Law Librarian Blog

TR Legal's Format Switcheroos: From Loose-leaf Sets to Pamphlet Editions to Bringing ProView eBooks to Market

Shaun Esposito,  CRIV Chair, 2011-2012 and Head of Public Services at the University of Arizona College of Law Library, asked about the format change TR Legal has been executing  from loose-leaf to pamphlet editions because "Several AALL members have asked about this, and I have noticed the change in my own library."

Anne Ellis, Senior Director, Librarian Relations, responded:

Dear Colleagues:

I would like to thank Shaun Esposito for allowing me to speak to an issue raised by several customers concerned about the format of print product updates switching from loose-leafs binders to softbound pamphlets for some of our products.

This format change was based on customer feedback - a vast majority of customers across several pilot programs conducted last year stated that they clearly preferred the pamphlet for updates for certain kinds of products, citing reasons such as ease of use, ease of updating and greater convenience.

With this feedback in mind, we developed a set of criteria, based in large part on customer surveys, for determining when converting a print product update would be most helpful to our customers.

Currently, these criteria specify that print products that exist in one- or two-volume sets, and are updated only once or twice annually, are good candidates for conversion to pamphlet.  Approximately 450 of our titles meet these criteria, and to date, 33 titles have been converted from loose-leaf to pamphlet updating. As part of our process, we notify customers whose subscriptions are converting to pamphlet updating prior to shipping.

We strive to provide our customers with the best products to meet their needs in the most convenient and user-friendly formats. If you have further questions about your subscriptions or the format of your print product updates, please contact us at 1-800-328-4880.

Thanks,
Anne Ellis
Senior Director, Librarian Relations
Thomson Reuters

OK Anne, thanks for the information. Let's not even talk about the customer input thing unless TR Legal wants to provide the occupational demographics for the surveys and pilot programs.

Anne, got the list of the 450 or so candidates for this format switcheroo? Know when the titles' format changes are scheduled to be made? We all know that manufacturing is scheduled as far out as 18 months in advance. It is not done overnight. The only thing done overnight is notifying customers of the change. I don't recall any advance notification prior to receiving the handy dandy postcards that comes with the format-changed titles delivered to our little county law library's doorstep but perhaps that is because I have so few of the "candidates" left in my collection. I do recall receiving a nice form letter about the new edition of Graham's Handbook of Federal Evidence coming out soon. That was very, very informative. It included just about everything except for pricing information! Thanks for that "customer experience." (Note to readers: that letter did not come from Anne. The "author" was Robert Azman, TR Legal's Senior Vice President, Customer Experience & Education.)

I view this print format conversion in the context of West's forthcoming line of ProView eBooks. IMHO, all the titles that are being converted from looseleaf to pamphlet are being done as staging for licensing them as enhanced eBooks to individual practitioners. This pamphlet switcheroo for manufacturing will make it easier to move to coding for ProView eBook-ing. Coding for ProView is probably already underway for the pamphletized print titles. For all I know, ProView coding may have even necessitated the print format switcheroo.

The Ellis announcement does not state but indicates to me that TR Legal is including smaller secondary source sets for ProView eBook-ing in an effort to turn all practitioners into individual licensees like we law library institutional buyers already are. From what I've seen "pamphletized" so far the titles appear to cover federal law topics and are well-recognized works in their specialities by practitioners. Note that if, really when, they are eBook-ed by way of ProView, we can expect to see embedded links to WestlawNext for primary source cites (that's what I saw in the beta? version demo at Philly). This means you will need a WLN user account to access the linked resources -- smart way to try to increase adoption of WLN, isn't it? Just think of the practitioner who pushes his or her firm to buy into WLN because he has acquired one or more ProView titles. Imagine the ProView tie-ins offered at discounted prices for multi-year WLN licenses. Watch out for ProView embedded links to increase to WLN secondary sources that will eventualy encompass out-of-plan WLN resources available only on a transaction or hourly additional cost. Will this lead to in-app upsell opportunities for individual practitioners to access blocked WLN resources by way of their licensed ProView agreements?

TR Legal has realized that practitioners do not acquire each and every annual edition of an office copy because of (1) not wanting to pay the cost for nominal change in updated content; and (2) not wanting to lose their margin notes in the editions they already have. All the typical office copies of handbooks and secondary sources will be eBook-ed via ProView to reduce buyer reluctance due to #2 because ProView is capable of carrying over user notes from one eBook edition to the next edition automatically while hiding nominal changes in #1 by way of e-formatted editions to reduce buyer remorse by making it harder to see the obvious.

Even with its limited enhancements in the beta(?) version of ProView I saw, it was impressive in terms of being more competitive than the current eBook formats being marketed by Lexis, Wolters Kluwer and the ABA. I do not think the ProView-ing of the 450-or so "candidates" will lead to the elimination of their pamphletized print editions soon. In fact I believe the print editions will stay around awhile as a selling point for and justification for higher pricing of ProView editions. The sales pitch can focus on the increased functionality of the ProView editions vis-a-vis their print cousins. The folks in the Land of 10,000 invoices Licenses are very smart people. I do believe they know that their ProView line of eBooks can win the second round of the Law eBook slugfest if they can get enough of their enhanced Law eBooks to market ASAP. [JH]

The Patron-Driven Licensing Model: Turning the law library into a demand center for law eBooks

On Inside Higher Ed, Steven Kolowich reports:

The [Education] Advisory Board report, a thick primer covering a range of trends in digital librarianship, predicts a shift in the way academic libraries provide book content to their patrons that mirrors a broader trend in digital media. (The report is not public.) Academic libraries will jettison “large collections of physical books in open stacks with low circulation,” the report says, in favor of licensing agreements with e-book vendors that will enable libraries to purchase only those books that are highest in demand, while paying short-term access fees for books that students use a little and nothing at all for books they do not use.

The report is pointing to patron-driven acquisition as a model for eBook licensing as an emerging and inevitable trend in university libraries "under pressure to prove that their expenditures are in line with their value. And one university says its own experimentation has produced damning data exposing the inefficiency of tradition collection-building compared to new methods that could prevail in the digital era."

Excluding, perhaps, large academic research libraries, most law library collection development policies are driven by usage of their print and online legal resources. Having a print title or online database just because it might be used is "history" these days. Those resources won't return at some later date. One has to wonder whether, actually when, our vendors of law eBooks will be offering licensing agreements based on a patron-driven model. And when that does happen, how much it will cost.

It's not happening in any major way yet. TR Legal is offering academic law libraries eBooks from their study aids catalog for all students right now. But it isn't cheap. It could cost the academic law library as much as it spends for Westlaw each year (with is "cheap" compared to what private and public sector libraries pay). If TR Legal is trying to indocrinate law students to use law eBooks this way, the Company better come up with a "Plan B."

During an AALL session at Philly this year we hear WEXIS eBook product representatives say that we, the marketplace, would tell them, the vendors, what licensing options buyers want. We also hear a jobber say patron-driven acquisitions was a very desirable model because it was cost effective. In addition to providing enhanced eBooks, vendors like TR Legal and Lexis better be considering this licensing model sooner rather than later if they are interested in licensing eBooks to institutional buyers. If library users want them, we will know based on law eBook usage. Guess we will just have to see which vendor makes the offer first. [JH]

Law Library Information Budget Estimates Decline by 21.7% According to 2011 AALL Findings

The 2011 edition of The AALL Biennal Salary Survey and Organizational Characteristics is now available. While the salary survey findings may not be very useful in the private and government sectors, the findings of organizational characteristics with respect to information budgets has some information value. Because of the differences in AALL survey response rates over the years one cannot say how much more than $1 billion on print and online resources is spent by institutional buyers each year. So firm conclusions cannot be reached about total information spend. However, some insights about trends can be drawn from information budgets provided by AALL institutional buyers as long as one is mindful of this limitation.

Based on reporting AALL law libraries, total 2011 information budgets declined from $1,389.118,580 in 2009 to $1,086,993,2226 in 2001. That's a 21.7% decline since the last reporting period two years ago. Based on available data -- meaning based on prior biennal reports I have readily available, namely the 2009 and 2005 editions in additon to the current 2111 editon -- this year's reported decline is more than three times higher than any earlier reported decline on a percent basis. Between 1999 and 2011, the previous largest decline reported was 6.5% in 2007 compared to 2005 reported total information budgets. See graphs below.

