From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:44:57 +0000
Hi, Toby –
I do think the freemium model is very interesting. I’m not sure it
would work equally well across disciplines—it seems to me like it’s a
model that is most likely to succeed where the subject areas are of
relatively broad interest—but I too would like to see more publishers
try it.
Just to be clear: the revenue stream you guys are realizing through
freemium payments are making any additional subvention from OECD
unnecessary? So the publishing programs are entirely self-sufficient?
Rick
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]
From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:10:53 +0000
Rick,
As I’m sure you’re aware, Open Editions and OECD have each developed
freemium open access models that provide frictionless, check-out-free,
access to the full text of our content to non-subscribers.
Non-subscribers don’t need to register, they can simply turn up and
read their fill - there are no embargoes and the read-only versions
are facsimiles of the versions of record. In OECD’s case,
non-subscriber (and subscribers) can share and embed our read-only
files on social platforms and websites. Subscribers get access to
premium versions of the content, basically, downloadable, actionable
files, plus off-line support. Happily, both Open Editions and OECD are
finding that our freemium business models are generating sufficient
revenues to foot our bills, pay staff and fund investments - as well
as serving a growing readership on a legal and legitimate basis.
I would argue that our model, if adopted by other scholarly
publishers, would make SciHub largely redundant. Besides being legal
and legitimate, I believe freemium is the fastest route to making all
science freely accessible to all in a financially sustainable manner.
Toby Green
OECD
|
