The major factors for libraries’ purchase of academic e-books are user needs, availability and accessibility, and their use as a complement if print titles are unavailable (Maceviciute et al., 2014). The most frequently used acquisition models are demand-driven acquisition and evidence-based acquisition.

With demand-driven acquisition, titles are available to users, but only those that are read are paid for by the library (Scott & Arthur, 2026). Libraries are relieved of additional costs and provide users with relevant titles, thus ensuring that the process is cost-effective (Coghill, 2019). With evidence-based acquisition, a large e-book collection is made available for a fixed period. At the end of that period, librarians choose the titles for their collections based on usage statistics, cost, and quality (Bucknell, 2012; Proctor, 2015; Scott & Arthur, 2026).

The advantages of demand-driven acquisition are that a large amount of content is made available to users, which in the long term leads to a large e-book collection with instant access to content that is actually read (Bucknell, 2012). Kont (2015) assesses the cost of e-book related ventures by using the time-driven activity-based costing method. In a different study, Kont (2021) applies this method to analyse time and cost efficiency of the e-book acquisition and cataloguing process in contrast to print books. The results show that e-book workflows require considerably less resources than print workflows. Kont (2020) also investigates the time and cost efficiency of demand-driven acquisition with short-term loans and finds that short-term loans are the most cost-effective method for access to e-books.

Further supporting these findings, Rogers (2018) analyses usage statistics for e-book titles selected by library users and librarians at the University of Mississippi Libraries and finds that user-selected titles are read more frequently than those selected by librarians. Similarly, Downey et al. (2014) research demand-driven acquisition and its corresponding work processes and compare them to print collections, considering costs, publishers, circulation, and publication. The authors state that demand-driven acquisition results in more active e-book use than print. Schroeder and Wright (2011) also conclude that demand-driven acquisition is favoured at Brigham Young University, as the use and circulation of large e-book packages and print collections are decreasing. Likewise, Walker and Arthur (2018) compare the use and subject matter of demand-driven acquisition e-books to print collections at the University of Alabama Libraries. Here, demand-driven acquisition e-books are used more and align more with the subject matter as compared with print titles.

Yılmaz and Ünal (2022) assess the issue of cost-benefit ratio regarding e-books at Hacettepe University Libraries and note that although evidence-based acquisition may lower costs by focusing on frequently used titles and thus benefit library budgets, it can also lead to difficulties for smaller libraries that have only limited experience with collection management. Tran and Guo (2021) also analyse the implementation of the evidence-based acquisition model in engineering and science faculties by comparing this approach to an existing STEM e-book collection. Their results show that evidence-based acquisition is more cost-effective, noting that it should not be a replacement but rather a supplement to e-book collections. The authors also state that evidence-based acquisition can be useful in other fields, such as medicine, the humanities, and social sciences, as it may be more cost-effective than demand-driven acquisition. In addition, Palazzolo et al. (2024, as cited in Scott & Arthur, 2026) investigate librarians’ attitudes, motivations, adoption, and selection criteria during evidence-based acquisition. Preliminary findings indicate that title selection is influenced by usage statistics, implementation in the curricula, title availability, long-term use, titles corresponding to the content of current e-book collections, short-term cost per use, electronic formats, and print duplication. The renewal or discontinuation of evidence-based acquisition is influenced by the amount of titles used, long-term cost per use, changes in content, and management-related issues.

Bergstrom and Skinner (2025) note that academic libraries purchase e-books through different acquisition methods aligned with local requests and current library budgets. Demand from researchers and faculties remains crucial to the e-book acquisition process, and it is the librarians’ duty to guarantee access, availability, and preservation of e-titles. Their research shows that a majority of librarians favour evidence-based acquisition because of the cost-benefit ratio. However, acquisition through demand-driven acquisition is often avoided because of maintenance issues. The challenges related to e-book acquisition include a lack of expertise among librarians and complicated licensing and publisher contracts.

According to Bergstrom and Skinner (2025), a standardised model would ease the acquisition process and relieve librarians of unnecessary workload. To circumvent recurring licensing and administrative problems, librarians would opt for print instead. In this context, Walters (2013) notes that licensing restrictions and digital rights management may complicate the work with and use of e-books and lead to frustration among librarians and users, as content cannot be easily accessed due to limitations on viewing, printing, highlighting, and downloading. Licensing issues may further limit the number of simultaneous users (Armstrong & Lonsdale, 2005; Coghill, 2019). The benefits of evidence-based acquisition are shown in an array of recently published titles within a large e-book collection. Challenges include pricing, the saturation of already known titles, and that new titles may not yet be well documented (Scott & Arthur, 2026).