The major sector contributor to the 2011 decline was private law libraries although academic and government library sectors also reported declines. The difference in total information budgets reported between 2009 and 2011 was -$302,125.544. The private sector contributed -$212,017,438 or some 70% to the total decline. This, of course, is no surprise since institutional buyers in the private sector drives this market. Even using the less than comprehensive stats based on AALL reporting law libraries, private sector law libraries represents about 70% of all institutional buyers' spending.

Viewed from this perspective and taking the limitations of the survey response rate into account, it is still noteworthy that the average 2011 information budget for the major market player, private law libraries, declined by 13.3% compared to 2009. The average 2011 total information budget declined by 20% for government libraries and by 4.1% for academic libraries. But for academic law libraries receiving online legal search at what has to be viewed as a discounted wholesale price, one can assume in my opinion that the average academic library's total information budget would have declined more substantially in 2011.

All institutional market sectors reached record highs in terms of their electronic information budgets as a percent of total spend. Even at its discounted rates, electronic information budgets in law schools have increased to 27% of total spend, up from 23% in 2009. In the Government sector the increase was to 21% from 17%. In the private sector, spending for electronic resources rose from 64% in 2009 to 69% in 2011. No doubt, online legal search price inflation played a factor. No doubt print cancellations in the Shed West Era played a role too.

Providing information budgets every two years by AALL, even taking into consideration its limitations, is a "good thing" in a sort of least amount of effort to use the findings sort of way. AALL acting upon the findings in any sort of public forum for all to read leaves much to be desired. [JH]

Click to enlarge.

Are eBooks Destined to Become the "8-track Tape" of the 21st Century?

In the context of current law eBook offerings, I think we can conclude from Jean O'Grady's recent Dewey B Strategic post the answer to the title question is "yes." ("The more I talk to publishers about the model for "circulating" multi-volume treatises, the more I am disheartened at the predominance of print based paradigms.")  While not addressing the prospect eventual development of enhanced law eBooks as discussed here, O'Grady does offer our major vendors some advice in the context of the private sector. Remember this is the market sector that really drives the entire legal publishing industry market:

Law Firms Need A Different Model - Law Books and Lawyers are Different

Law firms are not public libraries. We are purchasing corporate access to content, we need a model that permits the unfettered access to appropriate units of content on an "as needed" basis.
 
Treatises are not monographs - they are complex organisms that change over time.
 
Lawyers need information not "volumes." 

Lawyers require updating by "push " not "pull."

Even in the two other, fairly insignificant to vendors based on their total spending, market sectors, ah that would be the legal academy and the public sector, I wouldn't recommend wasting a single penny of buying the current iteration of eBooks. I, for one, don't care if my statutory or public patrons are asking for them (they aren't). However, if they want an 8-track, they can spend their own funds. I wouldn't even provide the current (read lame format) law eBooks to patrons at no cost if WEXIS were to offer them.

Until professional grade law eBooks come to market, I'm just saying "no." O'Grady's "8-track" characterization is dead-on. For more, check out her eBooks: Why are Publishers Pouring Digital Content into 19th Century Wineskins? [JH]

What Will Your Firm Stop Buying In Five Years? How About Vendor Content Tied to Their Search Engines

That's the question asked and answered in another installment of 3 Geek's Elephant Posts series. While all answers were interesting, the response that got me thinking about the future was by Mark Gediman:

Q. What will your firm stop buying in five years?

A. Search engines with proprietary content

I think the trend will move away from purchasing multiple search engines, each with their own proprietary content (i.e. Lexis, Westlaw) to purchasing one search engine and then subscribing to the content for that engine separately.  So, for example, using the search engine on Lexis to access the web, West content, BNA content, CCH content. This would be true enterprise search.

-- Mark Gedimen

The Return of Old School Legal Bibliography for Collection Development Purposes. If metadata specs for commerical content were standardized (or at least not hidden in the cloak of being proprietary), Gedimen's trend prediction certainly could be the Next Big Thing. Acquire or design your own search engine -- let's assume licensing a search engine since few institutions could afford to built their own from the ground up. Like West Search, buy it. Like Fastcase's SE, buy it. And then development your institution's collection of electronic resources by "title." For example, CCH's Standard Fed Tax (no thanks, IntelliConnent), BNA's Tax Management Portfolios and a couple of WG&L supplemented treatises to craft a beginning of one's institutional online tax collection. All of a sudden, vender database directories become acquisition tools and collection development returns to the days when law librarians applied their expertise in legal bibliography for selecting very specific eLaw resources appropriate for their patrons after choosing a search engine (or two...).

Could It Happen? If we assume that the promise Open Law for primary legal resources will be fulfilled, online commercial legal vendors will be competing on the basis of the quality of the editorial content, particularly secondary sources, and tools they provide. Gediman suggest that in five years time institutional buyers will be moving in a direction that will bifurcate commercial editorial content from one research tool, the tied-in search engine created by the vendor for its databased content.

Love the idea. Hope Gediman is right because it would be a real game-changer. It would be responsive to what professional legal information consumers and researchers -- lawyers and librarians -- really want. But do our "professional legal vendor services" vendors really want to give their user populations what they want or only what the vendors' current business model wants to give them?

Well, now I am reminded of another recent 3 Geeks blog post, The Power of the Blog:

From a vendor and client interaction standpoint, the value of the blog is obvious. Blogs allow you a first person narrative account, an easy way to track clients concerns and your market space. Postings are a primary intelligence source, a way see what people are saying and what needs are not being met. How much better can a client relationship be when there is a clearly defined problem made public and a vendor who willing to address the issue without formally being asked. Reading blog postings is among the most cost effective forms of business development and retention.

Imagine the World of Competitve Possibilities. Of course, there is a new facet in our vendors' business model, selling professional grade eBooks. Imagine where eBooking is heading. Someday you will be able to licence parts or all of the above-mentioned updated tax resources in eBook formats. Add institutional licensing, perhaps using an on-demand pricing model, to Gediman's SE acquisition forecast, and I think our so-called legal publishers will get back in the business of being legal publishers. Oops, my bad. I think I just made the case for vendors saying "no" to institutional licensing of eBooks. Of course, they will first say "no" to bifurcating their SEs from their databased content. 

Also imagine a marketplace competing solely for Legal SE adoption. I'm not talking about Google but some bright young thing working out of her or his parent's garage unencumbered by layers of creativity-killing corporate bureaucracy could design a legal SE that blows away SEs offered by WestlawNext, Lexis Advance, BLaw... . Now we are really talking about "next gen."

Applying Search Engine Expertise for Collection Development Purposes. At the moment, I would be a "buyer" of Fastcase's SE if I could apply it to a topical selection of secondary titles not offered by Fasecase, like the one illustrated above for federal tax (assuming Fastcase SE can take advantage of the contents medadata or can enhance that content with its own micro-metadate). I wish I could say I would even consider buying WestSearch but only for case law if someone could persuade me that West Search does not create a Google-like Bubble or at least allows a researcher to turn off what looks to me like the existence of a Google Bubble. Ron Wheeler has studied limitations related to how WestSearch ranks documents for importance and relevance. See Does WestlawNext Really Change Everything?, 103 Law Libr. J. 359 (2011). One is crowd-sourcing baked into WestSearch.  Wheeler identifies a serious flaw in WLN's SE. There is no guarentee that a well-formed search will identify relevant output because of the SE, not because of the researcher. This is the "bubble" phemonenon that WestSearch offers.

It can be Google Bubble-like in output. In the good old and still valid today for analizing search results based on metrics of recall and precison, WestSearch is seriously flawed. It may not find the proverbial needle  burried in a haystack of irrelevant search results (low precision). Wheeler found WestSearch's metadata-driven linking of related content (to assess relevance) may not work well for broad searches because a broad search may produce “a far narrower range of related content,” with missed search results that would otherwise interest a legal researcher (low recall). It's as if, WestSearch is seeking the one document on point when finding that one document rarely happens in the real world.

How does this Google-like bubble operate. Well, let's put it this way. The Blog Widow a die-hard Republican. I am not. When we vote, we cancel each other other. When we perform the exact same search using Google we get substantially different results. Placed in the context of WestSearch for WLN, one can make the case that its search engine violates attorney professional responsibilty requirements if practitioners knew the limitations of WLN. They do not.

One can make the case that it is our professional responsibilty as professional law librarians to call attention to WestSearch's limitations. In the 21st century "New Normal" we damn well better be sufficient informed to do so. This is no different than the advice we used to provide -- "after checking the base volume, check the supplement and then go online because the even the most current supplement may be 4-6 weeks out of date." The tools have changed. Our obligation has not.

