EBSCO vs. Gale: Time Inc. Says It Sought Exclusive Contract
Gale says Time only wanted an exclusive regarding distribution
Francine Fialkoff with Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 01/25/2010
- Time confirms it required an exclusive deal
- Gale maintains Time wanted a distribution partner
- EBSCO/Time won't comment further for now
(January 26 update: Here are links to EBSCO's responses to Gale and to questions posed by the State Library of Arizona and by the ICOLC.)
In the continuing controversy over the exclusive agreement made by Time Inc. magazines with EBSCO, Time Inc. on Friday confirmed to LJ that it had sought an exclusive agreement for its publications.
In an open letter to the library community issued last Thursday, Gale expressed concerns about exclusive licensing agreements and criticized EBSCO for its “long history of proactively approaching publishers and offering to pay a premium for exclusive rights.”
Gale, which said it bid for a non-exclusive contract, said, “EBSCO made its bid contingent on having the right to exclusively distribute the content in the library market."
However, EBSCO's Sam Brooks, senior VP, told LJ: “Gale referred to the Time Inc. RFP in their letter and made it sound like EBSCO initiated the push for an exclusive license. In fact, this is not the case.”
Questions for Time Inc.
Last Friday LJ posed several questions to Time Inc. spokeswoman Jane Lehman. The Q&A is reproduced verbatim below.
Did EBSCO initiate the push for an exclusive contract?
No.
Can you confirm that Time Inc. sent an RFP to multiple aggregators soliciting an exclusive licensing agreement for Time Inc. publications?
I can confirm that Time Inc. sent an RFP to multiple aggregators soliciting an exclusive agreement for our publications.
Librarians prize access and many have criticized an exclusive contract, especially for consumer magazines. How do you respond to these concerns?
Our goal is to provide the best and most efficient service to our readers.
Does the agreement cover all Time Inc. titles?
The agreement covers all Time Inc. titles in the U.S. that are available for aggregation.
Is this part of a strategy to put Time Inc. content behind a pay wall (it appears that it is in front of pay wall now)?
No.
Gale response
LJ sent Lehman’s second answer to Gale Executive VP John Barnes for comment, and he replied:
Following upTime sought an exclusive distribution partner of the content. In other words, they wanted to work with one party to distribute to all others, to ease the administrative burden on them. What they did not stipulate, and what I was referring to in my comment, was that the distributor restrict access to their content from other current distributors.
LJ sent the above paragraph from Barnes to Time Inc's Lehman and to EBSCO, asking whether the exclusive agreement referred solely to distribution or whether it addressed sublicensing. Lehman stated, "You have Time Inc.’s comments."
An EBSCO representative said EBSCO would let Time's response stand.
