Limited research exists on e-book usage rates in public libraries; however, studies have examined public library users’ reactions to using e-book reading devices.⁴ A majority of the research related to e-books is from academic libraries. Many studies are available on collection development, usage trends, format preference, usability, and advantages and disadvantages of e-books in an academic library setting. Of the studies that have been done on usage trends, many have concentrated on academic journals, with only a few focusing on e-books.

A study at Louisiana State University (LSU) identified over 2,800 print titles with e-book equivalents in its catalog. Usage statistics were collected monthly for a year on both formats and overall totals analyzed at the conclusion of the data collection period.⁵ These researchers found that the books in print circulated at a higher rate—29.27 percent compared to 19.60 percent of the same title in an e-book format. Like the LSU study, our study involves a title for title comparison of print books versus e-books but in the context of a public library and only with selected titles rather than all titles shared between both print and electronic formats.

Research conducted at the College of Mount St. Joesph’s Archbishop Alter Library examined undergraduates’ usage attitudes toward e-books. They studied students from the millennial generation, defined as those born after 1981: 66 percent of the students preferred a print book to an electronic one.⁶ This is a surprising finding considering this generation grew up in a digital culture. Similarly, a University of Denver study found that the majority of the study participants, 60 percent, preferred print titles over electronic ones and particularly so when they intended to read the entirety of the book. However, 80 percent of the participants used both formats.⁷ Research is lacking on public library users’ attitudes towards e-books. While our study does not specifically examine user attitudes or format preferences, it does examine the extent to which e-books are sought after compared to print formats.

In regard to the previously mentioned studies, one study found that print titles circulated at a greater rate than e-book equivalents, and two other studies found that academic library users preferred print to electronic formats. Most other studies have found that e-book titles circulate at the same rate or a much greater rate than the print versions of the same titles. When researchers at the California State University (CSU) Libraries compared the usage of the same titles in their e-book and the print collections, they found usage rates to be nearly similar.⁸ Their findings indicate that if titles are available in both formats, both will be used. Our current study also examined the levels of use between the two formats.

The following four studies discussed found e-books to circulate or to be accessed at a greater rate than the print books by the same title. Our study compared total circulations, as well as turnover rates, to examine which format had a greater rate of usage.

A study conducted at Columbia University from 1995 to 1999 found that e-book copies of a title also held in print were accessed three times as often as the print copies.⁹ A study at the University of Pittsburgh found that e-book versions circulated more than twice as often as the print and that a greater percentage of the e-book collection circulated than did the print, given the same titles.¹⁰

Littman and Connaway (2004) conducted a study at the Duke University Library comparing the usage of 7,880 titles held both in print and e-book format.¹¹ The study found that more titles were only used in the e-book format (34 percent of study titles) than used only in the print format (27 percent). Also, their study found that most titles were used in both formats at 39 percent. Similar to the CSU Libraries e-book study, Littman and Connaway found that the same title available in print and electronic formats were both used. Additionally, their study compared circulation rates of print books before and after the introduction of e-books. They found that print circulation declined by 22 percent, but overall circulation increased by 5.2 percent.

Like the previously mentioned use studies, the study presented here compares circulation rates for the same title in both print and electronic formats. This study differs in that the comparison is made of popular not scholarly works, a smaller number of book titles, and in the setting of a public library rather than an academic one. As this study is the first to compare e-book to print usage of public library collections, it is exploratory in nature and serves only as a start to understanding the use of e-books to meet information needs of public library users.

It is important to note that some libraries are a part of a consortium and share an e-book collection. As a result, titles are selected and added to the collection by the other member libraries in the consortium. While cooperative agreements aim to save libraries money, studies have shown that locally selected collections of e-books receive greater usage than collections that are developed through a consortium.¹² The public library used in this study does not participate in a consortium for access to e-books; all selection is done locally. In this way, both the e-book and print collections are both developed with the same community in mind.

Important to any discussion of circulation rates of e-book titles is the publishing industry. At the beginning of 2011, publisher HarperCollins instituted a checkout limit for their new titles licensed from e-book vendors. A new HarperCollins title may only circulate twenty-six times. After the title circulates twenty-six times the license expires, and the title must be purchased again if a library would like to continue to make it available.

