From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:15:28 +0100
> "If there is not some way for us to find
> reasonable middle ground solutions to the bigger problems of shrinking
> budgets; changes in collection practices; changing user expectations,
> behaviors, and demands; and new models of publication then perhaps it
> is time for us to throw our hands up, admit defeat, and run for
> congress."
Well there is, for journals anyway: Pay only for Usage. The
essentials of the model are: we put all our content in a university
library, no subscription required. Article downloads are charged at
just $5 each. A price cap is agreed so the library budget is
protected.
A lot of interesting data has come out of the pilot project we have
been running. Striking is the finding that in some institutions,
never subscribed to content is much more heavily used than previously
subscribed to content, which could be interpreted as meaning some
subscription decisions were plain wrong. Also interesting is that
institutions that had never subscribed to any of our journals are now,
through this model, making good - sometimes quite significant - use
of them.
Through Pay only for Usage, the library is enriched, its patrons
benefit in an affordable way. The subscription model made good sense
in the era of print. But we've moved beyond that, so why not charge at
the article-use level? Apart from the practical benefits, the equity
argument, that you should only pay for what you have used, not
everything that comes in the wrapper whether you use it or not , seems
overwhelming to me.
So, before you admit defeat and run for Congress, think about talking
to publishers who can see what's wrong and actually want to do
something about it.
Bill Hughes
Multi-Science Publishing
www.multi-science.co.uk
-- Original Message -----
> From: Liz Mengel <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 15:27:01 +0000
>
> We use DDA here and for the most part I've been quite pleased with its
> role in our overall collection strategy. It is a part of the strategy,
> not the whole strategy. It represents only about 1.5% of my overall
> collections budget and therefore it is not, in my view, considered to
> be a replacement for purchase and/or ownership. We also know that many
> books purchased by academic libraries are never used. So publishers
> get the money for something that sits on the shelf, never used. Yes, I
> realize that is my problem, but that too is an unsustainable model.
> Especially when the year to year increases far outpace collection
> budget increases.
>
> One of the benefits I see from DDA is the ability to see areas where
> we are perhaps not collecting according to our patrons needs and can
> then adjust our approval profiles or collecting habits to include new
> areas identified from our DDA model. Unfortunately, I think what
> publishers fail to see is that the money I'm am paying for my DDA is
> not money they would have been getting without that model in my
> library. So from my perspective the question becomes, do you want some
> money or no money? Because neither my budget nor my patience can
> sustain 10-15% increases. If there is not some way for us to find
> reasonable middle ground solutions to the bigger problems of shrinking
> budgets; changes in collection practices; changing user expectations,
> behaviors, and demands; and new models of publication then perhaps it
> is time for us to throw our hands up, admit defeat, and run for
> congress.
>
> Liz
>
> Elizabeth Mengel
> Associate Director Scholarly Resources and Special Collections
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Sanfilippo <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 15:36:58 -0400
>
> Hello, I've responded to the letter on the Chronicle site, but I'll
> post my response here, saving you the need to click.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Sanfilippo
> Penn State Press
>
> *******
>
> "Wasn't the Short Term Loan model supposed to be an alternative to
> Interlibrary Loans? If that's not the case, and it's actually an
> alternative to collection development, then publishers are only
> discovering this now because an alternative to ILL was how it was
> presented to us. There are really only two ways for a publisher
> required (in my case, by our library) to meet expenses with sales
> revenue to respond to its use as an alternative to collection
> development. They can either remove their books from all PDA/STL
> platforms, or they can replace the lost income by increasing the price
> of the loan. This isn't price gouging, this is a survival strategy.
> Here are some of the reasons why university presses are beginning to
> either opt of PDA/STL or are raising their prices:
>
> 1) The EBL STL model is unchanged from its original incarnation. As a
> critical mass of libraries have made use of it, it is entirely
> reasonable and expected that adjustments would be needed.
>
> 2) STL was sold to publishers as an alternative to ILL and to make
> additional content not previously available to patrons (owing to
> financial constraints) discoverable and potentially available in an
> instant. It was not understood as a tool to be used *instead of*
> purchase. There's nothing wrong with rental, but the financial model
> must be sustainable for publishers as well as libraries. The expected
> use and actual use of PDA/STL do not match.
>
> 3) This is not "price gouging" or "maximizing profits". University
> presses are seeing year over year declines of about 15% in the library
> market and similar declines in the textbook market. This is
> unsustainable.
>
> 4) Libraries have never been able to make so much content available
> for such a low cost. Publishers have never made so much content
> available at such a great loss. Even at higher rates, content costs
> far less than ever before. Maybe if they paid a subscription for
> access to all that content, and then paid for ownership using
> sustainable triggers, price increases on the model wouldn't be
> necessary.
>
> 5) Consortial PDA models in particular have been difficult for
> publishers as evidenced in the data for Novanet
> (http://www.novanet.ns.ca/novan... and VIVA (described in the latest
> issue of Against the Grain, p 63). If the model cannot be fixed,
> publishers may choose not to participate.
>
> If PDA/STL models are actually replacements for the library and
> textbook markets, which from my perspective as a university press
> marketing person they are becoming, and the cost of creating the
> content isn't decreasing, then it is simply the market behaving as
> expected to a significant disruption. But, hey, thanks for assuming
> the worst of us."
>
> http://chronicle.com/blogs/letters/ebook-pricing-hikes-amount-to-price-gouging/#comment-1408811314
|
