Next Year’s Model? Online Journal Business Models On Trial Paul Harwood Content Complete Ltd NESLi2 Negotiation Agent ICOLC 2006

The JISC Report on Business Models for Journal Content Undertaken by Rightscom in collaboration with Information Power Work took place in 2004.Final report published 18 months ago port_redacted_for_publication.pdf port_redacted_for_publication.pdf

The JISC Report: Conclusions There is no ‘best’ or ‘ideal’ model No model can compensate for reduced funding while maintaining revenues to publishers The more radical models tended to be less popular as they were perceived as leading to a reduction in either predictability or profitability

The models addressed in the Report National Licence PPV Converting to Subscription PPV Pre-purchase Core Plus Peripheral Open Access – Author pays Open Access – Hybrid model Sponsored Article View or Day-pass

The models to be trialled: JISC asked CCL to undertake trials with libraries during 2006 of the following two models from the Report, or variations of them: – Core Plus Peripheral – PPV Converting to Subscription

Identifying trial participants: – The JISC Report was not encouraging on this front: “We are, though, concerned about the willingness of some publishers and libraries to get involved in carrying out trials at the moment. A trial is going to involve investment by all concerned”

The participants MODELPARTICIPANTS Core Plus PeripheralRSC with Open University and Warwick Core Plus PeripheralBMJ with Birmingham and Westminster PPV Converting to SubElsevier with Bangor and Leicester PPV Converting to SubIMechE with Greenwich and UCL PPV Converting to SubOUP with Glasgow and Liverpool All of the publishers, except IMechE, have Big Deal agreements via NESLi2

Departure from the models-why? Not possible for either libraries or publishers to trial genuine, non-library controlled ppv Need for ‘budget neutral’ outcome Sufficient interest from the parties to continue but using a download as a metric rather than a ppv Models with a usage element are becoming more pervasive (AAAS, ACS, T&F, Wiley) so it seemed appropriate to continue based on the interest of the participants (more interest from the publishers?)

What are we trying to address in the trials? Do these models offer any benefits over existing models (eg Big Deals) The models give access to ‘extra’ titles without some of the constraints of the Big Deal. Is this flexibility attractive to libraries and publishers? Are the models ones that both libraries and publishers might want to see in use? What might be involved technically, commercially, operationally in using such models? Are these models the tools to establish accurately which titles should be subscribed to and/or do they contribute to the move away from the concept of the subscription?

Core Plus Peripheral. How it operates in the trial A core list of titles agreed (eg a publisher’s package, or existing subscriptions) Unlimited usage to these titles Access is made available to all the titles of the publisher An agreed charge is applied to the downloads of non-core titles apart from ‘frees’ Usage data is monitored and evaluated Invoicing methods are agreed and implemented for non-core (core subs paid in usual way)

PPV Converting to Subscription. How it operates in the trial Access is given to all titles of the publisher Downloads are the key metric An agreed charge is applied to the downloads, apart from ‘frees’ Usage data monitored and evaluated When the value of the charges for a title reaches the level of the subscription price (or mutually agreed level), no further charges are applied, and unlimited usage Invoicing methods are agreed.

Mutations of the ppv converting to subscription model Trial 1: Closest to the actual model: Real, variable download rates being applied (based on publisher’s ppv rates) with a 15% surcharge required to reach subscription threshold Trial 2: Almost a pure download model capped at the price of the subscription but with the underlying notion that the subscription is not important, since downloads will simply be set to zero again at the end of the year Trial 3: A usage converting to subscription model with no surcharge applied. Core subscriptions maintained/modified as required

PPV and download costs Standard ppv rates for the publishers participating in the trials range from £7 to £22 Agreed download costs in the trials are: £3.50 (1), £5 (2) and £10 (1) and standard (variable) rates

Today’s update Limited information that can be disclosed due to Letter of Agreement between participants All libraries currently pay more under these models than they would for the respective Big Deals Focus on the some of the technical, operational and administrative issues to prompt discussion about usage models

So what are the key issues that have emerged to-date? Expenditure/usage compared with a Big Deal Free content Archival rights Invoicing/payments/administration HTML/PDF Reliability and accuracy of information Role of agents and intermediaries

Expenditure/usage Based on the costs per download agreed, all libraries will pay more in their respective trial than they would for their publisher’s Big Deal Similar pattern of usage of non-subscribed as often seen in conventional Big Deals We will be running some comparisons at the end of the trials based on the actual cost per download of the participating publisher

The growing amount of ‘Free’ content Promotional articles OA in all its guises (Delayed, Hybrid, Full) Two of the five publishers have announced hybrid models since we started the trials Already paid-for backfile content

The growing amount of free content Publisher to isolate and exclude all free content automatically via changes to their system (one publisher is working on this) If technically not possible, agree a percentage reduction – on total of all downloads – on the charge per download

Archival rights Any archival rights to downloaded articles in journals not subscribed to? (Core Plus) Archival rights to articles from journals that don’t convert to a subscription in the ppv converting to subscription model? More relaxed attitude to archival rights from publishers in general?

HTML/PDF All participating publishers, except one, offer both HTML and PDF independently. The exception only makes PDF available All participating publishers are COUNTER compliant and agreed to abide by COUNTER definitions Discussion about the different uses of HTML and PDF How to treat HTML and PDF views in terms of download costs? The recent JISC-commissioned report on this subject

Invoicing/payments/administration In the trials themselves, almost all invoicing/payments are hypothetical Publishers have produced working spreadsheets along with summary statements which are sent monthly to the libraries Further discussion at the next round of progress meetings to include issues like payment frequency, discounts for up-front payment etc For the second half of the trial, publishers are responsible for populating the data into the Core Plus model

Impact on library budgeting: What mechanisms can be put in place to avoid over-spend? Are University Finance Departments able to adapt to alternative, more granular payment arrangements? The importance of the Academic financial year and the inability to carry money over How much extra work involved for the library and publisher in monitoring the model?

Role of agents in the ordering process and usage data from intermediaries Interviewing the two leading agents in the next month to get their views COUNTER makes provision for where the responsibility lies regarding provision of stats Institutions are sending us their usage data from intermediaries to compare with that provided by the publishers

What happens next? Ongoing evaluation of usage data by libraries and publishers and impact on theoretical budgets Consider the payment model Consider further operational, technical and management solutions if models were to be used in live situation Understanding how the libraries and publishers might use the trial to inform future decision-making Discussion with subscription agents regarding their ability to manage such models Review of how these models are being used outside the academic sector and with what success Final one day workshop involving all project participants in January 2007 Interim report sent to JISC in August. Final report in January 2007

Thank you for your attention Contact information: – – –