UConn Libraries PDA program is quite successful from an acquisitions perspective, but access to DRM-encased e-books is a less than ideal user experience. This presentation describes how UConn Libraries worked to provide access to thousands of DRM-free e-books while only purchasing titles with highest use.

1. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
DDA 2.0: Evidence-Based Selection of E-Books
Galadriel Chilton
galadriel.chilton@lib.uconn.edu
Abstract
UConn Libraries PDA program is quite successful from an acquisitions perspective, but access to DRM-
encased e-books is a less than ideal user experience. This presentation describes how UConn Libraries is
working to provide access to thousands of DRM-free e-books while only purchasing titles with highest
use.
Image Speaking Points
Introduction
Twitter hash tag
Title of presentation and correction from abstract
This is a work in progress
Background
a. Implemented PDA in July 2011
i. EBL – Profiles
ii. Ebrary – Profiles
b. Successful from an acquisitions perspective
For example, while we have over 60,000 e-books
accessible via EBL, just over 15,000 have been used,
there have been 14,500 STLs, and 417 purchases
triggered between July 2011 and February 2014.

2. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
However, there are problems and serious frustrations
when it comes to…
c. User Access
d. Interface
e. Limited simultaneous users
f. Impediments to downloads
g. Software required
Users encounter overly-complex unintuitive interfaces.
Faculty on Ebrary: why is the library buying things that
are nearly impossible to use?
Far more than a 3 step process to access PDA books…
Let alone the ease of access users expect and experience
when accessing the PDF of a journal article: one-click
and go!
<<Here’s what UConn faculty member Jonathan Klassen
said upon receiving links to two EBLe-books he had
requested.
Yes, libraries can report functionality problems with e-
books, but the reality is that we shouldn’t have to and it
is increasingly harder to do so with % of online content
increasing while staff are flat or decreasing.

3. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
Additionally, e-Book content is not integrated with other
like content from the publisher.
Which isolates information discovery much like a bug in
a jar.
It’s like this – we’re open for business in terms of
spending money, but the door is closed and very
complicated to open for uses.
So why this….
When – for the amount of money spent on PDA – we
should be able to capture the acquisitions benefit of
PDA but make e-book access and use a pleasant, easy
experience for users?
a. Acquisitions Benefit
1. Title-by-title purchase
2. Purchased upon use/demand
b. Striving For
1. DRM free e-journal-like access
2. Multiple simultaneous users
3. Integrated with other content
With continuing flat or reduced budgets, and increased
need to justify spend, we can neither afford, nor justify
buying packages of e-books in order to gain access to
select titles.

4. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
Analysis of Data
EBL PDA use data showed that out of 294 publishers
with use,75% of the use and spend was for books from7
publishers
No. of other publishers with use: 294
Ebrary PDA use data shows that 48% of the use was for
books for 7 publisher; many the same as EBL:
No. of other publishers with use: 492
Meanwhile…
We are simultaneously receiving requests form
faculty for university press publications from Spain,
Mexico, and Latin America.
Had license-denial statistics for the publisher
platform for some of the publishers with most
used/in-demand e-book publishers.
An idea…
What if…
We paid a small deposit to publishers with e-book
content for 12 months of access to all e-books with a
guaranteed spend at the end of 12 months that would
be used to purchase perpetual access to e-books with
the highest use based on the libraries’ analysis of
COUNTER reports and the e-book prices at the start of
the 12 month period?
Goal:
• Purchase only what is used
• Purchase title-by-title instead of by package
• Guaranteed spend with some publishers would
be analogous to a package purchase.
• Show that title-by-title purchasing is – despite
the increased complexity on the ordering end –

5. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
a viable and needed model.
• Enable reserve to purchase titles upon demand
a. Approached Publishers
Taylor & Francis
SAGE
Elsevier
Cambridge
Springer
Wiley
b. Publishers’ Response
- SAGE began creating a similar model
- Taylor & Francis
- Since working with publishers
Must calculate for:
Already-purchased DDA titles
a. Must decide whether to purchase again or
seek discount.
b. Once active, remove titles from DDA profiles
Downside
a. Give then take away access to users
b. But, gain evidence to inform budget
allocations for following year
c. And to request funding increases
Balance between PDA model and package purchases.
Due to great response and conversations with
publishers, it looked like things were going to take off,
Started working with Digitalia and Springer. Not
necessarily highest used publishers…
Springer is and Springer’s DRM-free, download whole e-
books, and ILL-friendly licenses meet expectations.
Began talking about a pilot that would facilitate some
title-by-title purchases.
Digitalia is also DRM free and provides access to world-

6. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
wide university press e-books and would help fulfill the
need for Spanish-language scholarly content.
Then there were woes…
1. Time, initial budget
2. Budget cuts, and
Licensing woes…
Licenses for two DDA 2.0 pilots have been in the CT AG’s
office since August.
Instead of just a flat tire, it’s as if the whole wheel of
momentum has been removed.
Working to construct new models of acquiring content
with…
Oxford
Wiley – in process
Gale – Archives Unbound primary source documents
rather than e-books
Multi-Science Publishing, limited in scope/highly
specialized journal articles
Access to all journals, we pay $5 per download.
Continuing to hope to be able to license the pilots
with Digitalia.

7. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
We can merge models of e-book acquisition and access
to…
..unlock access…
…and make e-book access lovely, easy…
… elegant, and fast.
Give users the ability to easily discovery and access e-
books within the context of related content.
But right now?
We have work to do.
Conclusion
1. Libraries need to ask for acquisitions models
that work…
a. For users
b. In the age of data-informed/driven
decisions
c. For library budgets
d. For DRM-free and ILL-friendly e-books
2. Time consuming, can feel like no progress, so
celebrate little changes
a. Oxford title by title
b. Gale Archives Unbound
3. Then keep asking for the ideal

8. March 17, 2014
This work is licensed by Galadriel Chilton under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Image Speaking Points
Recommendations
a. Look at licensing turn aways
b. Log faculty requests
c. If you have a PDA program, looking at spend/use by
publisher
d. Use data to put together a need-based proposal for
publishers
iii. Create your own package that excludes titles
bought via PDA or discounts them if you want to
purchase DRM-free version
iv. Propose an evidence-based acquisitions pilot
Access fee up front
Guaranteed spend
a. Estimate based on license denial
stats
b. Quantitative proof of need from
faculty, curriculum, etc.
Thank you!