The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended) is format-neutral in "prescrib[ing] trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices."  The only thing stopping "us" from enforceable guildelines on the public stage is our own professional association's myopia absent an Library Consumer Adocacy Caucus which AALL thinking up every possible lame roadblock to not approve. If any AALL institutional buyer representative still need evidence that that our professional association needs to reform itself for the 21st century, I can think of no better example that the current push-back from our Old Guard to the idea that we must meet the 21st century head on for AALL to be a relevant player.

So, in addition to applying old school legal bibliography skills, law librarians would have to closely examine the construction of commercially marketed SEs. Yup, SE algorithms are proprietary and no one should expect our vendors will disclosue them. But our professional association could insist that vendors provide some standardized details -- at least enough to verify marketing claims -- if AALL ever moves beyond recommending data specs for vendor invoices.

• Oh wait, AALL could already insist on that sort of infromation. Does AALL want to represent its private sector institutional buyers who drive this market as consumers?
• Oh wait, would doing so "interfere" in licensing? Would that be "anti-competitive"?
• Oh wait, is AALL even "present ready" to recognize that the world has changed in the 21st century new normal where digital-only or digital-first has replaced print?

To examine marketing claims for vendor search engines, right now we will have to rely on the hard work of individual law librarians. See, for example The WestSearch Straitjacket For Legal Research - Thinking Beyond The Keyword: Part I. (Part II to appear on LLB next week.)

In the Next Five Years? I think Gediman is on to something. But a trend in five years? Well, we will just have to wait 'n see. In the context of selling "solutions" a/k/a/ productivity applications, vendors pitch that they are selling the value of the software. So market the software, the search engine, as a standalone "solution" for 21st century's collection development. [JH]  

Sign of the Times and Trust in Law Library Relations with HeinOnline: No Shelving Units Required for Law Review and Journal Runs

Both Washington State Law Library and Case Western Reserve Univ. Law Library are offering law review and journal runs for the cost of shipping. For Case Western the scope of titles being removed from the collection can be measured by the the number of spreadsheet pages -- 11. Check this week's AALL law-lib archives, if interested. One might say because we trust HeinOnline, no shelving units are required for past volumes of law reviews and journals. Perhaps, someday, there will be no need for current issues either, at least at those law libraries that still see a need for them.

If Not Retained on Law Library Shelves, Why Publish in Print? In his FoLL presentation, Dick Danner (Duke) reviewed the current status of transitioning to digital-only publication of law reviews in the context of the Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship. See his Open Access session presentation (Video 2, accessible from the Conference wiki main page). Despite some current resistance from members of the law review community (and academic law library community), does anyone really believe that law review articles will be published in print ten years from now? [JH]

ALM Webinar to Address Law Journal Press Online Issues Set for June 16

Hat tip to Rob Myers, CRIV Chair, for passing along the information that ALM will be hosting a webinar to address the many issues law librarians have raised about Law Journal Press Online's move to print-online combo or online-only pricing for the Company's loose-leaf treatises. From ALM's announcement Rob posted to AALL lists.

Please join us for a WebEx conference answering your questions about Law Journal Press Online.

Be the first to know about important recent fixes designed to address your concerns and about enhancements planned for the near future. We will also be pleased to reply to any additional questions or concerns that you may have.

Thursday June, 16 2011
1:00 – 2:30 PM EDT

RSVP to Jeannine Kennedy at jkennedy@alm.com
You’ll receive your WebEx credentials 48 hours prior to the conference.
 
From billing and customer service to search functionality and content, we’ve heard your comments, and we are taking action. Learn more, participate in a live Q&A, and find out how we are dedicated to serving you better!

Thanks Rob! Do note that neither CRIV nor AALL is endorsing or sponsoring the webinar in any way. I've been queried by the Company about "what to do" but credit goes to Rob for his steadfast vigilance on LJP issues. Good to see that there is still a spark of life in good old CRIV. [JH]

Innovative Solution to Closure of Camden Public Library's Main Branch May Point the Way for Struggling County Law Libraries

The downtown "branch" of New Jersey's Camden City Public Library was closed in February when Mayor Dana Redd decided the city could no longer afford its 100-year-old public library system while facing a $26.5 million budget deficit. "As soon as the closure of the libraries was announced last year, county and city officials started brainstorming with Rutgers-Camden Chancellor Wendell Pritchett on how to provide library services downtown." The result: "Construction has begun on the basement of the Paul Robeson Library to make room for a 5,000-square-foot downtown Camden branch [of the public library]."

"This project is a manifestation that we are a state university," Pritchett said, adding that the library will help connect Camden residents to a higher-education campus.

Snips from and details here. Perhaps the best statement in the article is the opening paragraph:

Sometime this fall, Camden's youngest residents will be able to walk among Rutgers-Camden students and faculty on their way to the Camden County's newest branch library.

Perhaps struggling county law libraries trying to survive can align structurallly in a similar manner with local law school libraries. I believe at least one has done so (but damn if I can remember it) and perhaps there are more instances.

Win-Win-Win.This could a "win-win-win" solution. Academic law libraries typically have resources for their state jurisdictions (albeit many cannot afford the sort of practitioner resources most state litigators and some state transactional practitioners use in their law practice.) County law libraries are under budgetary pressures that oftentimes result is downsizing federal and comprehensive secondary sources.

So imagine a county law library structure administrating and financing an academic law library's in-state collection (cut those costs from the academic law library collection development budget) while the academic law library supports the federal and general secondary sources (cut those costs from the county law library collection development budget). That's could be a win-win. Then there is a possile third "win." State law pracitioners working in the same law library as law school students.

Such an innovated solution would probably work best in a public law school library for state financing bean-counter reasons but also for public access requirements. It would, IMHO, require the employment of county-state public law librarians for reference assistance -- meaning, some job security in addition to collective development savings by both law libraries through a "merger" of sorts. It most definintely could improve legal research instruction provided by county-state public law librarians expert in what state practitioners actually use in the the "real world."

In these fiscal times that are impacting both academic and county law libraries, it is not only do-able but is an opportunity that ought not be ignored is some situations because of the public sector law library-academic law library professional divide that certainly exists. It may look like a desperate move but it may yield very positive structural changes. Let's face, except for the top 10 (perhaps top 20) law schools, one hellva lot more law grads will be looking at state-focused law practices now and in the future than in the past.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The Rutgers-Camden and Camden public library system is showing that this is do-able. The article reports on how financing is being worked out. Obviously the downtown locations of Rutgers-Camden and the closed Camden public library was an important factor, too.

Thinking Outside the Box. With a hat tip to LISNews, the article about the public library-public university library solution in Candem was published in the Philadephia Inquirer, site of AALL's Cream Cheese Cheesesteak or Karaoke. Not exactly a forum for thinking outside the box. The more likely forum for similiar innovative solutions may be local AALL chapters.

A Very Small Illustration. At ORALL 2010, NKU Chase Law Library offered to participate in the county law library's pocket-part exchange program (read county law libraries who can't afford to maintain print continuation standard orders for pocket parts make do with the latest out-of-date pocket parts). NKU Chase Law Library's generous offer came on the heels of massive print cutbacks-in-process by many Ohio county law libraries. The Shed West Era threatened to substantially reduce the number of titles offered in the pocket-part exchange program. (NB: at the time, my little county law library had participated but last year we could not make any commitments whatsoever because we were still in the midsts of our Shed West era of cancelling print continuations).

While is this a small illustration? Because it is not a structural reformation. However, there is no doubt in my mind that NKU Chase Associate Dean for Law Library Services & Information Technology Mike Whiteman's impromptu offer to help out by contributing to the ORALL County Law Library SIG's program was (and is) very much appreciated. {JH]

The World of Actionable Actions, Part II: Addressing Vendor Inefficiencies Because Format and Quality Matters

I mentioned in January 2011 that I liked, in principle, what ALM was doing in the Company's systematic transformation from a traditional print-based publisher to a "digital-first" media and information provider in because I thought Law Journal Press Online was an interesting twist on law eBooks. It certainly is more innovative than current law eBook offerings from our major vendors. Since then, however, invoice-paying law librarians have spent a fair amount of time addessing format options for LJP titles. By fair amount I mean way too much time being spent because of LJP's inefficiencies.

