The Problem with Hoopla’s Pay-Per-Loan Model
Publishers like HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster have recently shown increased interest in the pay per loan library ebook services offered by Freading and Hoopla, but at the same time libraries are pulling back.
Publishers like this model because they get paid each time a work is loaned to a patron.
At first, librarians also liked the model because it meant they would not have to pay full price to get copies that might go unused, but then the monthly bills started arriving and the honeymoon ended.
Many libraries have imposed caps on their Hoopla offering. Some have reduced the number of works a patron can borrow each month while others have set a limit on the number of loans made each calendar day.
Sonoma County Library, which is located just north of San Francisco, has a daily lending limit which resets every day at 8pm eastern, while on the other side of San Francisco the San Jose Public Library now limits patrons to only borrowing 6 works each month.
The SJPL made it clear that the problem was the cost of Hoopla:
We love this resource, and we want everyone to have a chance to use it. That means that we have to figure out a way to make our payment model fair for everyone. After giving it a great deal of thought, we have decided that a way we can make Hoopla available to every one of our users is to decrease the monthly limit from 8 items to 6 items. This will take effect on November 1. We hope that this will help us manage the cost so that we can keep providing this great content!
The West Fargo Public Library in North Dakota has also reduced its monthly limit.
The Appomattox Regional Library also cited budget constraints as the cause of their daily lending limits. "Due to an increased number of users on the service and with the budget amount allocated for Hoopla, we are finding that the budget caps we have in place for daily usage and monthly limits are being reached much more quickly than in the past, the FAQ reads. "We are working on a solution and are so grateful that such a large number of patrons are interested in using Hoopla."
And then there is CLEVNET, a consortium of 43 library systems in northern Ohio. The Sandusky Register reports that CLEVNET offered Hoopla for a year and then dropped it because the cost was double what had been anticipated.
Many of the libraries that make up CLEVNET decided to keep Hoopla and fund it out of their respective budgets. Few have had trouble with funding, but then again only 2% or 3% of their patrons are signed up. As that number grows, the libraries are bound to be facing a budget crunch.
image by Changhai Travis