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