massive record of the 1962 defense of the NBA is set forth in Barker, R.E. and Davies, G.R., Books Are DiJerenf. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966. 4. The Net Book Agreemenr: An Explanation (pamphlet). London, England: The Publishers Association, 1980. 5. The meeting was reported in Library Acquisirionst Practice and Theory, 5( 198 1): I6 I- 165.
APPENDIX
A 9 July 1983
Mr. Peter Phelan Deputy Secretary The Publishers Association 19, Bedford Square London
Dear Mr. Phelan: It was very pleasant to see you again last Tuesday and to have an opportunity to discuss our common concerns. 1 very much appreciate the interest which you have shown in my application on behalf of the University of Florida Libraries for a library license. Thank you especially for introducing me to Mr. Graham C. Greene, past president of the Publishers Association and current chairman of its Book Trade Research Committee. At his suggestion I am writing to recapitulate my remarks on the difficulties which Americans presently face in acquiring new British books.
I would like to take advantage of this occasion to propose a new alliance between British publishers, British booksellers, and American librarians. Working together in mutual cooperation, we can greatly increase British book exports by utilizing the efficient services of knowledgeable British booksellers and the promotional and acquisitions skills of American public and academic librarians. The failure of British publishers to penetrate the vast U.S. market to any significant degree is partly due to false assumptions implicit in the Net Book Agreement. Through the incentive of generous discounts, the NBA attempts to
Anglo-American
Acquisitions
Agreement
211
encourage foreign bookstores to stock a wide variety of British imprints, just as book shops do in Britain. Perhaps this system works well in countries where the reading public traditionally looks to Britain for its books. It does not work well in the United States. Not even in Harvard Square can one find a bookstore which stocks a large selection of scholarly British books, let alone in Gainesville, Florida, where 35,000 university students and 4,000 faculty members languish in a state of perpetual British booklessness. Most educated Americans aren’t aware of British books, have little access to information about them, find them expensive and difficult to obtain, and see no reason to prefer them over comparable U.S. publications. The NBA assumes in error that U.S. bookstores will overcome these impediments by promoting British publications. To the contrary, bookstore managers are businessmen, not scholars or librarians. They stock only those British titles with popular appeal, and have little information about any others. These elements thus form a vicious circle: I. Under the Net Book Agreement,
British publishers
2. Despite the discounts,
however, U.S. bookstores
3. There is little demand
because the scholarly
4. There is little awareness
offer discounts
community
but not to U.S. libraries.
because there is little demand for them.
is not aware of their content or even their existence.
because there is no access to substantive
5. There is no access to information
to U.S. bookstores
don’t stock British imprints
or bibliographic
information
about them.
because libraries don’t buy them.
6. Libraries don’t buy them because there is no incentive to overcome the added expense and difficulty of acquisition comparison with U.S. imprints. 7. Return to number
in
1.
