From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
To: 'LibLicense-L Discussion Forum' <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:20:43 +0000

While I have long thought that different, at least partially usage-based,
charging models (perhaps along the lines of utilities, phones etc) could be
fairer, they are not overall likely to save librarians and readers any
money, unless publishers are able and willing to settle for less income.  Is
that the case?

Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
Email:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Sent: 17 January 2012 22:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Moving towards paying only for usage?

From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:45:13 +0000

As a publisher I sense librarian dissatisfaction about how publishers offer
their wares to libraries. Traditional single journal subscriptions are
condemned as too expensive; discounted multi-journal 'Big Deals' often
entail taking a proportion of unwanted,  unused, content.

Here, I want to briefly explore an idea which might go some way to meeting
libraries desires for better value from publishers, and creating a closer
relationship between payment and usage.

Take all amounts as purely hypothetical, simply for the purposes of
argument. Suppose, for an annual fee of $1500, a library could access all my
journals and the backfiles - see http://multi-science.metapress.com
Downloads would be charged at $5 each. At year end, if the library had had
more than 300 downloads, we would invoice them for the balance. So that the
library is protected from unlimited liability, we would set a cap, the
maximum we could charge regardless of how many downloads - say $10,000 for a
major institution, $3500 for a smaller one. To further eliminate
uncertainty, agreements could be for 3 years, with fixed price increases -
which could be 0%. 3 years worth of data would then give an equitable basis
for renewing, renegotiating, or cancelling the contract. The core point is
that, through this approach, steadily we move towards a world where payment
is for usage only, which is where librarians seem to want to be going.

It may be that this model or something like it is common anyway, so I am
merely re-inventing existing practice: it would be useful to be told. It may
be that there are practical reasons in the way libraries work, perhaps in
terms of budget allocations or purchasing cycles, that make this idea a
non-starter, and I would be interested to know about such constraints. Or it
may even be a useful thought.

I would welcome feedback from the library community.

Bill Hughes
Director
Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd