Purchasing BIOSIS Electronic Content Presentation to ICOLC4 Meeting Denver, CO October 2, 1998

Overview u BIOSIS Philosophy of Pricing u Introduction of Consortium Pricing u Beyond Academic Consortiums u Some Experiences u Some Problems u SUCCESSES!

Libraries Needs: u Libraries Offering “Off-line On-line” Services u Proliferation of Products Put a Strain on Budgets u Networking Offered Possibility of Saving Cost by Sharing Expenses

BIOSIS Options u In 1991 BIOSIS offered –International Tape Lease –National Tape Lease u Met the needs of –On-line users –National Information Systems

But... u Didn’t Meet the Need of Libraries for : –Institutional (Local) Access –Unlimited usage –Menu Assisted Searching –Campus-wide or Multi-Site Access –Consortium Pricing

Unlimited On-line Option u Introduced in 1992 u Flat Rate Pricing for BIOSIS Content BUT u Libraries had to Negotiate with On-Line Vendors for Access Fee u Or, the Library had to Acquire Search Software u Not Supported by On-Line Vendors

A Bit of History: BIOSIS Pricing Philosophy u Annual Subscriptions u Calendar Year of Data u Institution Owns Data u Training and Customer Support an Integral Part of Service

Pricing Philosophy, cont’d u Pricing consists of two components –Data or Content Cost –Distribution Cost (Print, CD-ROM, etc.) u Customer Charged for Purchase of Content Once u Distribution Costs Charged for Purchase of Same Content in Different Format

Pricing Philosophy, cont’d u In Summary, the Pricing Components are: –Creation of the Database –Distribution Costs –Support Costs u The “First Copy Price” is Central to BIOSIS Pricing Philosophy

1993 BIOSIS Introduced: u Pricing for Access by –Individual Academic Institutions –Multiple Sites within an Academic Unit –Consortiums u Same Philosophy Applied

Academic Consortium Pricing u Had to be Predicable, Flexible and Fair u Price constructed by –Establishing the First Copy Price –Price of Additional Copies Reduced u Same formula for Current Year and Back Files

Academic Consortium Pricing, cont’d u First Copy - Full Price u For Institutions with Serials Budget greater than $300, % reduction u For Institutions with a Serials Budget less than $300, % reduction u Field Stations, Community Colleges, Hospitals - 80% reduction

Academic Consortium Pricing, cont’d u Flexibility in Building Back File Configuration –Different Institutions can Purchase Different Years of the Same Product –Different Products May be purchased by Different Institutions within the Same Consortium u No Networking Fee Applied

Academic Consortium Pricing, cont’d u Equivalents established –Student Population –Number of Serials u American Library Directory used to verify U.S. Quotations u World Guide to Libraries or World of Learning used for International Quotations

BIOSIS Requirements for Consortium u Documentation on Purpose of Consortium u One Central Administrative Center for Billing and Technical Coordination u Centralized Education and Training Co-ordination Desirable u Profile of the Consortium Members

Issue: Non-Academic Groups u Pricing Introduced for Research Institutes in 1997 u Institutions Dedicated Primarily to Research u Could be Government or Corporate u Generally Spread Across Large Geographic Area u Bid by Number of Researchers, NOT by Number of Sites

Other Issues of Importance u Ownership of Data u Options should Insitution Drop out of Consortium u Option Should Consortium Cease to Exist u Archiving of Data u Redistribution and Copyright u Term of Contract and other Guarantees

In Summary: Applying the Rules... u All BIOSIS Products are Available for Bidding and can be Mixed and Matched to Make the Best Price u Quotations can be Produced Quickly u All Insitution with the Same Characteristics Get the Same Price

Summary, cont’d u All Consortiums are not Constituted the Same Way u BIOSIS does its Best to Maintain a “Level Playing Field” u This is Where the Art Occurs

So, What Has Been the BIOSIS Experience... u Consortiums have Expanded the Number of Schools Accessing BIOSIS Products 43 Consortiums = 292 Sites 43 Consortiums = 292 Sites u Many Smaller Schools have Benefited from Inclusion in Consortiums u New BIOSIS Personnel were Needed to Provide Quotation and Service

Some Statistics u US Consortiums 64.0% u Non-US Consortiums 36.0% u Academic Consortiums 66.0% u Non-Academic Consortiums 34.0%

More Consortium Statistics u Media Preference –Previews Tape/Online 52.0% –BP on CD 36.0% –BA on CD 12.0%

Some Differences

Some Problems Experienced u Expensive for BIOSIS to Respond to all Quotations u Consortiums Take a Long Time to Make a Decision u Schools Delay Decisions on Purchasing BIOSIS Products Pending Consortium Determination u Support and Training Expensive

Consortiums Have Been Beneficial to BIOSIS u Meet the Needs of a Changing Environment u Number of Institutions Accessing BIOSIS Products Expanded u Products Used and Supported OUTSIDE the Library u Tools Used by Faculty, Students and Researchers on Their Terms

In Summary... u It’s a Good way for Libraries to Share Costs and Expand Services u While they are Expensive to Bid and Service, they are Well Worth the Effort Thank You