Institutional subscription and content licensing models Society for Scholarly Publishing Thursday, 4:00-5:30 pm, 3 June 2004 Cara S. Kaufman, presenting

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC2 3 June 2004 Which model is right for you? What are your alternatives? Who’s using which model? How can you evaluate your alternatives? Tips for a successful transition “Make or buy?”  Publisher direct  Via third party licensors

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC3 3 June 2004 To bundle or unbundle? Bundled print and online subscription—still most prevalent  Online only option  Additional print Unbundled online and print—common among commercial publishers Archive  Bundled with subscription  Unbundled from subscription One-time perpetual access Annual access or maintenance fee No subscription required

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC4 3 June 2004 Examples Bundled print and online Unbundled Bundled, with online only option Bundled archive Unbundled archive

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC5 3 June 2004 Pros and cons Bundled  Pros Raise print price to cover online Maintains print Simple product pricing  Cons Unresponsive to institutional demand Does not recognize divergent content Unbundled  Pros Institutional demand Favor print or online Opens door for tiered pricing  Cons More complex Unintended consequences Transition issues

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC6 3 June 2004 Transition Bundled  online only option  Renew bundle  Promote online only option  Discount online or print? Bundled  unbundled  Price to meet objectives Push online? Maintain print?  Develop plan for renewals

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC7 3 June 2004 “One size fits all” or tiered pricing Single institutional rate  No matter the number of users  No matter the type or size of the institution  Typically small journals not on platform with numbers of other journals Tiered pricing  Concurrent users  Workstations  FTEs, relevant FTEs  Type of institution  Usage-based

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC8 3 June 2004 Concurrent users One or more users accessing journal at any single point in time Example May or may not reflect usage Can keep library’s costs down Restricts access Need platform support Difficult to administer, fulfill

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC9 3 June 2004 Workstation Number of IP addresses Physically located in library One concurrent user Lower cost option to site license Allows decentralized department access Limits use How to limit?

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC10 3 June 2004 FTE, example Single-site online and one print copy <2,999  3, ,999  12, ,000  >25,000 Total full-time faculty and students

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC11 3 June 2004 FTE Pros  Attempts to equate to usage  Revenues offset decline in personal and institutional subscriptions Cons  FTEs v relevant FTEs argument (many librarians dislike)  Difficult to determine tier

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC12 3 June 2004 Type of institution, example Tier 1  Primary/secondary school or Head Start program (on site access only) Tier 2  Community hospital or clinic  Community, technical, Associates, Baccalaureate, or Masters level college/university (non PhD granting)  Nursing school or allied health training program Tier 3  Doctorate-granting research university  Major teaching or research hospital  Medical or pharmacy school  Private, non-profit research institute Tier 4  State-wide academic institution—not a consortium or shared digital library but a single organization with separate campuses  Private, non-profit research organization or healthcare network (single institution with regional campuses) Tier 5  Consortia of academic libraries, hospitals

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC13 3 June 2004 Type of institution Pros  Easier to identify than FTEs  Carnegie Classifications, Am Hospital Assoc (# beds)  Offset loss of revenue from drop in individual, institutional circulation due to site-wide institutional access Cons  Can be difficult to select tier  Hard to figure for institutions outside of familiar territory

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC14 3 June 2004 Site use Early days  Tiered pricing  Measuring use to assign equivalent rate Am Physical Soc, BMJ  Collection development tool Big Deal—access increases use but identifies low use journals Focus groups—PDF downloads Marketing use  Linking  Subscription activation! COUNTER Code of Practice, Release 1, January 2005  Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources ( Journals  Full text article requests  Turnaways by month and by journal  Successful item requests and turnaways by month, journal, and page type  Total searches and sessions by service Databases  Total searches and sessions by database  Turnaways by month and by database

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC15 3 June 2004 Single institutional rate  tiered pricing Select type of tiered pricing Segment institutional file Establish price per tier  Introductory year/s  Increments between tiers Project circulation, revenue by tier Ensure pricing is aligned with overall objectives Realize that established pricing will not work for all markets, groups of institutions Stakeholder buy in  Institutions, agents  Marketing, customer service Ready systems  Subscription fulfillment  Online ordering  Policies and procedures, licenses Communicate rates and rationale  Announce early, often, in right places  Include institutions, agents, licensors  Renew at new rates

