1. Coastal Carolina University
Leveraging Vendor Assessments of Usage Data
Judith Nagata
Coastal Carolina University
NC Serials Conference
March 31, 2017, Chapel Hill NC
Electronic Resources Librarian
Began November 2015 at CCU
Have been a librarian for 19 years

2. Kimbel Library & Coastal Carolina University
CCU FTE: 9,934
Popular programs: Education, Business and Science
Library Staff: 32 FT; 11 Library Faculty
Technical Services & Systems:
3 FT Assistants; 4 Library Faculty
Mid-sized university
Small # of Technical Services & Systems staff
Changes to the staff including new interim director
Last year: Cleanup to holdings and control of systems

3. Courtesy of OpenClipArt.org https://openclipart.org
Need More Time
Last years priorities have not included collection and assessing usage data.
We have a usage loading service for 15 vendors/publishers.
Currently do not have time to assess usage annually or otherwise.
Only on an as-needed basis.
Needed ways to do assessment; not a lot of time to do prep work.
Courtesy of OpenClipArt.org

4. Publisher / Vendor Representatives
Met with three different publisher or vendor representatives.
Meetings: In person or by phone
Vendor provides CCU statistical data and analysis
Provide information on 3 meetings all within one year
Normal meetings
Content of meetings has changed.
Provides more information (data) that helps with collection and access decisions.
This is not the same as “normal” usage data.

5. Publisher / Vendor Representative 1
The names of the publishers or vendors masked.

6. Publisher / Vendor # 1 Phone meeting to discuss tokens
How do they work? Who can use them?
Usage statistics of tokens at CCU
Alerted that tokens ran out by the end of Fall Term. Add more?
Limited collection of current titles.
This Publisher provided 150 tokens with our journal package subscription.
Can use for any front list or archive (back list) journal article w/o subscription.
Tokens are used automatically by CCU visitors; not given or assigned.
Token usage indicates what is being requested for non-subscription journals.

7. Publisher / Vendor # 1 Token usage only (we have no access to content)
Back files numbers are low.
Front file numbers are lower.
Only a few potential swaps for some current titles.

8. Outcomes Publisher / Vendor # 1
Analysis combines with our “normal” usage statistics
No swapping out any current titles
No purchasing backfiles
Considering adding tokens
Analyze data in 2-3 year groups of statistics.
Match use of current titles against token use.
Asked for meeting to understand token use: gathered more information about use in general

9. Publisher / Vendor Representative 2

10. Publisher / Vendor # 2 Met vendor representative at conference
Discuss what is being used and how
Discuss options for renewal or new purchase
Publisher #2 meeting a “normal” sales meeting.
Have a large frontlist package of journals, but no archive.
Motive to learn more about our collections for basic control.

11. Publisher / Vendor # 2 How our users get to publisher’s site
This is a new metric to me. Very useful information.
Heard more about this at Charleston Conference
Google Scholar or Google
Adds info on access points that I do not get from our own discovery / open URL resolver.

12. Publisher / Vendor # 2 For collections, in Archive
Highest numbers in the archive for specific subject collections
Grouped as subject collections without my having to match them.
Current titles are looking very good.

13. Outcomes Publisher / Vendor # 2
Analysis combines with our “normal” usage statistics
Consider adding some subject collection backfiles
Maintain access points: Google Scholar / Discovery
Combined with our own stats we can consider adding specific subject collection archives.
Need to drill down into each subject collection to get a breakdown by title.
Would like to see multiple year data for subject collections
All of this provides me areas to investigate more fully so I do not waste time.

14. Publisher / Vendor Representative 3

15. Publisher / Vendor # 3 Phone call with vendor
Not in-depth analysis, but summary
Breakdown unique compared to usage statistics
Another normal sales meeting
Questions about the content in our package.
Reps asking us how students/faculty use resources. Discovered that we did not have the correct information.
Sent additional data as an attachment.

16. Publisher / Vendor # 3 Source use: in state versus international
Access is very brief, but has some good information. (EBSCO is our Discovery service; we pulled this package out of Discovery)
Topics Searched: interesting data for reference/instruction.
Primarily an overview which began a conversation about content.

17. Outcomes Publisher / Vendor # 3 Provides insight to use of collections
In-state collections
International collections
Considering upgrade of collections
Includes more access information
Upgrade of collections began a conversation to negotiate pricing: increase in steps.
Began a conversation in the library on how we view this collection and use it.
While broad generalizations, I now know what to target in looking at our usage data.

18. Conclusions

19. Conclusions Usage data analysis from vendors:
Saves time
Adds value
In addition to your own usage data and collections knowledge
Access points information
Collections and/or searching information
Vendors do not want to lose sales so they will look for mutually beneficial data.
Check against your own usage data
Unique or clarifying information of usage data.

20. Conclusions Unreliable as an annual tool: Do not meet every year.
Contact representatives and ask for a meeting.
Request certain types of data or analysis.
Most useful for institutions with limited staff, funds, or collections.
Have met with vendors and used information for collections decisions in past.
This year more data-driven and vendor analysis used to make decisions.
Conscious use of vendor usage assessment to save time.

21. Coastal Carolina University
Thank You.
Judith Nagata
Electronic Resources Librarian