Andreasen and Kotler (2003) and Dolnicar and Lazarevski (2009) describe libraries as non-profit organisations that should use a customer-centred approach that focuses on user behaviour. Customer service can be considered a form of social marketing. The aim of this kind of marketing strategy (Kaur, 2009; Kotler, 1979) is to create greater value for library services rather than selling a product. Marketing techniques applicable to non-profit organisations may include the 4P model: product, place, price, and promotion (Kwan et al., 2023). This can be extended by including people, physical evidence, and process. The mixed marketing strategy can be successful, as it entails both material dimensions, such as product and place, and social dimensions, such as library patrons. The promotion of e-books to users may be essential for making university libraries’ supply of e-books more accessible and provide users with the opportunity to become more experienced with e-books.

In their study on user awareness of academic e-books, Blummer and Kenton (2020) observe that students, faculty, and library staff are predominantly uninformed about academic e-books. They state that inferior user interfaces and incomplete metadata are some of the reasons why there is a lack of knowledge about e-books in academic libraries. The authors therefore encourage university librarians to promote e-books to gain wider readership. Research by Lonsdale and Armstrong (2010) and Vasileiou and Rowley (2011) shows that promotional efforts include websites, online public access catalogues (OPACs), emails, newsletters, bulletin boards, and physical or online workshops.

Social media can also be applied as a more recent method for promoting e-books (Choi & Joo, 2021; Kaushik, 2016; Muhammad & Zhiwei, 2021). Other studies analysing the marketing of e-books conclude that promotional efforts may positively influence user awareness. Jain (2014) considers social media marketing to be more time- and cost-effective and argues that it also attracts younger audiences. Social media here serves as an interactive discussion forum between library staff and users (Kaushik, 2016). Problems and challenges to successful social media marketing of e-books include lack of staff and financial resources, lack of expertise among librarians, and issues relating to IT infrastructure (Choi & Joo, 2021).

The study was conducted with thirteen participants from eight southern Swedish university libraries (see Table 1). For reference, there are 108 libraries at thirty-nine universities in Sweden. The eight university libraries in this study vary in size and house a multitude of faculties and departments. They specialise in business, engineering, communication, health sciences, social sciences, information science, physics, mathematics, biomedicine, theology, and the humanities.

The number of registered students at the universities ranges from 10,000 to 53,000, and e-book acquisitions range from 157,000 to 928,000 per library. The librarians who participated in the interviews were either employed at a specific faculty or unaffiliated. In the latter case, they were part of the university’s media division or similar services.

Participants were recruited by email sent to the head librarians of university libraries in southern Sweden. The reasons for choosing university libraries in southern Sweden were to facilitate in-person interviews, as the authors reside in this part of the country, and because the south is more densely populated and consequently has more university libraries. Of the fifteen university libraries that were contacted by the researchers, eight agreed to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with librarians or other staff affiliated with the acquisition of electronic media or similar tasks.

As this study is based on a small number of interviews with representatives of Swedish academic libraries, it does not attempt to make generalisations about other academic institutions. The answers provided should not be considered generalisable to the whole population or to library staff across Swedish institutions. Furthermore, the fact that the chosen libraries are situated in southern Sweden could be seen as introducing geographical bias. Five libraries chose one representative whose knowledge covered all aspects of the research and interview questions, whereas the remaining three libraries selected several representatives from different faculties with expertise in e-book acquisition processes and policies. Seven of the eight interviews were conducted on site, whereas the final interview was conducted via Zoom. Five of the eight interviews were conducted in Swedish and three in English. Swedish interviews were translated into English by the study’s first author. The participants’ responses were edited for grammar but were otherwise unchanged.

An interview guide was prepared beforehand (see Appendix). The guide was essential to ascertain that all necessary topics relating to the research questions were covered in the interviews (Wildemuth, 2017). To find relevant questions for the interviews, a pilot interview was conducted with a librarian from the University of Borås. The questions asked in the pilot interview formed the basis for the subsequent research interviews.