Law library institutional buyers have been grappling with LJP's original marketing of their once print-only titles because the Company was initally providing only two options at renewal time for their updated treatises: (1) online only or (2) online and print only. The Company did respond to CRIV chair Rob Myers' communications that it would address and accomodate law librarians wanting print-only titles. At least LJP didn't respond to Myers like TR Legal did with its copyrighted response to format switcheroos:

We are comfortable that we capture enough customer, author, and editor feedback before any title undergoes a format change and are confident that this feedback effectively reflects customer preferences.

By way of LJP's response, Rob provided contact information for one LJP staffer tasked with this via AALL listservs. Doesn't help non-institutional LJP consumers dealing with this but that's SOP for AALL. Poor soul. The phone must have been ringing constantly from calls by invoice-paying law librarians; I tried several times and gave up after always getting a busy signal. I imagine this staffer's email in-box was filled to the max but I decided not to go that route. In the world of actionable actions, I started cancelling LJP titles as their individual renewal invoices appeared in my in-box. Appears than many others also did the same because I got a call from a LJP representative soon after my cancellations were communicated to the Company. I'm thinking LJP  may not have expected such a large number of negative reactions (read substantial numbers of institutional buyer cancellations) and decided to addess this by staffing up in response to that.

I have found LJP reps to be very helpful. After requesting and not receiving a list of current LJP subs to see if we and the Company were "on the same page" from "someone" at LJP customer services, I received a phone call and email for someone who was not 1-800-Nameless. Don't know if he is my personal account rep now or is one of many LJP customer service reps assigned to address law librarian issues but he has become my "go-to" during this transformation. He provided a list of my current subs and recent cancelations and  is forwarding my decisions to the the invoice-generating folks. Works for me because one title I was really going to regret cancelling if I had to renew for print-online is the best title on the subject, namely Hindert, Dehner & Hindert's Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments. I would have killed that title and other LJP title if my options excluded print-only because those other format alternatives just won't work in my little county law library. Quality matters.

Quality of Editorial Content and Format Options Matter Now. Killing off some LJP titles would have been regrettable but neccessary. In the Shed West Era for print, editorial quality really matters now. I will pay for that if I can buy the publications in the format I want. In addition to some LJP titles which provide damn good editional quality I can depend on (at least for now) some other publishers still driven by quality such as BNA, WK's Apsen and CCH, and PLI. However, I can't and probably will never be able to justify LJP titles as online-only or online-print combinations at our little county law library. Format matters.

But in the "New Normal," law librarians are taking a more closer look at titles offered by the likes of LJP because the Company have a long-established reputation for editional quality, something some of our major vendors no longer have. I believe we will pay for that quality by subsituting or relying solely on their titles. I certainly have. We cancelled some WEXIS print titles in this Shed West Era because of this. We focus on cost-savings but we also look for the "best bang for our buck." We elevate such titles to pride-of-place status of "best available" in editorial quality in the world of actionable actions. We use some of the cost savings generating from cancelling titles produced by "traditional" legal publishers who have neglected to maintain content quality standards by acquiring titles from other publishers who have a track record of consistently meeting editorial quality standards because they do not treat content as a commodity.

Ways and Means for LJP Titles. For recent renewal cancellations, the Company is offering a 20% discount off invoiced renewal costs if you want print-only and a 15% disount off of current renewal costs for live subscriptions if you only want print-only distibution. I, for one, reactivied one subscription as print-only at the 20% discount for a title I killed after having received its renewal invoice for the print-online combo. I insisted that the reactivation was continguent of receiving a new base volume at no additional cost because it had already been recycled and the Company compiled. I also listed which titles I would continue to take at the print-only 15% discount and which titles I still intended to cancel.

Most invoice-paying law librarians do not like how this has to be accomplished because it is so damn time-consuming. Apparently some, if not most but not all institutional buyers must apply for the discounting on a invoice-by-invoice basis where one receives a renewal invoice for the print-online combo because renewals are triggered on a title-by-title basis when each individual title comes up for renewal.

The procedue is you get the renewal notice for the print-online title and then you have to email it back to get an adjusted invoice for the discounted print-only cost. That certainly can be very time-consuming for subscribers of a lot of the LJP catalog of titles. Our little county law library executed "Shed West Era" print cancellations for LPJ titles even before LJP's implementation of ALM's transformation from a traditional print-based publisher to a "digital first provider. So the workload isn't great but I certainly understand the law library community's very justifiable complaints. Efficiency matters.

Each execution has to be based on an making an affirmation decision title by title as indicated above. There could be a much more time-saving method for buyers who subscribe to many more LJP titles than our little county law library does. I think this has more to do with a smaller vendor making adjustments in the context of a recently implemented invoice generating system that was not brought online with an eye toward responding to buyers who would cancel if they could not acquire titles in the format they deemed best for their collection.

Due note, a library's LJP customer account number has also changed but the customer service reps can cross reference old to new account numbers. Also note, even after one receives the discounted invoice print-only, the invoice will not explicitly state that the renewal is for print-only. I'm not particularly concerned about this right now as long as the invoice pricing reflects the discount. However, I have yet to receive one of the adjusted invoices and I've sent backy three invoices for print-only pricing already. 

Will the current print-only discounting become institutionalized at LJP for 2012 renewals and thereafter? I have no idea. However, LJP ran a quickie two day sale for acquiring new titles last week but the sale discount was not offered for acquiring print-only. It appears to have been based on subscribing to new titles by way of pint-online or online only format options. That's not a particular good signal. Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Shifting Vendor Generated Inefficiences Back to the Publisher. The inefficiences LJP has generated is just an illustration of the world of actionable actions in the context of institutional buyers needing to start taking "vendor sourcing" actions. Cancellations prompted LJP to staff-up but the procedure the publisher created to respond to subscribers wanting print-only titles because format matters is incredibly inefficent.

DLA Piper's Jean O'Grady defines vendor sourcing as "a process by which we shift the cost of vendor generated inefficiencies or the inefficient processes themselves, back to the publishers."

Let's face it; we have for too long made our administrative processes subservient to the idiosyncrasies of individual publishers.

See O'Grady's Dewey B Strategic post, "Vendor Sourcing" : Thinking the unthinkable as a strategic alternative to outsourcing for much more.

Endnote. For the first post in this series, see The World of Actionable Actions: Institutional Buyers, Individual Consumers and the Legal Publishing Industry. [JH]

 

Still Time for Private Law Libraries to Contribute to Collection Rebalancing Survey for a New Resource Guide

It appears that private law librarians (one per instiutional buyer) still has time to respond to the survey on collection rebalancing for a new AALL resource guide. Check this link to the survey. All things considered, I think this is a very important survey, the findings of which hopefully will be widely available to all law librarians. The results could make for very interesting conversations at Philly 2011: Cream Cheese, Cheesesteak or Karaoke. [JH]

Library Journal Interviews Betsy McKenzie on the Proposed AALL Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus

"Though research libraries have long complained that too few publishers dominate the field and push prices higher and higher, the case is arguably even starker for law libraries and legal publishers. Recently, a group of concerned law librarians and publishers have proposed the formation of a new American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) sub-group to grapple with the issues, calling themselves the Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus (LCAC), writes Josh Hadro on Library Journal. "To get a sense of their concerns and proposed fixes, LJAN recently posed a few questions to Elizabeth M. McKenzie, Director, Moakley Law Library and Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA, who spoke about the Caucus's plan as one of its organizers."

Questions asked in the LJ interview:

What prompted you to push for the formation of the Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus?

Can you give a few specific examples of unfair or anti-competitive practices?

How have the voluntary guidelines failed since official FTC oversight lapsed in 2000? Is the LCAC looking to restore that FTC oversight?

How do you think research and law libraries overcome the position they're in with regard to the community they serve—i.e., the fact that they're obligated to acquire materials their researchers need, an arrangement publishers seem to be keenly aware of?

For Betsy's responses see the complete interview at Q&A: Elizabeth McKenzie on Law Library Consumer Advocacy and Legal Publishing. [JH]

"So Bad It is Good" -- A Salute to AALL Incompetence: On AALL's Reminder to Take the AALL Price Index Review Task Force Survey

Based on listserv message chains and private e-mails, it appears that I was not the only one thinking that the Price Index survey was, ah, slanted toward either its outright elimination or a substantial reduction in the provision of useful, verifiable information. See for example, Lyn Warmath's list message (republished on 3 Geeks). Having taken the survey, I'm thinking AALL wants to get out of the Price Index business because it is "too much work" or AALL wants to reduce the "workload" to the point of being uninformative. So now comes an official reminder posted on AALL lists:

REMINDER: AALL Price Index Review Task Force Survey

Just a reminder – the deadline for the AALL Price Index for the AALL Price Index Review Task Force survey is Friday, April 22.  Thanks to all who have completed the survey. 
 
