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