The interviews followed the same structure. The participants were first asked to state their respective occupation and faculty or division at the library. This was followed by questions on the acquisition and selection criteria for e-books, including whether the libraries have distinct acquisition policies or plans. The next section focused on acquisition models, such as evidence-based acquisition, demand-driven acquisition, and the credits model, as well as which models were used by the libraries. Participants were then asked about the acquisition process, including the number of e-books acquired annually and, if possible, other e-media, as well as their subject areas. This section also covered whether there was a budget for e-books or e-media, distinct from that for print media.

Further questions covered licensing (licences for one or more users), digital rights management (saving and downloading content), and open access. Participants were also asked how they promote e-books and to what degree they were successful in making e-books visible to users. The following section covered librarians’ acceptance of and feedback on e-book use and, if possible, feedback from students and researchers. The last segment of the interview guide dealt with the similarities and differences between the working processes of print and e-books, as well as future trends in academic and non-academic e-books and the technological development of the medium.

The design of this study supports methods that strengthen both reliability (consistency) and validity (accuracy) in the research process (Bryman, 2016). Reliability refers to the use of an organised data collection method consistent with the research problem and its questions (Poortman & Schildkamp, 2012). In this study, reliability, that is, whether the study can be replicated, was ensured by the use of a concise interview guide with questions related to the research goal and topic. The interview guide was assessed beforehand, and the interviews were recorded to guarantee objectivity and minimise errors during the interview sessions. Reliability was further enhanced by all participants receiving the same questions and by conducting the interview process in the same way. The interview process was as follows: participants signed a consent form; their names were anonymised; and the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and evaluated. Participants were free to add their own opinions and thoughts relevant to the topic. This led to a variety of responses to the same interview questions. The data were analysed thematically and coded consistently across all interviews.

The validity of the research was ensured by identifying similarities and differences in patterns and opinions among participants, and by distinguishing important elements and reasons for these patterns (Poortman & Schildkamp, 2012). The similarities and differences among participants’ responses were identified and summarised. By engaging with the participants, the researchers were able to identify relevant information and observations. Inconsistencies or differing views among participants were also noted, and the motivations for these differences were pursued.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of Good Research Practice (2017) and adhered to the ethical standards for research in the humanities and social sciences issued by the Swedish Research Council (2002). These standards required consent by the participants, confidentiality, and the proper use of the research material gathered by the authors. The consent forms were signed by the participants before the interviews and the participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time. During the interviews, no personal or sensitive information was requested, and only participants’ names appear in the transcripts. For the Zoom interview, only an audio recording was used in the analysis and evaluation of the text. The participants were later anonymised, and no names are present in the final text and citations. It should therefore not be possible to identify the participants. The participants were also informed that the data would be treated confidentially and not be shared with third parties.

The interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone and a mobile phone with built-in recording software. The transcripts were later approved by the participants and, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) guidelines, digital copies of the interviews were deleted once the study had been completed and reviewed.

During data analysis, open coding was employed (Bryman, 2016), where data considered important to the research questions were gathered and grouped into several themes and topics for further analysis. The ensuing analysis of these categories generated the findings (Bryman, 2016; Wildemuth, 2017).

The approved interview transcripts were printed and grouped into themes and topics. They were then labelled and further assembled into similar themes. MS Word and Excel were used to arrange the material into distinct units, and similar topics were colour-coded for a better understanding of the data. Some interview questions were subsequently chosen by the first author of the study as individual topics in the final text, for example those concerning digital rights management and the promotion of e-books. Other topics were added later during the coding process, such as the division between print and e-books, accessibility, availability, and cost-effectiveness. Topics that were recognised at a later stage during the coding process were licensing, accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and the credits model. The last step in the coding process was reorganising the data (Kvale et al., 2014) to assemble the relevant data and draw conclusions.

The majority of interview participants mention that the promotion of academic e-books is either lacking or insufficient. The main reason for this problem is that plans or policies are incomplete or non-existent. The libraries have attempted to advertise their e-books to users, with varying results. Several participants (P05, P11, P13) also emphasise that they would use the term make aware rather than promotion when referring to e-books. In addition, several librarians state that the terms promotion and advertising are connected to for-profit organisations, whereas libraries are non-profit institutions with an altruistic goal. Here we can see an example in which the practice of promotion is considered to come from organisations other than libraries, and the reasoning behind this in regard to the doings is unclear, as libraries are in fact promoting e-books (Schatzki, 2002).

