I'm not sure that an essay is needed. The issues are quite clear, and based
on hard headed common sense, not nostalgia or vested interest:
1) Alibris is bad for dealers and buyers alike. When Interloc became Albris,
it was clear that the prices had increased at a stroke by 20%. I gather that
dealers pay a similar surcharge, so that either the dealer loses most of his
profit, or the buyer is obliged to pay more for his books, further limiting
the cashflow into the dealers (who are after all the ones providing the real
service here, let us not forget).
2) Alibris destroys a vital element of the client/dealer relationship by
denying direct access for queries. I frequently need to verify details of
contents or condition, but I simply cannot do this via Albris.
3) Alibris is not even a particularly good distributor - certainly not worth
20-40% premium. Shipping outside the US (where some of us do have the
misfortune to live) is difficult, and special instructions difficult to
accommodate.
The reason you have to view Alibris as a threat, not simply another supply
channel, is that they can only succeed as a business if they have a near
monopoly on the supply side. If competing databases offer books at 20% less,
and with much better profit margins offered to participating dealers, it
will take most of Alibris' supply and demand away rapidly. So they must
swallow competitors to survive at all, and ensure exclusive agreements with
dealers and dealers' organisations. Sadly, because of the ludicrous frenzy
for internet stocks in the US, they probably have the money to do this. It
is absolutely in the interests of both buyers (both institutional and
private) and sellers to resist this sort of market consolidation, because
otherwise we all lose.
Tim Linnell
>As a library director I would find most useful an essay that laid out the
issues
>about the use of Alibris in a way that allowed one to make a decision about it
>if asked, or an essay that I could refer acquisitions / special-collections
>people to. So far what I've seen has been suggestive but surrounded by
evidence
>of nostalgia, vested interest, and habit as well as some very sound reasons.
>Such a balanced and comprehensive essay could well be a useful article in C&RL
>News or even RBML or posted on the RBMS web page. If such an essay can't be
>written for any of a variety of reasons then it isn't clear that there's really
>any reason to view them any differently than any other vendor, i.e. through the
>day to day lens of price, service, etc. --pg
>
>Tim Linnell wrote:
>
>> As a serious e-collector, spending a considerable amount annually on books
>> on-line, I would rather miss a much searched for treasure than use Alibris.
>> It is a execrable 'service' that offers nothing except a hike of 20% in the
>> purchase price, preventing me dealing directly with the booksellers, the
>> true experts, and delaying arrival of shipments: I'd note also that 20% is a
>> lot to pay for one stop shopping!
>>
>> The business model it represents is parasitic and based on opportunistic
>> greed - I prefer and will always favour the bookfinder model, which provides
>> a one stop marketplace for existing dealers via other established databases.
>> This actually brings down costs by competition, but allows dealers to make
>> the actual profits.
>>
>> This is a bit of a hobby horse, I'm afraid!
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> >Also of interest to the rare book trade is the emerging Alibris
>> >business model of "One-stop shopping." Personally I can recognize
>> >its administrative appeal, though I also recognize its bookish
>> >limitations given that Alibris does not own the preponderance of its
>> >"stock" or directly control the quality of its suppliers.
>> >
>> >Wondering if the library community has thoughts on such, perhaps
>> >having weighed the " pros & cons" of administration savings vs
>> >quality-of-purchases and would care to share/discuss its
>> >opinions/experiences?
>> >
>> >Yours in curiosity,
>> >
>> >Vic Zoschak
>> >
>
>Peter Graham, Syracuse University Library
>