AALL President Joyce Manna Janto charged the Price Index Review Task Force with investigating the current Price Index and determining if it continues to be responsive to our members’ needs. Your comments and suggestions have been taken to heart and the Task force is working to assure that you are delivered a product that best meets current and future needs.
 
We ask that you take a few minutes to answer a short, 7-question survey.  To begin the survey click here.  The deadline is Friday, April 22.

(Emphasis added.)

The Current Price Index? Really? In case anyone has forgotten the value of the "current" Price Index is nil because AALL did not explicitly ask for print continuation pricing. Hence, our major vendors did not supply that information and we have no right to blame them for not doing so. Some members of this so-called "task force" were responsible for this fiasco. Apparently, screwing up this badly doesn't disqualify one from serving on an AALL "task force." Just how disingenuous can AALL officialdom get?

disingenuous:  lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating.

First, our professional association doesn't pay attention to business and produces an utterly useless Price Index. Then it produces a survey referring that [explative deleted] which is slanted toward not having to pay attention to business again. Ah, I still have my now 30-plus year old textbook on how to conduct surveys from library school and this one "flunks."

Before the survey, an AALL's Price Index Task Force was announced, In The Saga of the AALL Price Index Continues: Task Force appointed to investigate if the Price Index is needed and is a value to AALL members, I wrote:

So remember the Price Index. In the future when there are no print supplementation costs because print has been priced out of existence the Price Index may be as antiquated as the above Union League Club image {see post for image]. Then, as if not already, a Price Index of eLegal resources -- online search and eBooks -- will be needed. Does anyone even think that is going to be on the agenda of either the Price Index Task Force or the Vendor Colloquium? Oh, my bad, those terms cannot be disclosed under current licensing agreements and god knows "we" cannot interfere with how our vendors conduct their anti-competitive business practices.

The Price Index is not a relic from the past, at least not yet. It still has value to members. It can provide a useful objective standard if our association remembers to ask for the right data.

Oops, Then There Is Cutting Corners. Of course, that also assumes that the market basket of titles and their pricing data is listed -- one of the survey questions asks if title-specific pricing data and title identification is needed to provide a baseline for users. Ah, yes it is. A properly executed AALL's Price Index is one standard all law librarians can point to justify their budget requests so long as they know what was indexed and how relevant the indexed titles are.

A Relevant Market Basket for a Price Index. What is most telling in this survey is no real request was made for membership input on what adjustments should be made in the selection of titles. The oh-so 20th century market basket is by and large dominated by a large number of print titles that have been cancelled by many if not most of the folks we represent, namely our employers, institutional buyers.

In utterly dogmatic fashion:

1. AALL's Price Index is relevant if (a) we ask for the right data next time -- print continuation prices -- (b) vendors supply that data which is (c) fact-checked for accuracy. We pay HQ staff salaries who can do this work.

2. The law librarians who volunteer their time and effort to data analysis are actually informed of the survey questions asked.

3. The market basket of print "goods" must be sufficently relevant in this Shed West Era for all institutional buyers.

4. The composition of this so-called "task force" should not have been dominated by academic law librarians when the market sector which drives the marketplace is the private sector.

5. Our professional association must not stack the deck by way of a slanted survey.

Before Our Annual Meeting. I'm thinking I better buy the two-disc set, The Ed Wood Collection - A Salute to Incompetence (1959), before attending Philly: Cream Cheese, Cheesesteak or Karaoke. At 270 minutes, I just might be able to maintain my sanity during the sessions I don't walk out of without prescription medication.

From the product description:

Edward D. Wood Jr. (1924-1978) remains one of the best-remembered, most talked-about directors in the history of cinema. He is a certifiable legend (well, he was "certifiable" anyway). This fun and fascinating collection throws a spotlight on the man whose work personifies the phrase "so bad it’s good."

[JH]

"Powered by Service:" Not TR Legal's Library Relations Model

It didn't take long to see what impact AALL's Vendor Colloquium had on Thomson Reuters. None.

Responding to complaints about West shipping unsolicited annotated court rules for state codes in some jurisdictions, Anne Ellis, TR Legal's Senior Director of Librarian (Marketing) Relations, informed her company's institutional buyers that Thomson Reuters was right, not them. The Company knows what is best for law library collections, not law librarians, and that's why the new annotated court rules volumes are now part of their subscriptions. In response to a lawlib list question about whether a customer could subscribe to their annotated state code without the new annotated court rules now being shipped, Ellis wrote in her Dear Colleagues message (republished below the fold):

We believe there is great value in annotated court rules for someone doing research in annotated statutes, but if a customer wanted to get only annotated statutes, he or she could theoretically do so, but it would require that they order a la carte, and it would be more expensive.

(Emphasis added.)

In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't because whatever you do will generate revenue for TR Legal.

Ellis also reviewed the history of West's publishing practices for annotated state codes:

In the late 1990s, when West began to create annotated codes in new markets, we did not initially include annotated court rules as part of those sets. There was widespread customer dissatisfaction with that decision, and after hearing from our customers, we began to include annotated court rules with the new annotated code products in states like West Virginia, Georgia, Utah, New Mexico and others.

Really, did that stop West from publishing annual unannotated state court rules pamphlet editions?

Ellis continued:

During the past decade, as budgets tightened for our customers, we introduced annotated codes products in several new jurisdictions without annotated court rules, but we always held out the possibility that we could supplement the product by adding annotated court rules. In every state where we have launched a new code product in the last 10 years, we have heard that we need to have annotated court rules as part of the set. Suggestions that we could include un-annotated court rules were largely rejected by customers.

The key reference here is "as budgets tightened." Is West under some delusion that budgets have loosened up now? What's really tightened up in this economy is TR Legal's print revenue stream in the Shed West Era.

Once again CRIV chair Rob Myers received a ham-fisted blow to the solar plexus for bringing this type of issue to TR Legal's attention. Once again, "thanks for trying, Rob." And once again, we read the institutionalized arrogance of TR Legal thinking it knows better than law library institutional buyers do when it comes to our collection needs.

You will find the string of law-lib list messages (no doubt others on AALL's all-sis, pll-sis, sccll-sis and ts-sis lists as well because Rob had to post to multiple lists in our association's circa 1990 fragmented communications universe) under the heading "Thomson Reuters response to West Rules of Court - Add On to State Statutes Questions." One law-lib list comment to TR Legal's response was "We desperately need an organization that advocates for us." That brought a response from the AALL Vendor Liaison.

I can assure you that CRIV and the Vendor Liaison advocate for AALL members on a whole range of issues.  It's important to note that advocacy does not always effect immediate change, and that some issues are resolved more slowly over time.  Some of my work takes place in the background, where my advocacy can supplement the voices from the public forum.
 
It is also important to note that AALL members are not always united in their opinions on publisher practices, which makes it more difficult to advocate for one point of view. In these cases there may never be a perfect resolution, but nonetheless we work hard to represent all perspectives.

More information about the work of CRIV and the Vendor Liaison will appear in the Members' Briefing in the April issue of the AALL Spectrum. In the meantime, I am always happy to hear directly from AALL members who have specific questions or concerns.

Margaret K. Maes
AALL Vendor Liaison
mmaes(at)aall.org

(Emphasis added.)

The Customer is Always Right. Does the above mean that AALL only advocates for institutional buyers when there is only one point of view? The last time I checked, we are a professional association of diverse institutions -- academic, public and private sectors and within each sector there are some differences based on missions, funding and user populations. This is why it is important to have (1) real institutional diversity on CRIV and (2) the vendor-buyer relationship not being filtered through a single person, the AALL Vendor Liaison.

If AALL finds it difficult to represent all perspectives, there is one thing I believe all law librarians would agree on -- the customer is always right. If AALL started from that premise in institutional buyer advocacy and publicized both its successes and failures by way of a CRIV-Unleashed Blog in a timely manner, I believe that could be the first step toward earning some trust with the membership.