Several participants (P04, P12) point out that the methods for promoting e-books are digital communication channels, such as social media, newsletters, and emails. Using this approach, librarians intend to raise awareness among students and researchers of the existence of e-books. Other methods are, for example, placing bookmarks inside physical titles that are also available as e-books, and the use of QR codes on bookshelves where both the physical and electronic versions of a title are available (P04, P06, P12). Participant P04 continues:

Several participants mention that these efforts were unsuccessful and did not improve the visibility of e-books. This is because users do not understand the purpose of the bookmarks in physical books, nor do they realise that the QR codes are important for searching e-books. The practice is unclear to the library users, as they do not understand the point of the QR codes, and thus the general understanding of the action fails (Schatzki, 2002). The aggravating factor is that there must be both a physical and a digital copy of a title for QR codes to work. Participants P12 and P13 also mention that it is tedious to add QR codes to each title that is also available electronically. If a specific title is born digital, users may not know that the title exists.

Other promotion methods include TV screens, billboards, personal meetings, and workshops held on campus or via video calls. Most of the librarians refer to the fact that users are themselves responsible for finding e-books in the university libraries’ online catalogues. It is suggested that once there is a need for a specific e-title, users act accordingly and search for relevant titles. Participants P05 and P13 explain that e-books, especially e-textbooks, promote themselves because they are part of the curriculum. Therefore, if the practice is clear, the doings and actions follow. In this context, user demand influences the supply of e-books. According to one participant (P05), ‘It is because of user demand that we purchase e-books’. E-books are therefore read because they are in demand.

Personal meetings and conversations with library staff can also be a form of social marketing in which librarians make users aware of e-books: ‘Promotion in this context also means that staff meet users at the counter and in workshops. Our colleagues teaching in workshops help students and researchers to be acquainted with our resources which are databases, search functions etc.’ (P05). If these methods are not feasible, librarians then rely on complete metadata records to make e-book titles more visible and searchable in the libraries’ online catalogues (P12).

The role of teachers and the curriculum is also debated. Instead of promoting e-books, it is argued (P11, P13) that users ask for specific titles that are obligatory reading for courses. Teachers request the titles before the semester, and librarians purchase them. In this case, additional promotion through social media or newsletters is unnecessary. Participant P11 further explains:

According to P13, having a dialogue with teachers is essential for purchasing e-books that are required for the seminars. Making e-books visible to users would then be the teachers’ task through communication with students and researchers. Librarians would refer to available e-book links in the online catalogue. Participant P13 continues:

Participant P12 further mentions that because of their intangible nature, it is difficult to promote e-books visually as opposed to physical books. The materiality of tools, in this case books, has an impact on how practices are carried out.

The routinised practices connected to physical books are non-transferable to digital books (Schatzki, 2002). Moreover, librarians refer to e-book lending statistics as proof that they are used and, therefore, do not need to be promoted or advertised. This can, however, be considered negligent and counterproductive in the promotion of e-books, as the same can be said for printed books. The practice of promotional efforts could thus be aimed at users who are unfamiliar with e-books or want more information about them.

Other participants (P04, P12) state that, to make users aware of their e-books, they promote e-media monthly, predominantly through social media. This method can entail, for example, e-books and databases, with the goal of making e-resources more visible to library users. Other methods for promoting e-books are personal meetings with library staff or digitally, via video calls. Although being ambitious, these approaches have either been very unsuccessful, as promotional efforts regarding e-books would not reach students, or the planning was not sophisticated enough, as P04 points out:

Technical and organisational limitations may contribute to promotional efforts for e-books not being well received by users. Because of their intangible nature, e-books may be more difficult to promote than printed books. Moreover, a lack of staff, funding, and expertise in marketing further compromises promotional efforts. Making digital content visible can thus be a cumbersome process, as the study’s participants frequently point out. Digital channels such as social media, newsletters, and emails can prove to be a fruitful approach to promoting academic e-books to users. Participant P03 highlights this method:

Participant P03 also explains that teachers play a major part in requesting e-books because they need them for their seminars. This also means that specific e-books that are not necessarily part of the curriculum are requested by students and researchers. Additionally, teachers can inform their colleagues about recent e-books and are encouraged to use open access material for their coursework. Participant P03 further mentions that the university’s online public access catalogue is intended merely for external users and that students, teachers, and researchers use the intranet instead. As P03 explains, giving out information about new arrivals can be confusing for users, and larger promotional efforts regarding e-books are difficult to manage. Hence, the institution with which P03 is affiliated relies on small campaigns instead of advanced marketing methods, as smaller ventures may be easier to manage.

