The TCO of e-books

Just ruminating aloud and in public here - bear with me.

One of my long held beliefs is that if a technology is worth messing with, it must do one of two things:

1. Allow one to do something one is already doing less expensively or more efficiently
2. Allow one to something of value that would be impossible without the technology

So can the case for e-books be made using either criteria?

The second criteria, added value, is easier to determine. If an e-book has a built-in text to speech function; interactivity or multimedia that builds interest and increases understanding; or can be used simultaneously by multiple readers, cost is less important. Having peers not able to see what one is reading may encourage less-able readers to read materials at their own level. Ubiquitous access that makes e-books, in essence, a part of home libraries can't be replicated by print collections. Given the purpose of the book, e-books offer a great deal of "value-added." One willingly pays for functionality.

Is the consideration that e-books be cost effective then moot? I don't think so. While it may be worthwhile to have value-added features in some materials (non-fiction, reference, easy readers, etc.) for much of the library collection, readers simply want to read a book. I don't see Harry Potter, Twilight, Stuart Little, Charlotte's Web, Little House on the Prairie, or Captain Underpants vastly improved, only duplicated, in e-format. Which means if we should acquire these books as e-books, they ought to be less expensive. Or why bother.

Determining the annual Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of a print book is relatively straightforward.  Take the cost of the print book and processing and divide by the expected lifespan of the book. If my library buys House of Hades for $20 and the book will last physically for 10 years, the TCO of the book is $2 per year. Yes, we could include the cost of library space, salary paid for circulation and shelving etc., but let's keep it simple here.

Determining the annual TCO of an e-book is more difficult. Unless otherwise stated, the TCO of an e-book is purchase price divided by the life expectancy of the book. Wait a minute - shouldn't a digital file last forever? Can we determine a popularity lifespan of a book?  Aren't there usually charges for the e-book delivery system (like Overdrive)? Don't some publishers make one re-purchase a title after so many circulations? If the library loans the reader (a Kindle, Nook, etc) on which the device is read, shouldn't the cost of that device be figured as well? Should we figure the cost of a print book bought in addition to the e-book in schools that are not 1:1 so all kids have access to a title?*

While it will vary from title to title, service to service, I find it tough to cost justify e-books that do not offer value-added features. I think we'll keep buying fiction in print unless I see another analysis that proves me wrong.

* See Forbes "You'll Need a PHD to Make Sense of the Pricing Schemes Publishers Place on Libraries" 11-19-13

_____________________________ 

I was part of a discussion at AASL last week that talked about the ethics of buying e-resources when not all students have a device or home Internet access. How can we justify buying e-books if only, say, 80% of students have the personal tech need to access them? Is this fair?

When I think of such situations, I am reminded of Scott (Dilbert) Adams observation that "...fairness isn't an objective feature of the universe. It's a concept that was invented so children and idiots can participate in arguments." So we need to be careful when analyzing "fairness."

If an e-book has features that provide a superior learning experience, is it fair to the 80% of students who do have devices to be denied access to those features because it is "unfair" to the other 20% who don't have access?

Were we talking about a cure for cancer that cures 80% of patients, should we withhold treatment out of fairness to the 20% on whom the cure doesn't work?

Hmmmmmmm. Might be a good argument for a true 1:1 program in all schools...

Comments

[Bill Storm]

There are no good arguments against 1:1. Here in CA we stopped trying to make the case for 1:1 after the state superintendent's technology task force published its recommendation [http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/efftmemo.pdf] in which a 1:1 device ratio was #1 on the infrastructure list. So that answers the What, When and Where questions.

All that's left is How.

[Doug Johnson]

Thanks, Bill. I appreciate seeing this document. A small group of tech directors is meeting next Monday to discuss tech leadership (or more exactly the lack there of) in Minnesota and this may be a model for something we may want to produce.

Oh, and I agree about 1:1.

Doug