From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:35:29 -0600
Is not PDA a form of "usage-based pricing" for books? PDA services
provide access to all (or almost all) of a publishers' books, and a
usage metric determines when a purchase occurs. A budget for PDA
provides a "cap" on how much money is to be spent in this way every
year. This contrasts with the "approval plan" model where all books
fitting a certain category are purchased without regard to
demonstrated actual need, much as a subscription provides access to
all articles in a journal regardless of how many of them are actually
ever used. Are there significant differences I'm missing?
Sandy Thatcher
> From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:42:02 -0800
>
> Some reflections on the meaning of usage-based pricing, how it could
> work, what some benefits/risks might be and on why the libraries are
> the key agent if it is to happen.
>
> 1. Usage-based pricing (or payment) would make scholarly publishing
> more similar to trade publishing (i.e. number of purchases of any
> title). Also, usage based-pricing could be seen as subscription
> equivalent to article processing charges (making it interesting for
> publishers who have SB and OA offerings, allowing for the development
> of an integrated pricing model). Moreover, it would move scholarly
> publishing closer to higher education publishing (i.e. course packs,
> textbooks etc.), for which usage is key. In fact, HEI have lots of
> experience with usage-based purchasing, not just digital, but also
> historically, e.g. the university bookshop saw lots of 'usage-based'
> purchasing when students queued up for the recommended literature.
>
> 2. It is often said that scholarly publishing is (so very) different,
> but usage-based pricing does not preclude access to the whole body of
> literature (in fact, it might make it easier, as contracts can be had
> with all and any publishers, based on usage, with a cap imposed by the
> library budget). Also, usage-based pricing does not need to be at the
> dis/advantage of certain fields, because a field normalized (usage)
> metric can be developed, which weighs usage according to the size of
> the field (and usage habits) - akin to the weighing of citation
> metrics. Indeed, it should be easy to commission researchers to
> developed a such a field normalized usage metrics (and the libraries
> should be doing the commissioning if a broad alliance is not
> possible).
>
> 3. Libraries are probably the stakeholder that would benefit most
> clearly from usage-based pricing because it can now offer scholars and
> students access to all the literature (instead of selected bundles).
> Also, it re-establishes libraries as serious partners in scholarly
> communication (instead of as paymaster) because usage measurements
> will facilitate innovation (e.g. within research fields, unused
> journals will cease to exist and new ones emerge). Most publishers
> will need to adapt to usage-based pricing, but some are doing it
> already and all but the very largest ones (the top-two SB publishers
> with their own platform) will probably benefit because it helps them
> to restructure their portfolio. Even the two largest SB publishers
> (who benefit from big deals) can probably adjust their business model,
> and have the capacity to buy or add highly-used journals. There will
> be losers, of course: societies and scholars (editors) that have been
> able to hide low-usage journals in big deals. Also, intermediaries
> that sell bundles will have adjustment costs.
>
> 4. I am amazed somewhat that libraries have not been able to sit down
> together and develop a national or international usage-based pricing
> model. Of all the actions that libraries might take to serve their
> patrons and improve their position (finances, standing, influence) the
> pursuit of usage-based pricing would seem the most rewarding and also
> the easiest to achieve (compared, for example, to building and
> populating thousands of repositories).
>
> Chris Armbruster
|