Few British imprints are readily available in the United States except those stocked by publishers’ affiliates and several distributors, who often operate on consignment. These outlets carry only titles from their affiliated or client publishers-a very small number-and within these publishers’ lists carry only those titles which in their commercial judgment will sell well. Thus, many scholarly titles available in the U.K. from these same publishers are excluded from the U.S. market. Inexperienced American purchasers, or those who want only the most popular British titles, buy either from these affiliates and distributors or through U.S. bookstores and bookdealers who simply relay the orders on to Britain. More discriminating buyers, however, place their orders with British booksellers who are well-stocked and wellinformed about the whole spectrum of U.K. publications. The service which booksellers such as Stevens & Brown and Blackwell’s perform in supplying books and bibliographic information to American customers is of the highest calibre. It must continue to be well-rewarded by healthy profit margins. The real choice which U.S. public and academic libraries face is not between American and British booksellers, as the Net Book Agreement supposes, but between American and British books. Given our inadequate book budgets, our understaffed processing departments, and our American bias, it is not surprising that many U.S. libraries buy nothing more than a few British reference works, novels, travel guides, picture books, and sets of British history and literature. The scholarly book, the hard-to-get book, the book without Cataloging-In-Publication information usually is not ordered, especially if the budget is tight or the staff is under pressure. Even if it is ordered there may be a six months wait followed by a “Permanently out of stock-Cancelled” report from the library’s regular U.S. dealer, or a “Reorder from the U.K.” report from a British affiliate or distributor in the U.S. Under such circumstances we may not try to reorder. We have no time to track down every last obscure foreign title, after all. On our limited book budgets we can’t even buy all the American imprints we need. Aren’t American books on these subjects just as good, easier to obtain, cheaper, quicker to process, more in demand, and available at a discount? If an institution nevertheless does buy a large number of British imprints, one can be sure that at least one librarian there cares enough to overcome these difficulties. Many American collection development officers, subject bibliographers, and acquisitions librarians, myself included, are interested in British history, literature, social sciences, and culture. But how can we justify buying British to our colleagues and staff, for whom it means extra work, or to our directors and library committees, for whom it means extra expense? We must be able to show that British books make valuable additions to our collections, that library users want to read them, that they are easy to obtain, and that they are no more expensive than comparable U.S. titles. We have to promote British books to our library administrators, our users, and our colleagues and staff in order to justify buying them. This promotional and collection building activity in turn generates user interest and stimulates requests for further purchases. But what is our reward for buying British? In other countries I can shop for a bookseller who offers an appropriate mix of books, services and discount. Not in Britain. 1 can demonstrate my skill as a shrewd bargainer. Not in Britain. I can bring home a fat discount and lay it proudly at my director’s doorstep. Not from Britain. We
212
CHARLES
WILLETT
acquisitions librarians go to a great deal of trouble to promote and acquire British books. We are the natural allies of British publishers and booksellers. But we don’t get even a ten percent discount in Britain, because of an artificial obstacle called the Net Book Agreement. British publishers have built a wall which obstructs the marketing of their own products abroad. If a ten or twenty percent discount were offered to American libraries which place substantial orders through British booksellers, other libraries would be attracted. As matters stand now, 30 percent of the money those other libraries spend for British books never leaves the U.S. It is pocketed by American dealers and distributors. Why not let American libraries keep 10 or 20 percent and return 80 or 90 percent of the purchase price to Britain? The American libraries would get more books, better service, and a good discount. Furthermore, they would gradually become familiar with an expanding range of British products and services through their contacts with British booksellers, and would extend that information to their users.
I have just been elected to a three-year term as member-at-large of the Executive Committee of the Resources Section of the Resources and Technical Services Division of the American Library Association. The Resources Section has 2,200 members from all over the country. These individuals are keenly interested in the outcome of my application and are potential customers for British books. This is a great opportunity for British publishers to cast off ancient restrictions, to reward the excellent service of British booksellers, and to reward also their best promoters and buyers in America: libraries and librarians. In international relations one country can extend “most favored nation” status to another. The Publishers Association may wish to consider extending Lmost favored library” status in the form of substantial discounts to those American libraries which acquire large numbers of British books through British booksellers. We already have the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Now let’s have the Anglo-American Acquisitions Agreement. Sincerely yours,
Charles Willett Chairman, Acquisitions Department University of Florida Libraries
Copyright
0364~6408/83 $3.00 + .OO Q 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd
ANGLING FOR AN ANGLO-AMERICAN ACQUISITIONS AGREEMENT An Expedition in Search of the Ten Percent Sotution
CHARLES Chairman,
WILLETT
Acquisitions
University of Florida Gainesville,
Department Libraries
FL 32611
ABSTRACT The ~blisher~ Association in London administers the Net Book Agreement, which prohibits British booksellers from offering discounts. An exception permits 10% discounts to British public and university libraries which apply for licenses. The writer describes his trip to London in July 1983 to lobby for a similar license for the University of Florida Libraries. Their application is a test case following an RTSD resolution in January 1983 calling on the Publishers Association to judge American libraries by the same standards as British libraries. The writer attacks the Net Book Agreement as an artificial obstacle preventing the marketing of British books in the U.S. He calis for an Anglo-American Acquisitions Agreement whereby American librarians would more actively promote and acquire British books in exchange for incentive discounts from British booksellers. Title response of the ~b~ishers Association is not yet known.