HarperCollins representatives say the limit was determined after considering a number of factors, including the average lifespan of a print book, and the wear and tear on circulating copies.¹³ The new terms are not limited to OverDrive and apply to all e-book vendors or distributors offering the publisher’s titles for library lending. No other publishers have implemented a limit. However, it should be noted that publishers Macmillan and Simon and Schuster still do not allow e-books to be circulated in libraries.

Study limitations include the relatively short amount of time OverDrive has been available to library users (fifteen months) when compared to print title availability. Library users are likely to be more aware of and accustomed to checking out books in print formats. Also, the inclusion of lease books, which are more expensive than purchased titles, slightly advantages e-books when comparing pricing between formats. Another limitation is the difference in loan period for the two formats. Print books are loaned for three weeks and e-books for only two weeks. This difference could provide a slight advantage to e-books in terms of turnover rates but could also disadvantage use rates as users may prefer a longer loan period regardless of format.

Determining an exact overall cost of either format is difficult because of costs related to storage, staffing, cataloging, processing, shelving, licensing, and other resources involved with getting materials into the hands of a library user in any format. Costs associated to overdue, lost, damaged, and missing print material are not comparable to e-books which cannot become overdue or lost. Further, the library pays $1.50 for a preprocessing fee for each print book. Although there are no physical processing or storage costs associated with e-books, there is an annual site fee payable to OverDrive. The aforementioned factors were not considered in the average price of the books in this study. The comparison of the environments that support both of these formats is an important area of study but beyond the scope of this study.

Lastly, study findings will not be generalizable to the greater population of both libraries and public library users as this sample is small and based only on one library system. However, the study provides insight into the costs and usage of the same title purchased in both print and electronic formats in a public library setting.

An overview and comparison of the circulation rates are presented in table 1. Included in the overview is the total number of checkouts for the each of the thirty-four e-books as well as each print copy of the same title. As expected, given the multiple copies of the print format, print copies generated more circulation. However, on average the e-books circulated 15.5 times and the average for the print copies was 14.3 times (see table 2). Furthermore, the e-book circulated at an almost identical rate to the first print copy in circulation. The first print copies circulated a total of 533 compared to the total circulation of e-books at 526.

After a closer look, the first print copy did not always have the highest checkout total. These totals show a different story. The highest circulated print copies totaled 677 as compared to the 533 of the e-books. However, the data shows that seven of the e-book titles circulated at least as well as or better than the highest circulating print copy, and a total of seven e-book titles circulated more times than any of the print copies of the same title. Given this study sample, approximately 20 percent of the highest circulating e-books circulated at the same level or better than the highest circulating print copy of the same title. Further, sixteen of the e-books had more than five holds, which is the threshold for purchasing or leasing an additional print copy. If the same threshold applied to e-books as for print, an additional twenty-two e-book copies would have been purchased.

As previously mentioned, HarperCollins instituted a maximum number of circulations for each e-book title they sell. Once an e-book title from this publisher reaches twenty-six checkouts, the title must be repurchased at a discounted price. No e-book titles reached this many checkouts but interestingly several print copies did. A total of seven print copies exceeded the twenty-six circulations threshold and eighteen titles were in the range of twenty to twenty-five and likely to exceed the twenty-six circulations mark. Also of note is that of the 155 print books in the study, only three books were either lost, damaged, or went missing.

Using the actual price the library paid for the books with other factors included in that cost, the average purchase price for thirty-four e-books was $17.80, and the average for print copies was $15.68. Using the annual cost of the library’s lease program divided by the total number of books leased within a year gives an average of $18.33 per lease copy. Table 3 indicates that on average the print copy is less expensive than the e-book copy; however, the e-book copy is less expensive than a leased print copy. Print copies are still less expensive than the e-book copies when including the sixty-two leased copies in the average price paid for the print books.

Interestingly, the average cost per circulation of e-books, $1.15, is less expensive when both purchased and leased print circulation rates are combined, $1.17. Table 4 provides the cost per circulation for comparison. Purchased print books have the best return on investment at $1.11 per circulation.