Participants P09 and P10 further argue that promotional efforts for academic e-books are difficult to realise because promotion in this case would not only be applied to the digital but also to the physical library. According to P09, using statistics may help assess users’ lending behaviour, and ventures such as QR codes and TV screens may help to make e-resources visible to users. Participant P09 continues: ‘You come into a physical library and see many printed books. How should one know that there are also a huge number of e-resources? That is a challenge for us’. Participant P10 agrees with P09 that making e-books visible is a rather difficult task and further explains:

Furthermore, P10 describes personal contact with users at the library counter as a way to gain knowledge about specific titles or areas of interest. For instance, during the examinations period certain titles are more important for users, and librarians should communicate which titles are relevant. A prerequisite in this regard is that librarians should be responsive, offering the right information at the right time. As P10 explains:

Participant P09 explains that collaboration with the instruction team is seen as fruitful because it allows librarians to obtain the necessary up-to-date material for educational purposes, and to be on schedule with essential information for students and researchers. Regarding students, P09 states: ‘In the beginning of the term [students] should try to understand how to search, and at the end of the term they are writing exams and there are a lot of questions regarding that’. Participant P10 adds that there is an opportunity for digital meetings where researchers and students can meet library staff. Through these meetings, library staff can promote their services and inform users about e-books and other e-resources, which library users appreciate.

Participant P10 further refers to the question of whether they use a marketing plan at their institution as follows: ‘We rather do not want a marketing or promotion plan, [...] we have to be responsive and on time’. This implies an ad hoc approach towards promoting or making e-books visible to users. Hence, it can be deduced that work processes (acquisition, licensing, and promotion) in university libraries are centred on user demand.

During the interviews it became obvious that, despite a lack of a marketing plan for e-books, librarians are inspired to make users aware of e-books, although the effects vary and promotional methods could be improved.

In this study, the librarians prioritise user-based acquisition when purchasing e-books, which is also discussed by Maceviciute et al. (2014) in their study. Participants highlight cost-effectiveness, especially when buying e-book packages, an advantage also mentioned in research (Coghill, 2019; Kont, 2015, 2020, 2021; Scott & Arthur, 2026; Tran & Guo, 2021; Walters, 2013; Yılmaz & Ünal, 2022). Rao et al. (2018) suggest a hybrid model combining print and digital books based on demand, availability, and pricing, thereby benefiting both users (in terms of availability) and libraries (in terms of cost efficiency). Likewise, Bergstrom and Skinner (2025) favour a standardised model that would ease the acquisition process.

To secure high-quality e-book collections, e-books are often purchased in packages from renowned publishers. For the selection and acquisition process to work seamlessly, clear policies on budgets and collection development are essential (Evans & Saponaro, 2005; Walters, 2013). Sustainable e-book management requires integrating user-based acquisition into policies (Lee & Boyle, 2004).

The participants find evidence-based acquisition beneficial, as only used titles are purchased, although opinions on evidence-based acquisition and demand-driven acquisition remain divided (Coghill, 2019; Kwok et al., 2014; Palazzolo et al., 2024; Polanka, 2011; Scott & Arthur, 2026). Studies highlight the financial advantages of evidence-based acquisition and demand-driven acquisition over individual or print purchases (Bucknell, 2012; Carrico et al., 2015; Rao et al., 2018; Schroeder & Boughan, 2018).

In this study, media or acquisition plans regarding e-book selection exist, but it is not always explicit how the budget is administered between electronic versions and print. Most participants favour unlimited user licensing, with the credits model serving as an alternative if existing models prove either impractical or unfeasible.

This study shows that marketing plans for e-books are often lacking or unavailable and that past promotional efforts have been largely ineffective. Despite the absence of a consistent marketing plan, some participants employ various strategies to promote e-books to researchers and students. Still, many library users remain unaware of academic e-books because of limited promotion (Mulholland & Bates, 2014; Rowlands et al., 2007; Shelburne, 2009). Assessing the reasons for the gap between potential use and actual e-book users and ineffective promotion may improve future e-book acquisition. Promotional methods include emails, workshops, newsletters, QR codes, bookmarks, and social media, which offers interactive engagement (Kennedy, 2011; Vasileiou & Rowley, 2011). Social media may enhance visibility and foster discussions (Choi & Joo, 2021; Kaushik, 2016; Muhammad & Zhiwei, 2021). Customer service also plays a marketing role through direct interaction (Kaur, 2009). To improve e-book outreach, libraries should craft structured marketing plans incorporating users and channels such as social media and newsletters.