All,
Alice Carli has provided some additional information and an updated time:
So, ****The initial Commercial Binding Sustainability Discussion will be at 1 pm this Friday, at https://rochester.zoom.us/j/91099612086.****
And the added context is:
We have all been aware that commercial library binding is winding down as a share of the total publishing ecosystem. And we are also aware that music library patrons nonetheless still often prefer scores on paper (and many libraries lack infrastructure to circulate digital copies). We also know that much music receives heavier use than most text volumes, and needs sturdy binding. Our survey of music libraries and conversations with binders have led to some conclusions that will be introduced and discussed at Friday's meeting.
- The two chief barriers to libraries for sending scores out for binding are cost and (for smaller libraries) the need for a minimum order.
- The two drivers of cost for binderies are labor and transportation – cost of materials is less significant than these two – the reason for the minimum orders was to support the fixed costs of truck transportation, and to increase, at least somewhat, the level of standardization (the number of similar items that can be done together) needed for efficient labor workflows.
Given this, there are two possible avenues to bridge the cost-and-volume gap enough to keep library binding sustainable for the few binders that are left:
- Adding printing/binding as a 3rd-party post-processing option (similar to catalog record creation) offered by distributors, who would send electronic files to binders who would print, bind, and drop-ship the volumes. This will require some concessions from libraries regarding binding options and from publishers regarding format (but sending files rather than storing paper prints will help with this).
- Consortial transportation - libraries within a certain range of a bindery coordinating the creation of a van route used two or three times a year, for volumes that are not newly purchased printed/bound in option one, or that have special requirements, plus conservation, etc. This would make transportation cheaper for participating libraries and result in larger shipments with more opportunities for workflow savings for the binderies.
At Friday's meeting, we would like to discuss pros, cons, and problem-points in these two approaches, with as many different stakeholders as possible (libraries, binderies, publishers) and also collect the kind of off-the-wall brainstorm ideas that will be most useful at this early stage of deliberations. We are hoping that we will come away from this conversation with enough sense of excitement about possibilities that we can face the hard decisions and nitty-gritty work that will need to be done to keep library binding available as an option for as long as libraries continue to need it.
------------------------------
Mark Coulbourne
Head of Preservation
University of Maryland, College Park
He/Him/His
------------------------------