Some may think that librarians need to take individual responsibility for vendor-library complaints. That certainly is the case for local issues. But when issues sound in editorial quality for specific titles or, as in this case, for pattern and practices, list messages are not individual librarians complaining about local matters. They are calling attention to issues that are systemic. This clearly is one of them. While West has published annotated court rules for some annotated state codes, TR Legal is now cramming down the throats of subscribers in other jurisdictions annotated court rules without any real options.

Cost-Effective Options Are Always a "Good Thing." Instead of TR Legal stating "theoretically" subscribers could omit annotated court rules, "but it would require that they order a la carte, and it would be more expensive," it wouldn't be difficult to give institutional buyers the option of subscribing to their statutory code set with or without annotated code rules at $X and $Y prices. Hell in Ohio where annotated court rules have been part of our subscription, I wouldn't mind having the option of omitting annotated court rules volumes if it would cost less money! Obviously, buying a la carte is not that option.

If AALL wants to narrow focus on advocating for one point of view, I believe advocating for the provision of cost-effective options to vendors is one just about every invoice-paying law librarian would agree upon. Absent that, it is caveat emptor when it comes to TR Legal's subscriptions -- ya just never gonna know what the Company will add or subtract from your subscriptions or thinks you need some new title because you have an existing standing order for some other title. (Remember the "Key Rules" fiasco?)

When the Shoe Fits. Clearly the "Zappos" model fell on TR Legal's deaf ears at AALL's Vendor Colloquium. "Powered by service" is trumped by the corporate objective of securing a print revenue stream in the Shed West Era by telling us that TR Legal knows what our collections need better than we do.

Remember, one of TR Legal's New Year's resolutions was 'We will improve the Customer Experience by assisting you with fast resolution to your inquirings." The key word here is "inquirings." TR Legal never promised to resolve problems, only answer questions. As in the past, here is an all too familiar answer that does nothing more than "push back." [JH]

Source: CRIV Chair Rob Meyers March 9, 2011 Message Posted to law-lib, all-sis, pll-sis, sccll-sis and ts-sis Lists: Thomson Reuters response to West Rules of Court - Add On to State Statutes Questions

Dear Colleagues:
 
I would like to thank Rob Myers for contacting me about the Feb. 23 post to the AALL Academic Law Libraries SIS listserv under the subject: West Rules of Court - Add On to State Statutes that questions a Thomson Reuters business practice of including annotated state court rules in subscriptions for state annotated statutes. I also appreciate it that he has agreed to post our response on my behalf.
 
Our view is that annotated state court rules are part of a state’s annotated codes collection. A view of the history of our annotated codes, a market view, and current customer input may be helpful in explaining our position.
 
In most of the annotated code sets published by old West Publishing, annotated court rules were published as part of the set. They were seen as research tools useful to customers who were doing statutory research. In most of those states we also published un-annotated court rules products. These were seen as very different products that were used, not so much for research, but for handy reference guides that were easily portable and inexpensive.
 
In the late 1990s, when West began to create annotated codes in new markets, we did not initially include annotated court rules as part of those sets. There was widespread customer dissatisfaction with that decision, and after hearing from our customers, we began to include annotated court rules with the new annotated code products in states like West Virginia, Georgia, Utah, New Mexico and others. 
 
During the past decade, as budgets tightened for our customers, we introduced annotated codes products in several new jurisdictions without annotated court rules, but we always held out the possibility that we could supplement the product by adding annotated court rules. In every state where we have launched a new code product in the last 10 years, we have heard that we need to have annotated court rules as part of the set. Suggestions that we could include un-annotated court rules were largely rejected by customers.
 
We believe that annotated court rules are very much part of annotated statutes sets. Most print annotated code sets published by West and most print annotated code sets published by our competitors include annotated court rules.
 
From our perspective, providing annotated court rules as part of our state annotated codes sets is customer-driven and we believe, given the history of this collection, industry norms and customer response, state annotated court rules are part of a state’s annotated codes set.
 
There were two other questions raised in the listserv post that I would like to address. The first asked what a customer should do if the firm or organization does not want the annotated court rules pamphlet. 
 
We believe that annotated court rules are an important part of an annotated statutes subscription. If a customer reviews the publication and does not want to keep it, the customer can return the publication for credit. It’s important to note, though, that we consider the publication to be part of the subscription so the customer may continue to receive annotated court rules as part of an annotated statutes subscription in coming years.
 
The author of the original post also asked if a customer could subscribe to annotated statutes but not to annotated court rules. Again, we believe there is great value in annotated court rules for someone doing research in annotated statutes, but if a customer wanted to get only annotated statutes, he or she could theoretically do so, but it would require that they order a la carte, and it would be more expensive.
 
I would like to thank all the readers of the AALL Academic Law Libraries SIS listserv for allowing me this opportunity to respond. I would especially like to thank Rob Myers for bringing this post to my attention and for agreeing to post my response.
 
Best wishes.
 
Anne Ellis
Senior Director, Librarian Relations
Thomson Reuters
anne.ellis(at)thomsonreuters.com

Print Format Switcheroos: Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis Respond to CRIV Questions

Check out the written replies to the below-listed questions in CRIV chair Rob Myers' Reasons behind the Rise of Print Format Changes Implemented by Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis, The CRIV Sheet, Feb. 2011 at 5.

1. What is the main force that drives a decision to change a publication’s print format to another print format?

2. How are titles selected to undergo a format change?

3. If a format change is based on customer feedback, what is the process for collecting and evaluating customer feedback?

4. Is there a place on your website where librarians can find out ahead of time about upcoming format changes (and the likely date the change will take place)? If not, would you consider creating such a place (e.g., a cataloger’s corner)?

5. Is a list of titles that have undergone format changes or will be undergoing format changes presently available? Would you be willing to supply a copy of the list?

6. If there is not a list, is there a way for libraries to determine which titles may be undergoing a format change (i.e., any title that is not already a multivolume loose-leaf set will become a loose-leaf set in the case of LexisNexis, or any title that is a loose-leaf with annual supplement will become an annual pamphlet in the case of Thomson Reuters/West)?

7. Would it be possible to disclose exactly what has been updated in a revised edition, supplement, or loose-leaf update? (There are ways this could be done, including a more detailed explanation of sections affected/content added in the filing instructions, or by requiring publishers to give an estimate of the percentage of new content in a given update.)

8. Are publishers aware—or is any consideration given—to the budgetary impact format changes have on libraries and library staffs? (The impact is limited not just to the cost of the material but also includes time and money involved with cataloging, labeling, and processing the new material and withdrawing or labeling the prior material “superseded” or “not current.”)

9. Is there any other information you would like to share that would help librarians understand the need and rationale for changing a title’s format?

10. Thomson Reuters has included a customer survey questionnaire when shipping a new pamphlet formatted title. While this is appreciated, it seems to put the cart before the horse as the product has already undergone the format change. Will Thomson Reuters actually revise a product back to its previous format if it receives enough negative responses?

Thomson Reuters' reply to the last question:

We are comfortable that we capture enough customer, author, and editor feedback before any title undergoes a format change and are confident that this feedback effectively reflects customer preferences.

In other words, the answer is "no." [JH]

Academic Presses To Offer eBook Collections to Libraries

JSTOR sent a longish press release out yesterday announcing plans to publish books online at JSTOR.  Current and back catalog titles from Yale, Princeton, and the Universities of Chicago, Minnesota, and North Carolina will be part of the initial offering.  Articles from Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education note that three additional content aggregators are entering the fray as well.  These are Project Muse, The University Press eBook Consortium (UPeC) headed by New York University Press, and the University Press Scholarship Online which is an expansion of Oxford Scholarship Online.  The stories note that these consortiums are not exclusive sources for individual academic presses, and that the numbers of titles offered will be significant.  All good news, but the devil is in the details that are not yet available.

Inquiring minds want to know how much this would cost; what are the restrictions on use; whether there are digital rights management associated with electronic format; what kinds of devices can titles be used upon; and a host of other use and implementation questions.  Many university library systems subscribe to JSTOR and Muse already for journals.  We have some ideas on presentation.  eBooks, as marketed by non-academic commercial publishers, come with significant restrictions consistent with renting information.  Academic publishing may be aimed at a different market with different sensibilities, but they are commercial operations nonetheless.  My experience with some of the eBook aggregators out there (I'm talking to you, NetLibrary) suggest a certain paranoia on their part that end users might actually want to view and use the content they provide. 