In early July 1983, I went to London for two weeks to lobby for the University of Florida’s application for a library license, which would permit us to buy new British books at a 10% discount. My first appointment was to be at the lovely old offices of the Publishers Association, which overlook Bedford Square near the British Museum in Bloomsbury, the literary center of London. It had been almost three years since my last visit. At that time, as chair of the Acquisition of Library Materials Discussion Group, I had been seeking information on British bookselling to present at a panel discussion at the 1981 ALA summer conference in San Francisco. I had been directed to Peter Phelan, Deputy Secretary of the P.A. (as it is called), to learn about the Net Book Agreement [I]. 207
208
CHARLES
WILLETT
Peter had been most courteous and informative on that occasion in his office at the top of the winding staircase. He even provided me with a set of forms for a library license and said that no American library had ever applied for one. Applications from Australian and Danish libraries were pending. No library outside the United Kingdom had ever been granted a license in the entire W-year history of the Net Book Agreement [2]. The NBA stipulates that British booksellers may not sell “net” British books at prices lower than those set by the publishers. Publishers decide whether a title is “net” or “non-net” and so specify on dustjackets and invoices. “Non-net” books are not covered by the NBA and may be sold at a discount. In practice, however, almost all British books are published “net” other than school textbooks, the Bible, and certain children’s books. There are certain exceptions under which “net” books may be sold at a discount: 1. Any publisher may sell any book direct at any price; 2. A foreign bookseller may do the same; 3. Certain municipalities in Britain have licenses dating from many years ago granting substantial discounts on bulk orders; 4. Public libraries may be granted licenses permitting a maximum ten percent discount from the booksellers listed in their applications; 5. University libraries may do the same provided that they are open to the public and spend at least f 100 per annum on new books. In 1962, consequent to the passage of the Restrictive Practices Act of 1956, the NBA was investigated by the Restrictive Practices Court. In a judgment much celebrated by the book trade the Court declared that “books are different,” and that the NBA is legal, unlike most resale price maintenance agreements established by other trade associations [3]. The NBA was adjudged to be in the public interest: The reasons why the Net Book Agreement came into operation on 1January I900 are largely those which led publishers and booksellers to defend it before the Restrictive Practices Court sixty-two years later: namely the need for an orderly and healthy trade in which booksellers could afford to stock a wide range of titles, secure in the knowledge that they would not be undercut on the best-selling, quick-selling titles, thereby providing publishers and the book-buying public with a multiplicity of outlets offering good service. The Court, in its judgement, stated that it was satisfied that abrogation of the Agreement would lead to fewer and less well equipped stockholding bookshops, more expensive books, and fewer titles. It considered that all purchasers and users of books, including public and academic libraries, would be adversely affected by a decrease in the number of books published on account of the smaller range of choice which would be available to them, and it therefore found that the Agreement was not contrary to the public interest [4].
The San Francisco meeting of the Acquisition of Library Materials Discussion Group brought several surprises [5]. Matthew Evans, a British publisher (Faber & Faber) who was on the panel, turned out to be a vigorous opponent of the NBA. He said the British have always prided themselves on their exports but have not learned to sell to the U.S. market. Most British exports are to protected markets, he said. He questioned the validity of the NBA for export, since its purpose was to protect the internal trade of retail book shops. He suggested that the ALA might consider approaching the P.A. for library licenses granting 10% discounts, such as are granted to many British libraries. As a member of the P.A. Council, Matthew would personally support such a move. In the question period that followed 1 asked for a show of hands of persons in favor of Matthew’s suggestion. Most of the iibrarians present raised their hands, Then Peter made an unexpected appearance in the audience and delivered a ringing defense of the NBA. The Publishers Association believes it has a responsibility, he said, to protect book shops which stock British books not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. The sun never sets, apparently, on the Net Book Agreement.
