Unit 6: Pricing models

Consortia and Pricing, part 1.
For this week, I decided to address each reading individually. So, here are the first few, with more to follow.

Fischer, C. Electronic Resources Pricing: A Variety of Models. Against the Grain 18.3 (2006): 18-22.

Cheaper by the dozen: bundle for a better deal...sound familiar? I know quite a few people who have cable that they do not use, just so they may get a better price on internet service. Since the big publishers are taking after the telecommunication companies, I wonder if libraries will soon be able to build your own bundle a la AT&T Uverse?

Do the services vary based on price model? I am thinking in particular about the size of the institution. In this model, according to Fischer, larger, doctoral-granting institutions pay more than smaller colleges. The assumption is partially based on the perceived amount of research conducted at said institutions, i.e., user statistics. Yes, larger institutions will have more users. However, are the services the same? Just because one library is from a smaller institution does not mean that users are not heavy researchers. Also, I am curious about the budgets for a small private college as opposed to a large public institution. I would think that the latter would have a larger budget in general, but how does that compare to the price per student and should that affect the pricing models? While these pricing concerns are addressed in the consortia model, what about those not part of a consortium? How would the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education be factored into the equation? It would be quite difficult to determine as libraries are typically not allowed to discuss pricing with other librarians.

The librarian's dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal". Frazier, K. (2001).. D-Lib Magazine 7 (3).

Yay for Ken Frazier!
Why should we learn collection management, selection, weeding, and the rest in terms of journal if our institution is just going to sign on to a Big Deal? The incorporation of game theory, “The Prisoners’ Dilemma” in particular, is quite provocative as an analogy. With that analogy, Frazier basically argues that the publishers wish all of us to “defect”, i.e., not cooperate with one another, as then more institutions will purchase a Big Deal, providing the publisher with more money and the institutions with fewer benefits. But then again, what does “cooperation” mean in this model? With whom are we cooperating and from whom are we defecting?

Big deal = good deal?. Rolnik, Zac. (2009).. The Serials Librarian 57 (3), 194-198.

No other option deal? With this technology, did we lose jobs/funding for graduate students?
If it is low cost distribution on the publishers’ end, then why do online subscriptions cost so much? Sure, it looks good on the surface and some end-users may find new titles from which to research, but at what cost? Librarians are losing their freedom to select and weed resources. The big publishers may incrementally take away more freedoms and control from librarians, and by extension, patrons. So the cost of each journal may decrease in a Big Deal, but are they used? What of other journals?

Consortia and Pricing, part 2.

The use of scholarly journals as the primary means of presenting research has its roots in 19th Germany, since 19th Century German institutions of higher education are the model for those in America now. Furthermore, pricing and space concerns were noted as early as 1833, but we did not see these concerns emerge until the early 20th century. The early price for books and other print materials coming out of Germany between the World Wars were based on the geographic location of the consumer or purchaser, with the exception of periodicals. However, there was a call for an increase in price for non-German or Austrian clientele. This idea may have set the precedent for high priced subscriptions to periodicals, which were then thwarted, or at least analyzed by librarian for lower prices, in the 1930s. Even though librarians today would like to have lower prices, the business models are not conducive to the methods used in the 1930s to effectively lower the cost of subscription. This is a catalyst for the recommendations presented at the end of the chapter by Astle & Hamaker. While I applaud the suggestions, I think we may need a new way of budgeting to implement these changes. What service (budget concerns) might be lost while librarians conduct a cost analysis on their subscription services? In the long run, that type of analysis will be beneficial, but that is difficult to prove when librarians are overworked and the implications of changing costs might not be seen until the end of the fiscal year.

Would a cost analysis help with the “Big Deal” and how do consortia fit in? As argued by Ricky Best, part of the issue that led to the serials crisis, especially at research institutions, is the requirement for faculty to publish or perish, where publishing must occur in a specific style of journal. The crisis led to PubMed, as any research project federally funded must be deposited into PubMed. Moreover, faculty need to be more proactive in selection and then using print journal titles, instead of insisting that the library have them. So, the consortial approach to licensing began as many libraries have eliminated print versions due to budget constraints. However, electronic formats should supplement print versions, not replace, plus librarians loose the opportunity to shape their collections through consortia arrangements and bundle packages. Yet, the Big Deal might be better for smaller libraries as more people may be accessing e-journals that library may not have in print, plus having online access may increase circulation, which is good for circulation statistics. Good deals on the Big Deal within consortia should involve larger institutions, yet the primary beneficiaries are the smaller and medium-sized institutions. OhioLINK has successfully negotiated for decreased content, thus setting a precedent for other consortia to re-negotiate. Furthermore, it confirms the ARL survey that indicates a decline in pricing satisfaction where 81% of bundle deals were from consortia.

Consortia negotiated deals and arrangements can be quite powerful, as indicated by the possible boycott by UC librarians and faculty leaders, aided by the California Digital Library consortium (CDL). One of the primary items that came out of this article is the recognition of pricing and budget concerns by faculty members, not just librarians and administrators. Furthermore, it also shows that taking a stand may help to curb costs. Most vendors would rather have the business than not, I would imagine. This also demonstrates the positive impact of collaboration between consortia members, which can be a challenge. How this plays out will be insightful. Afterall, as argued by Clements, library directors and faculty leaders often provide initial leadership in consortia arrangements, yet leave it up to the librarians themselves to deal with the fallout.