From: Andrew Odlyzko <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:38:04 -0500

The latest report from ARL, published last fall, "ARL Statistics 2010-2011,"
shows (from chart on p. 5, in the Overview section, there is much more
detail in the 180-page report) that among the university members of ARL,
materials (books, serials, databases, ...) consumed 42.8% of the budgets.
For the historical evolution of this figure (which has grown, from 33%
in the 1989-1990 report), see the tables and figures in my recent paper,
"Open Access, library and publisher competition, and the evolution of
general commerce,"

   http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf

The 42.8% figure actually overstates how much is spent on acquisitions.
ARL statistics do not take into account things like employee benefits,
as well as (in many cases) maintenance of buildings, and so on.  Those
appear to add another 25% to the ARL-defined library budgets, so that
acquisitions are more like 33% of the total cost of ARL libraries.

An extreme case is that of the Library of Congress, which had a budget
of $690 M, of which $28.4 M went for acquisitions.  The next highest
budget was that of Harvard, where out of $109 M, $17.6 M went for
acquisitions.

So yes, library internal expenses are far higher in general (although
perhaps not for Mayo) than acquisition spending, and that seems to
be key to scholarly publishing economics.

Andrew

        -----Original message-----
        Date:    Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:16:12 -0400
        From:    LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
        Subject: Re: What are we to do with feral publishers?

        From: "Erwin, Patricia J." <[log in to unmask]>
        Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:25:08 +0000

        Granted, it depends on how and what you count, but I know that our
        resource budget is 50% for both books and journals. The other 50% goes
        for space, equipment, and personnel.

        --pat

        Patricia J Erwin, MLS
        Lead Reference Librarian
        Mayo Clinic Libraries
        [log in to unmask]
        507.284.4952

        **

        From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
        Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 21:04:59 -0400

        All the numbers are screwy.  Books and journals COMBINED comprise 24%
        of a library's total budget????  I know facilities management is not
        free, but could these figures be true?

        Joe Esposito

        **

        On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, LIBLICENSE
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

        From: Deborah Lenares <[log in to unmask]>
        Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:14:31 -0400

        To possibly add a bit more context to these numbers, it's very
        possible that libraries are not reporting figures that accurately
        represent spending on "books" and "journals."  The increase in
        spending on serials since 1999 has certainly been impacted by the
        availability of annually renewing databases.  Increased spending on
        "journals" is not an indication that journal pricing is out of
        control, it's an indication that libraries are buying more annually
        renewing resources.  These annually renewing resources might also
        include statistical databases, ebooks packages subscribed to or
        purchased on an annual basis, discovery services, full text databases,
        etc.

        Although I have admittedly not had time to read the entire article,
        the suggestion that the increase in spending on serials can be
        attributed to big deals I think is incorrect.  The article claims that
        multi-year contracts with 7%+ increases are typical.  I have never
        signed even a one year agreement that locks in a price cap that high.
        I very much doubt that that is a "typical" amount for a multi-year
        contract.

        Deborah Lenares

        Manager Acquisitions and Resource Sharing
        Science Collection Management Librarian
        Clapp Library - Wellesley College
        Wellesley, Massachusetts 02481
        [log in to unmask]


        On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:02 PM, LIBLICENSE
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

        > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
        > Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:05:36 -0500
        >
        > This passage was of particular interest to me:
        >
        > > Since 1999, spending on books has fallen by almost a fifth
in real terms, and from almost 12
        > > per cent of libraries' total spending to just over 8 per
cent. Expenditure on serials, on the
        > > other hand, has increased sharply: from just under £70
million to over £130 million. In real
        > > terms this represents an increase of 63 per cent;
journals' share of total library spendingrose
        > > from 16 per cent to almost 20 per cent.
        >
        > I was under the impression that this change in the ratio of book to
        > journal spending had ceased during the past decade, and that spending
        > on books had leveled off.  I can't cite any studies to that effect
        > right off the top of my head, but I wonder if others can?
        >
        > Sandy Thatcher