Anglo-American
Acquisitions
Agreement
209
The interest displayed by the audience in library licenses was considered by the Bookdealer/ Library Relations Committee and the Executive Committee of the Resources Section in the months that followed. In January 1983, a resolution was passed by the RTSD Board: . that the British Publishers Association extend to ail American libraries the right to apply for a Library Licence and that applications received from American libraries be judged using the same standards as are applied to British libraries.
I was asked if the University of Florida Libraries would be willing to apply for a license as a test case. My director agreed, the forms were unearthed and the appli~tion sent off. Having done that much, I decided to go one step further and lobby for the license. I borrowed a little money, gathered up my unprotesting wife, and set out for Bedford Square. Peter received me this time in the large, ground floor office of the Secretary, who was out of town. With him was Graham Greene, nephew of the writer, who is Managing Director of Jonathan Cape, Chairman of the publishing group of Cape, Bodley Head, and Chatto & Windus, and on the boards of the British Museum, the British Library, and the British Council. He is past president of the Publishers Association and chairman of the Book Trade Research Committee, a joint committee of the P.A. and the Booksellers Association. When Graham began to extol the virtues of the NBA, I’m afraid I was a little rude, but I don’t think he minded. I said I had not come all the way to England to hear about the Net Book Agreement, but to change it. That launched a lively discussion, during which Graham admitted that the time was right to reconsider the entire question. At the end he said I had not convinced him that offering discounts to American libraries would increase sales, but that he would like to share my views with other members of the P.A. Council. Could I put them into a letter by Monday? So over the weekend, I hunched over a borrowed typewriter and wrote a letter (see Appendix A) while my wife Nancy gently observed, more than once, how lovely it was at Kew Gardens. On Monday I had a second meeting with Peter, this time in the council chambers on the first (European) floor. He read the letter, remarked that it summed up my point of view, and then helped me make appointments with a number of persons whom he and Graham thought I should see. They included: (Publishers) Bryan Bennett, Managing Director of Edward Arnold and Chairman of the Book Development Council of the P.A. (its international division); Norman Franklin, Managing Director of Routledge & Kegan Paul and former Chairman of the University, College, and Professional Publishers Council; Roger Kirkpatrick, Group Marketing Director of Cape, Bodley, Head, and Chatto & Windus, and Chairman of the North American Working Party of the Book Development Council; (Editors) Louis Baum, Editor of The Bookseller (the British counterpart of PubEsherS Weekly), published by Whitakers; Rosemary Hood, Editor of British Book News (the British counterpart of Choice), published by the British Council; and (Others) Peter Lewis, Director General of the Bibliographic Service Division of the British Library, who in turn introduced me to David and Sally Whitaker, Chairman and Managing Director, respectively, of J. Whitakers & Sons, Ltd. (the British counterpart of Bowker). Most of these individuals were sympathetic to my point of view and a few were emphatic that it was time to change the NBA. The only one who seemed staunchly opposed to any change was David Whitaker, whom I met by timely coincidence in Peter Lewis’s office. He and his sister Sally had an appointment just after mine. When we were introduced, David picked up on the word “Florida”: “University of Florida.. . University of Florida. . . ? Oh, yes! You’re the chap who wants a library license!” The word was getting around. A meeting of the P.A. Council was scheduled for July 21. 1 was told that my application
210
CHARLES
WILLETT
would probably be referred to the Book Development Council, which would not meet until September. Bryan Bennett, Chairman of that Council, gave me a friendly reception. Leaning forward across his desk in a spacious office just across the square from the P.A., he beamed down on me, sunk in a battered old leather armchair without springs. “You’re sitting in Matthew Arnold’s chair!” he announced. I hope that the ghost of that old inspector of schools beamed down also at that moment on the University of Florida’s application for a library license. Nancy and I returned to Florida without having seen Kew Gardens and without knowing what would happen to the application. The Australians, 1 was told, had abandoned all hope. The Danes were still waiting. Is there a 10% solution? EditorS
Note: On July 27, 1983, Charles Willett was informed by Peter Phelan of the Publishers Association that “detailed consideration of [Willett’s] application, with all its attendant implications” had been deferred to the Association’s September meeting.