So, as someone who would consider the collection development impact of such a move, I would want to know what titles are in overlapping collections so I can decide which aggregation to purchase, if at all.  Considering the same question from a reference perspective, what is the interface going to look like, how searchable will the database be, and whether I can use Google Scholar or other external tools to get at the content.  And, faculty will want to know how this will affect course packs and the ability to assign readings.  While I'm thrilled at the development, I'm wary of the implementation, at least until I see the product and how it is valued.  A press release brimming with optimism isn't enough.  [MG]

Initial Thoughts on a Plan to Restore FTC Oversight of Publisher Trade Practices

Bryan Carson has recently made a compelling case to reinstate a contemporary version of former FTC Guides for the Law Book Industry [Download Text of FTC Guidelines]. In fact, he suggests expanding reinstated guides to cover publishers in "medical and other fields that need current information." Expanded guides would therefore concern unfair business practices of publishers of legal, scientific, medical, and technical (LSMT) literature. Because such guides would not address excessive price increases for subscriptions and new purchases, Bryan also suggests that library associations seek an antitrust exemption. The exemption would allow them to leverage threats of boycotts against specific LSMT publishers that continue to gouge prices. While I favor all of these proposals, I will limit my comments to how "we" - a coalition of AALL, other library associations, and allied organizations - might engage the FTC to end unfair business practices of LSMT publishers.

How can interested parties form a coalition of library associations and organizations whose members buy LSMT publications and services? Obstacles abound. AALL and its Chapters require ethical and other reforms to more effectively protect consumers of legal publication, and so may other library associations to protect consumers of LSMT publication. Perhaps these internal reforms can wait, as activist members of the respective associations enlist sufficient support to form a coalition, with the reforms to follow as a consequence. At any rate, librarians and their allies can build a coalition, no matter how formidable the obstacles. So while I defer the question of coalition-building, I aim to prompt further discussion of all our options, not just the three that I am about to identify. Moreover, any library association can independently pursue one (or more) of the options, even if a coalition would raise the odds of success.

First, we can take actions independently of the FTC to prompt its own initiation of an investigation. The FTC may investigate industries (16 CFR §2.1), and individual businesses and persons (15 U.S.C. § 46(a)), for alleged violations of laws under its jurisdiction, including the prohibition of "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)) It may undertake these investigations to develop guides or rules, or to decide whether it has justification to pursue enforcement proceedings. The FTC initiated its own investigation of legal publishers as result of widely publicized findings of their unfair and deceptive practices. Prompted by Raymond Taylor's article, Law Book Consumers Need Protection, 55 A.B.A.J. 553 (1969), the FTC launched an investigation of legal publishers in 1969. (See Peter M.Kempel, New Guides for the Law Book Industry, 54 Mich. B.J. 938 (1975), cited by Kendall F. Svengalis, Legal Information Buyer's Guide & Reference Manual, 2008 ed., at 22, n.6.) The ABA, two state bar associations, and AALL also pursued investigations or made recommendations. The FTC then proposed "Guides for the Law Book Publishing Industry" (38 Fed. Reg. 5351 (1973)), and adopted the Guides two years later (40 Fed. Reg. 33436, as corrected, 40 Fed. Reg 36116 (1975)). [Download Text of FTC Guidelines] We could try to expand the precedent of Taylor and his supporters. We could pursue our own investigations of anti-consumer practices by LSMT publishers, using or creating consumer advocacy committees to review past complaints, receive new ones, and hold hearings. We could focus on practices common to the entire LSMT publishing industry, and report our findings in professional publications, blogs, and news outlets. We could even run a "rapid response" operation if LSMT publishers spread disinformation. We could thus create grounds for the FTC to initiate an investigation.

Second, under 16 CFR §2.1 and §2.2, we have a right to petition the FTC for an investigation. Under 16 CFR §2.1, we may also engage sympathetic members of Congress to request investigation on our behalf, at least if (at this stage) we do not also allege antitrust violations. (Either the House or the Senate may direct the FTC to investigate antitrust violations. See 15 U.S.C. § 46(d).) Our petition should specify the unfair and deceptive business practices common to LSMT publishers, and include a robust record of evidence. As Bryan and Greg Lambert (here) point out, an obvious example involves the requirement of non-disclosure clauses in our subscription contracts. Evidence would include an affidavit by James Tonna, Reed Elsevier's Vice President for Marketing and Sales in the Americas. He states that

"Elsevier representatives apply pricing formulae and methods which are not generally known (to our competitors or potential customers), which proprietary information reflects Elsevier's pricing/business methods and constitutes data unique to its products and services." (Affidavit, Elsevier Inc v. Washington State University, Case No. 09-2-00137-3 (Wash. Whitman County Super. Ct. Jun,. 11, 2009))

Third, to protect ourselves from unfair or deceptive acts or practices by LSMT publishers, we may petition the FTC for guides (16 CFR § 1.6) or trade practice rules (16 CFR § 1.9). A petition for guides must convince the agency that legal guidance on particular practices "would be beneficial in the public interest and would serve to bring about more widespread and equitable observance of laws administered by the Commission." Trade practice rules would give the FTC authority to regulate LSMT publishers in advertising, billing, shipping, selling, and producing their publications and services. We could ask the FTC to adopt a contemporary successor to the "Trade Practice Rules for the Subscription and Mail Order Book Publishing Industry," (rescinded, among 41 sets of trade practice rules, at 43 Fed. Reg. 44483 (1978)). A petition for such regulation would presumably have to show that guides would not suffice to achieve the protection consumers need. That standard raises a high bar, especially under present political circumstances. The FTC would face a powerful deterrent - the likely prospect of a Congress ready to impose a moratorium on such rulemaking, or to ban the rule altogether.

Of course, all of these options carry risks of failure. The first option strikes me as the least risky, and the third as riskiest. If we fail, we may embolden LSMT publishers to continue practices that have been so costly to their customers. But if we do not try, they will continue these practices anyhow.

Librarians have a proud tradition of defending their values. We have opposed censorship and surveillance provisions of the PATRIOT Act, supported openness and transparency in government, and promoted the availability and preservation of government documents. But we have not done enough, as consumer advocates, to confront challenges to other of our defining values. For we also value the widest public access to copyrighted publication, consistent with copyright compliance and costs related to publishers' competitive, and fair, business conduct. And we value the highest editorial standards of accuracy and currency. As Bryan has said, anti-consumer practices by legal publishers cost "lawyers, firms, and libraries hundreds of thousands of dollars every year," and the same may be said of  similar practices by SMT publishers. In aggregate, such costs may annually reach millions of dollars, and over time they exact a heavy cumulative toll on public access. Consumers of LSMT publication also depend on rigorous editorial standards. Profit-driven departures from these standards, if widespread, cause them significant harm from reliance on defective products. By championing consumer advocacy, we champion our core values, whatever the risks of failure.

Guest post by Michael Ginsborg. Michael Ginsborg (michaelginsborg@yahoo.com) has been a law librarian and AALL member since 1989.

New Year's Resolutions from TR Legal's Rebranded "Customer Experience and Education" Department, Division, Whatever (?) -- It Has a Senior VP, So It Must be Important

Recently LLB called attention to eight contributors who, in thinking out loud fashion, expressed their New Year's resolutions for practicing their profession in a 3 Geeks Elephant post. Not that any publicity is needed since if you are not already taking 3 Geeks' RSS feed, well ... even AALL officialdom is although they may not like what they read and may be wondering how they are going to silence one 3 Geeks blogger who will be joining the E-club at Philly (Cream Cheese or Cheesesteak) 2011. Good luck with that since according to his New Year's resolution, he doesn't give a damn. See the 3 Geeks Elephant post. OMG, I am digressing in the lead-in paragraph. Sorry, I usually don't do that until the 3-4-5th paragraph of a post -- "my bad." Back to the story.

Invoicing-paying law librarians may have noticed that Bob Azman, TR Legal's Senior Vice President, Customer Experience & Education, announced what sounds to me like three corporate New Year's resolutions.

In the next twelve months:

• We will improve the Customer Experience by assisting you with fast resolution to your inquirings.
• We will have improved training opportunities to keep you up to date and informed, with options for online learning, including eLearning and webinares.
• We will continue to provide you with 24x7 expertise in Westlaw and Westlaw Next via our Reference Attorneys.

