This post is the first part of a two-in-one post by Corey Halaychik, Head of Content Management at The University of Texas at Austin Libraries and the Founder of The Library Collective, an independent nonprofit organisation dedicated to education and innovation for better librarianship.

Libraries have long been the backbone of academic and public access to knowledge. But over time, we have handed over too much control to vendors—companies that provide us with books, databases, discovery systems, and other essential services. The recent announcement by Clarivate Unveils Transformative Subscription-Based Access Strategy for Academia – Clarivate is a new subscription-based access model has caused a stir, and rightfully so. It’s yet another example of how vendors are making decisions that affect libraries, often without our input.

The Vendor Problem

For too long, libraries have followed the lead of vendors who promise cost savings and efficiency with new services and acquisition models. But in doing so, we’ve slowly given away our power. These vendors now control vast amounts of our content, determine how it’s accessed, and dictate the rules of engagement. The shrinking number of vendors means fewer choices for libraries, making it harder for us to push back against unfavourable changes. Despite vendor reassurances, we must remain sceptical of their intentions and the long-term impact of their business decisions.

The Consequences of Vendor Dependence

Relying on vendors to manage and store content can have serious, unintended consequences. Take, for example, THE GOVERNOR, Texas Executive Order GA-48. This order restricts higher education institutions in Texas from purchasing or contracting services from companies based in certain countries, including China and Russia. Libraries that have signed long-term contracts with these vendors now face difficult questions: What happens to the content with perpetual access housed on servers owned by these companies? How do we ensure continued access to critical resources when external factors suddenly make our agreements invalid? While it’s easy to blame policymakers, we must also look at our own actions. Have we made ourselves too reliant on vendors to manage our collections?

The same caution should apply to AI. Vendors are quick to roll out AI-powered solutions for discovery, research assistance, and even cataloguing. But do these solutions serve libraries and their missions, or are they just another way for vendors to tighten their grip on our institutions?

The Risk of Being Replaced

We are approaching a dangerous tipping point where vendors could replace academic libraries altogether. Imagine a company that owns the content, the platform for accessing that content, the search tools for discovering it, and the systems that track research impact and funding. A vendor with this level of control could approach a university’s research office and offer a complete package—providing access, discovery, and assessment—all at a price that seems more “affordable” than maintaining a fully staffed library. And when administrators see the potential to cut costs by eliminating library staff positions, the choice might not be in our favour.

This situation could be further exacerbated by the perception—fair or not—that libraries are politically biased. A vendor promising a neutral, a political approach to knowledge management might seem like an attractive alternative to decision-makers.

This isn’t just a theoretical nightmare. Vendors have already demonstrated their willingness to acquire smaller companies and bundle services to create all-in-one solutions. If we don’t act, libraries risk becoming obsolete, replaced by commercial entities that prioritise profit over knowledge.

A New Path Forward

To counter this, libraries must rethink their relationship with vendors. Instead of seeing them as essential partners, we should view them as both collaborators (for now) and competitors in the information ecosystem. It’s time to take back control.

One solution is for libraries to form stronger coalitions—not just to negotiate better pricing, but to actively create the content, systems, and platforms we need. The framework for this already exists in consortia, national library systems, and university networks. But we need to go further. Imagine if every library in a university system pledged 10% of its collections budget to developing new journals or books, working directly with faculty to establish editorial boards. Or if a group of libraries redirected a portion of their salaries and benefits to hire technologists to design integrated library systems.

By pooling our resources, we could create a vast network of expertise that is fully funded, sustainable, and independent of vendor control. Instead of waiting for vendors to dictate what we should buy and how we should operate, libraries would drive innovation on their own terms. At the risk of sounding alarmist, it is time we create a Defence Pact against vendors who pose a very real risk to our existence. Libraries must make themselves indispensable to the academic world—not just as places or repositories of knowledge, but as active creators of content, technology, and scholarship.

The Time to Act Is Now

The shrinking vendor landscape isn’t just a problem for libraries—it’s a crisis. If we continue down this path, we risk losing our ability to shape the future of information access. But if we take bold steps now, we can reclaim our power and ensure that libraries remain essential institutions, built by and for the communities they serve.

Libraries don’t have to be passive consumers of vendor products. We can be creators, leaders,
and innovators. The question is: Are we ready to take that step?