REFERENCES 1. An incisive analysis of operations of the NBA is found in Curwen, Peter J., The I/. K. Publishing Industry chapter 3. Oxford: Pergamon, 198 1. 2. For the early history of the NBA, see Kingsford, R.J.L., The Publishers Associarion 1896-1946. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 3. The massive record of the 1962 defense of the NBA is set forth in Barker, R.E. and Davies, G.R., Books Are DiJerenf. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966. 4. The Net Book Agreemenr: An Explanation (pamphlet). London, England: The Publishers Association, 1980. 5. The meeting was reported in Library Acquisirionst Practice and Theory, 5( 198 1): I6 I- 165.
APPENDIX
A 9 July 1983
Mr. Peter Phelan Deputy Secretary The Publishers Association 19, Bedford Square London
Dear Mr. Phelan: It was very pleasant to see you again last Tuesday and to have an opportunity to discuss our common concerns. 1 very much appreciate the interest which you have shown in my application on behalf of the University of Florida Libraries for a library license. Thank you especially for introducing me to Mr. Graham C. Greene, past president of the Publishers Association and current chairman of its Book Trade Research Committee. At his suggestion I am writing to recapitulate my remarks on the difficulties which Americans presently face in acquiring new British books.
I would like to take advantage of this occasion to propose a new alliance between British publishers, British booksellers, and American librarians. Working together in mutual cooperation, we can greatly increase British book exports by utilizing the efficient services of knowledgeable British booksellers and the promotional and acquisitions skills of American public and academic librarians. The failure of British publishers to penetrate the vast U.S. market to any significant degree is partly due to false assumptions implicit in the Net Book Agreement. Through the incentive of generous discounts, the NBA attempts to
Anglo-American
Acquisitions
Agreement
211
encourage foreign bookstores to stock a wide variety of British imprints, just as book shops do in Britain. Perhaps this system works well in countries where the reading public traditionally looks to Britain for its books. It does not work well in the United States. Not even in Harvard Square can one find a bookstore which stocks a large selection of scholarly British books, let alone in Gainesville, Florida, where 35,000 university students and 4,000 faculty members languish in a state of perpetual British booklessness. Most educated Americans aren’t aware of British books, have little access to information about them, find them expensive and difficult to obtain, and see no reason to prefer them over comparable U.S. publications. The NBA assumes in error that U.S. bookstores will overcome these impediments by promoting British publications. To the contrary, bookstore managers are businessmen, not scholars or librarians. They stock only those British titles with popular appeal, and have little information about any others. These elements thus form a vicious circle: I. Under the Net Book Agreement,
British publishers
2. Despite the discounts,
however, U.S. bookstores
3. There is little demand
because the scholarly
4. There is little awareness
offer discounts
community
but not to U.S. libraries.
because there is little demand for them.
is not aware of their content or even their existence.
because there is no access to substantive
5. There is no access to information
to U.S. bookstores
don’t stock British imprints
or bibliographic
information
about them.
because libraries don’t buy them.
6. Libraries don’t buy them because there is no incentive to overcome the added expense and difficulty of acquisition comparison with U.S. imprints. 7. Return to number
in
1.