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC16 3 June 2004 Further expand access and revenue “Make or buy”  Distribute content directly to institutions Critical mass In-house sales and marketing Contract sales arrangement  Subscription agents  Independent representation  Distribute content to institutions through third parties Commercial publishers Third-party aggregators

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC17 3 June 2004 Types of licensors Abstracting and indexing services Marketing gateways Online hosts Content aggregators

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC18 3 June 2004 Abstracting and indexing services Gateway to content  Increase awareness  Search based  Aids in access  Where users start Examples  PubMed  Specialty databases CINAHL PsychInfo Chemical Abstracts  GOOGLE Model  Some selective  Publisher submits metadata, crawling  Service provider sells content, ads  No revenue share with publisher  Sometime links to full text (eg., LinkOut, GOOGLE)

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC19 3 June 2004 Marketing gateways One-stop shopping Conduits to content Examples  SwetsWise Online Content  Informatics’ J-Gate  Kinokuniya’s K-Port  Library-centric solutions Linksolver

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC20 3 June 2004 Online hosts Where full text is housed Primary platform Publisher paid  Hosting, maintenance  End-user features  Administrative access Cross-search branded at title level or service level Member and institutional Little direct sales assistance Examples  HighWire  Ingenta  EBSCO’s MetaPress  AIP

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC21 3 June 2004 Content aggregators Sales force Closed or open collection Selective  Proprietary to publisher  Platform specific  Subject collections Waived data conversion costs Royalty to publisher Discounting, cannibalization Examples  ALPSP Learned Journals Collection  BioOne  SpringerLINK  Ovid  ScienceDirect  HW Open Collection  ProQuest

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC22 3 June 2004 Evaluate potential licensors Be where your users are! Cost-effective sales force Concentric circles of users Identify costs, royalty projections  Negotiate agreements for value  Check references

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC23 3 June 2004 Open Access Not subscription based—no cost to users  Original research free to all site visitors immediately  Variations on a theme Delayed access  New content restricted, older content open  175 HW journals Publisher-driven  Eg., free original research, subscription required for review material (BMJ?) Author-driven  Eg., author-selected research, experiments  PNAS, Am Physiological Society

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC24 3 June 2004 Sources of funding Membership dues allocation Author fees  Manuscript submission  Publication  Institutional “memberships” Grants

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC25 3 June 2004 Open access Pros  It’s the economy stupid! Library budget crisis Taxpayers already paid for once, why pay again? Over supply of articles, lowers prices  Pro-researcher  May attract more papers, improve competitiveness  Lower barriers to entry; survival for others Cons  Unproven financial viability  Unknown impact Number and quality of submissions Peer review Copyediting Branding, selectivity Non original research content Accessibility through cross-searching, linking  Author hardship, field and region differences

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC26 3 June 2004 Subscriber paid  author paid Ability and willingness of authors to fund publication or ability to attract long-term subsidies, or both Determine necessary author fees  Total costs divided by number of articles published = author fees, subsidies Determine which costs are ongoing, which are transitional Offset editorial and peer-review costs Offset production (print, online) Subsidize other society programs, publication of non-original research (clinical, perspectives, news) Author promotion plan, tools Systematize author payments Transition plan

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC27 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC Cara S. Kaufman, Partner Alma J. Wills, Partner Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC 24 Aintree Road Baltimore, MD (office) (mobile) (fax) Selected clients  AAAS/Science  Am Acad Ped  Am Assoc Immunologists  Am Coll Cardiology  Am Coll Radiology  American Psychiatric Assoc  Am Soc Clin Oncology  ASPET  Rockefeller University Press  Intl Anesthesia Res Soc  NEJM  Proj Hope/Hlth Affairs Alma: former President, Periodicals Div, Williams & Wilkins Cara: former Publisher, Am Heart Assoc journals, The Lancet