At Frankfurt’s Publishing Perspectives Forum, reps from several digital lending platforms explored how licensing, pricing, and growing demand are impacting digital access to books in public libraries.

By Talita Facchini, Contributor

Pricing, expiring licenses, and the challenge of meeting demand while maintaining diverse collections are central concerns in the digital public library market. These issues shaped the discussion at “What’s Next for the Digital Public Library Market?” as part of the Publishing Perspectives Forum at the Frankfurt Book Fair.

Moderated by Publishing Perspectives editor-in-chief Andrew Richard Albanese, the discussion brought together Micah May, director of business development at Lyrasis/the Palace Project; Heather McCormack, director of digital content at OCLC CloudLibrary; and Brad Rose, vice president of content strategy at Hoopla Digital. Working between publishers and libraries, the three examined tensions in the U.S. market and opportunities to improve the terms under which digital books reach library users.

“We’re all on team reading, and we all have this shared mission of literacy and a love of books and a love of reading,” May said. His argument returned to a shared interest in keeping a wider range of books available while ensuring publishers and rights holders are paid.

Albanese opened the licensing discussion by revisiting HarperCollins’ once-controversial policy of limiting library ebook licenses to 26 loans. May and Rose distinguished that approach from licenses that expire after a fixed period, regardless of how often a book has circulated.

The two-year licenses offered by some of the Big Five create a particular problem for older titles, May explained. When access expires, libraries must decide whether to pay again, and older works can disappear from collections. “And so, then what you have is an extremely bestseller, frontlist-heavy collection, which is the opposite of what the library wants.”

That outcome runs counter to a shared interest in keeping those books available. “Where libraries and publishers have the most in common is wanting to ensure that there’s good access to midlist and backlist books,” he said.

Rose described how Hoopla’s pay-per-use model, in which a checkout triggers a charge to the library, supports discovery without requiring libraries to purchase every title in advance. “I can’t think of a better place for those authors and those books to live than in the library. It is the place for discovery. People can try different genres, different authors, different series.”

May pointed to other options available through the Palace Project, including bundles of loans and a digital ownership model that allows libraries to own copies and lend each to one user at a time. McCormack also highlighted the wider range of licensing choices introduced since the pandemic. More options, however, have not eliminated the budget pressure; spending on major new releases can still leave little for the rest of a collection.

Audio’s growing role in library collections brings questions of licensing and accessibility into focus. “Audio started outselling ebooks for our business two years ago,” McCormack said of CloudLibrary. The discussion highlighted the availability of perpetual licenses for audiobooks, including from most of the Big Five, alongside the format’s importance for people whose disabilities or reading difficulties make print challenging.

Despite that progress, Albanese questioned why growing digital demand had not prompted a more sustainable arrangement. “Libraries and publishers should be able to get together and work this out,” he provoked.

The dispute has also moved into U.S. state legislatures. An earlier Maryland law requiring publishers to offer libraries ebook licenses for titles available to consumers was struck down on federal copyright grounds. Newer efforts focus on the contracts publicly funded libraries may enter into, with supporters hoping to encourage negotiations over pricing and terms.

McCormack expressed reservations about legislation, pointing to increased publisher flexibility since 2020 and discussions already taking place behind the scenes. “Maybe the pricing wasn’t changing fast enough, maybe the models weren’t coming fast enough,” she said. “But conversation behind the scenes, at least in my view, has been happening.”

Libraries also have purchasing power they can use to encourage better terms. May described a shift in how some decide when to buy additional digital copies; instead of applying the same ratio of reservations to available copies across their collections, they factor in price and licensing conditions. Favorable terms can prompt more purchases, while expensive or time-limited licenses may mean longer waiting lists.

Those choices also shape opportunities for independent publishers and emerging writers. Libraries can help unfamiliar authors find an audience, with Rose describing instances in which library exposure was followed by rising visibility on commercial platforms. “They can make authors,” he said. The willingness of many publishers to explore more flexible terms offers room to strengthen that relationship.

For May, better terms would free libraries to spend across a broader range of titles, including more backlist. “That’s never going to result in fewer library dollars going to books. It’s just going to mean more titles available to more people.” That broader access, in his view, could benefit both libraries and publishers. “There’s a huge opportunity in front of us right now to find those win-wins and to bring them to the market,” he said.