Few British imprints are readily available in the United States except those stocked by publishers’ affiliates and several distributors, who often operate on consignment. These outlets carry only titles from their affiliated or client publishers-a very small number-and within these publishers’ lists carry only those titles which in their commercial judgment will sell well. Thus, many scholarly titles available in the U.K. from these same publishers are excluded from the U.S. market. Inexperienced American purchasers, or those who want only the most popular British titles, buy either from these affiliates and distributors or through U.S. bookstores and bookdealers who simply relay the orders on to Britain. More discriminating buyers, however, place their orders with British booksellers who are well-stocked and wellinformed about the whole spectrum of U.K. publications. The service which booksellers such as Stevens & Brown and Blackwell’s perform in supplying books and bibliographic information to American customers is of the highest calibre. It must continue to be well-rewarded by healthy profit margins. The real choice which U.S. public and academic libraries face is not between American and British booksellers, as the Net Book Agreement supposes, but between American and British books. Given our inadequate book budgets, our understaffed processing departments, and our American bias, it is not surprising that many U.S. libraries buy nothing more than a few British reference works, novels, travel guides, picture books, and sets of British history and literature. The scholarly book, the hard-to-get book, the book without Cataloging-In-Publication information usually is not ordered, especially if the budget is tight or the staff is under pressure. Even if it is ordered there may be a six months wait followed by a “Permanently out of stock-Cancelled” report from the library’s regular U.S. dealer, or a “Reorder from the U.K.” report from a British affiliate or distributor in the U.S. Under such circumstances we may not try to reorder. We have no time to track down every last obscure foreign title, after all. On our limited book budgets we can’t even buy all the American imprints we need. Aren’t American books on these subjects just as good, easier to obtain, cheaper, quicker to process, more in demand, and available at a discount? If an institution nevertheless does buy a large number of British imprints, one can be sure that at least one librarian there cares enough to overcome these difficulties. Many American collection development officers, subject bibliographers, and acquisitions librarians, myself included, are interested in British history, literature, social sciences, and culture. But how can we justify buying British to our colleagues and staff, for whom it means extra work, or to our directors and library committees, for whom it means extra expense? We must be able to show that British books make valuable additions to our collections, that library users want to read them, that they are easy to obtain, and that they are no more expensive than comparable U.S. titles. We have to promote British books to our library administrators, our users, and our colleagues and staff in order to justify buying them. This promotional and collection building activity in turn generates user interest and stimulates requests for further purchases. But what is our reward for buying British? In other countries I can shop for a bookseller who offers an appropriate mix of books, services and discount. Not in Britain. 1 can demonstrate my skill as a shrewd bargainer. Not in Britain. I can bring home a fat discount and lay it proudly at my director’s doorstep. Not from Britain. We
212
CHARLES
WILLETT
acquisitions librarians go to a great deal of trouble to promote and acquire British books. We are the natural allies of British publishers and booksellers. But we don’t get even a ten percent discount in Britain, because of an artificial obstacle called the Net Book Agreement. British publishers have built a wall which obstructs the marketing of their own products abroad. If a ten or twenty percent discount were offered to American libraries which place substantial orders through British booksellers, other libraries would be attracted. As matters stand now, 30 percent of the money those other libraries spend for British books never leaves the U.S. It is pocketed by American dealers and distributors. Why not let American libraries keep 10 or 20 percent and return 80 or 90 percent of the purchase price to Britain? The American libraries would get more books, better service, and a good discount. Furthermore, they would gradually become familiar with an expanding range of British products and services through their contacts with British booksellers, and would extend that information to their users.
I have just been elected to a three-year term as member-at-large of the Executive Committee of the Resources Section of the Resources and Technical Services Division of the American Library Association. The Resources Section has 2,200 members from all over the country. These individuals are keenly interested in the outcome of my application and are potential customers for British books. This is a great opportunity for British publishers to cast off ancient restrictions, to reward the excellent service of British booksellers, and to reward also their best promoters and buyers in America: libraries and librarians. In international relations one country can extend “most favored nation” status to another. The Publishers Association may wish to consider extending Lmost favored library” status in the form of substantial discounts to those American libraries which acquire large numbers of British books through British booksellers. We already have the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules. Now let’s have the Anglo-American Acquisitions Agreement. Sincerely yours,
Charles Willett Chairman, Acquisitions Department University of Florida Libraries