Well, isn't that special! Let's hope those corporate resolutions are more successful that personal ones like "I resolve to lose 20 pounds," etc. As far as I'm concerned, the first listed resolution is the most important one. Azman adds

Your feedback is important. Please don't hesitate to send me your thoughts on how we can further improve your experience in 2011. You can contact me directly at customerService@ThomsonReuters.com

Ah ... don't know about you but every Land of 10,000 Invoices VP I've received an email from has an email account something like bob.azman@thomsonreuters.com or robert.azman@thomsonreuters.com. This isn't exactly starting off well, Bob, if that is your real name! But, what the heck, let's see whether TR Legal delivers on its 2011 resolutions. If so, I will be delighted to write a post this time next year saying that the Company did but I'm not going to hold my breath for the next 12 months. You?

BTW, if you are not an invoice-paying law librarian, Azman's form letter was included in TR Legal's latest monthly statements for Westlaw. Still waiting for print statements that close off CY 2010 shipments. Oh joy when they arrive.

Congratulations Fraz on your promotion! Well deserved and it is good to see that hard work in customer service (sorry, I meant "customer experience and education") in Eagan does get recognized. I will miss your prompt attention to our little county law library's transactions with West, which have included massive print cancellations you executed promptly with understanding and appreciation for our fiscal situation. Now, how much do I have to increase my annual West spent to become a major, premium, whatever, government account that is your new portfolio?

Hello, big government spenders, if Fraz is your inside contact now, you are in good hands. You have no idea how many times I called or emailed Fraz starting or ending with "sorry, I was having a senior moment." Fraz has been at this some four years. That probably makes him one of the more senior inside print reps in the company. He knows what he is doing and knows that a personalized relationship with his institutional buyers, one knowledgeable in their institutional needs, is very important. Fraz also has a personalized email account and a direct dial phone number that does not end in W-e-s-t. So here's one person in Eagan who didn't need a New Year's resolution to "improve the Customer Experience by assisting you with fast resolution to your inquirings."

All joking aside. I'm sure invoicing-paying law librarians do hope TR Legal lives up to its 2011 New Year's resolutions. It's going to take a corporate cultural transformation but, if Matthew Bender can do it, so can West. [JH]

Using eBooks and eReaders in Your Library

The Creekview High School Library (a/k/a The Unquiet Library) staff in Georgia have been documenting the library's process of acquiring and lending Kindles and Kindle book editions on The Unquiet Librarian blog and in a series of YouTube videos, which are listed below.

• Arrival and Setup of The Unquiet Library's New Kindles
• Preparing Kindles for Circulation
• Cataloging the Actual Kindle eReader Device
• Interview with the First Student Who Checked Out One of the Library's Kindle

ALA TechSource Workshop: Using E-Books and E-Readers in Your Library. From the blog post announcement:

With the recent explosion in the popularity of eReading devices, many librarians are grappling with how to effectively integrate these devices into their services and collection. In  two 90-minute sessions on January 25th and February 1st, 2011 at 4:00pm Eastern, Sue Polanka [Head of Reference and Instruction, Wright State University Libraries] will provide practical guidance on how to begin purchasing eBooks for your library to lend electronically and how to purchase eReader devices for patron use.

Details here.

End Note: Jennifer Wondracek, Instructional Services Reference Librarian, Univ. of Florida's Lawton Chiles Legal Information Center, provides an overview of law eBooks and apps on RIPS Law Librarian Blog. See her Ebooks and Apps in the Legal Realm (Nov. 30, 2010) and this follow-up to her initial post, Ebook Apps update (Dec. 8, 2010). [JH]

"There Is a Special Place in Hell" for Legal Vendor Price Gouging: What's Your Favorite Example?

Recently a commentator to this LLB post wrote "There is a special place in hell for charging that much money." He was referring to West's $800 charge for three volumes of the ALR Later Case Service for ALR 2d. "There is no way on earth that those three volumes should cost $800 because they are just a compilation of cases!," he added.

In a recent law-lib message, Scott Burgh, Chief Law Librarian, City of Chicago Department of Law Library, brought up the case of West's almost annual re-issuance of CJS Internal Revenue bound volumes, stating that West has reissued bound volumes every year at least back to 1996 when it was two volumes for $112.75, skipping only 2001 and 2003. Burgh observed '"[w]ithout realizing this gouge, we accepted [the CJS Internal Revenue] three new volumes [published in] February 2010 at a cost of $244 each, to a total of $732. If we had caught it at the time of seeing less than 25 pages of new content, we may have considered differently." 

About West's practice of reissuing bound CJS Internal Revenue volumes instead of pocket-parts, Burgh cites to Section 2.3(d) of AALL Guide to Fair Business Practices for Legal Publisher, which states:

PRACTICES TO AVOID: A product that is created solely by extracting material from existing publications is billed as a new product.

In that context, I would add, what about West spinning off AMJUR Federal Taxation volumes from the AMJUR standing order and requiring a separate standing order for them? "Thanks but no thanks" was my response (if memory serves the new standing order was going to be in the $1,000 vicinity just for AMJUR Federal Taxation). Anyone see a $1K reduction in its costs for AMJUR sans Fed Tax? There is also a special place in hell for spinning out material from a "comprehensive" legal encyclopedia that apparently includes everything but federal taxation! What next, AMJUR without Contacts? Ah well, I've killed CJS and AMJUR in print anyway.

To be fair so this isn't just a beat-up on the folks in the land of 10,000 invoices post, I'll add, for example, that I see absolutely no justification for LexisNexis charging about $480 for its three volume, three-times per year undated, loose-leat set of Ohio Jury Instructions which are written by a committee of the Ohio Judicial Conference. Does it really cost this much to push supplied content through the print shop? Ah, my bad, you also get a CD. (NB non-Buckeye State researchers: Through Casemaker, OSBA members can access the Ohio Judicial Conference's jury instructions as well as additional instructions prepared by the OSBA Jury Instructions Committee.)

Got a Favorite Example of Price Gouging? If you have a favorite example of legal vendor price gouging, feel free to post it as a comment to this post. More importantly, do continue publishing all of them on the law-lib list. Notify CRIV too but not just CRIV. Our vendors routinely monitor AALL lists so this is one very good way to communicate with them. At least you won't have to go through an AALL gatekeeper. What the heck, it's the holiday season -- it's a time for gift-giving.

One of the benefits of vendor reps being AALL members is being able to monitor AALL lists. I doubt they will respond to the publicity of AALL list messages but, perhaps in a case or two, one of them may contact you. And if they don't, well, at least the postings will produce an archives of questionable publishing practices for all to read. [JH]

How Much Longer for 19th Century Legal Print Relics: What legal reference and research tool titles are obsolete and when will they disappear from sales catalogs?

Time to follow up on an issue posed in LLB's Are Reporter Advance Sheet Services Obsolete? (After a 34% Price Increase is Stanford Law Going to Cancel West's S. Ct. Advance Sheet Subscription?) That post cites to Stanford Law Paul Lomio's post, The supremely expensive Supreme Court Reporter Advance Sheets Service where Lomio ends with the following question:

Isn’t this service really quite obsolete?  If you think otherwise, I would welcome comments posted as we mull over whether or not we will cancel.

This as Stanford Law was grappling with a 15% budget cutback. Does anyone with access to any sort of fee-based or free online legal search service really need advance sheets? Don't think so.

There's been some email exchanges about what other law-related print titles are obsolete. Well, we all know Shepards in print is and has been for years. Harvard Law School's collection development policy with its reliance on WEXIS online source substitution it "buys" like other academic law libraries damn cheap but which nonetheless generated the largest print cancellation in West's history is a landmark development. Jenkins Law Library's recent "free-for-postage" AALL listserv offering of state digests current with 2009 pocket parts is another example.

I have characterized print digests and comprehensive general and state legal encylopedias as examples of 19th Century publication types that have outlived their usefulness for legal research and which are just too damn expensive to maintain in print. Jason Wilson, Jones McClure Publishing, forecasts via emails that

Print digests are gone in three years, yes. Headnotes will not be written in five. My predictions, quote me on it. And the anecdotal evidence is already there.

And in response to legal encyclopedias, Wilson adds:

I can't see how these things are going to last that much longer in print (like digests).

I agree although I might stretch the forecasts for the demise of print digests and legal encyclopedias out to five years for the last remaining diehards, meaning those academic law libraries which have cancelled most print digests and legal encyclopedias but for the token ones because LRW profs insist on instructing law students on how to perform legal research oh so last century. Plus some public sector state and county law libraries who may still be saying "but, but" while cancelling other print to offset the escalating costs of digests and legal encyclopedias. But that's what WEXIS public access accounts for online search is about with or without online access for these relics from bygone times.

What do you think? [JH]