1. Leaving the Big Deal: Revisiting the University of Oregon Experience
ASERL Collections Advisory Council
October 25, 2016
David C. Fowler

2. University of Oregon
Founded in 1876, the University has over 270 academic programs and another 20 research centers and institutes.
2011/12 FTE enrollment is 24,032; 20,538 undergraduate students and 3,494 graduate and doctoral students.
UO working hard to bolster our standing among top research universities by funding new programs in energy and sustainable materials, sustainable cities, biological networks, sports product design, volcanology, prevention science, life at nanoscale, neurons to minds, genome function and health promotion.
A recent gift from Phil Knight (Nike) of $500 million announced to fund half of a new $1 billion interdisciplinary science campus, that will employ 30 new research scientists plus support staff, and add another 550 graduate students and postdocs.

3. UO Libraries
Consists of Knight Library, Jacqua Law Library, Price Science Commons, Math Library, Rippey Marine Biology Library, Arts and Architecture Library and the Portland Library and Learning Commons.
85 faculty, 80 classified staff, 54 student workers.
3,423,840 volumes held.
4,167,518 microforms.
785,584 maps.
1,327,040 graphic materials.
$8,298,721 in materials expenditures

4. 2008-09 Economic Downturn and Subsequent Cuts at UO
Due to the economic downturn and other budgetary pressures, the UO took a 20% cut in state funding during that biennium.
The University raised tuition by 7.5% to help bridge the gap in Similar increases followed annually.
Similar cuts to what the University absorbed impacted the library initially.
Dating back to the last serials cancellation project in 2003/05, the library worked to eliminate as much format duplication as possible.
However, serials inflation was gradually catching up with the savings previously achieved, as illustrated here:

6. Library Issues and Problems
Journal prices inflate, on average, between 8 and 10 percent each year.
If we didn’t reduce the materials budget, our ability to purchase other collection items would be compromised.

7. The Plan: Eliminate any remaining format duplication in titles.
Target high-cost/low-use titles.
And crucially:
Some of our “Big Deal” deals would have to be broken…

8. The Plan…
We took the 2007 and 2008 journal cost and usage statistics and determined the cost-per-use (CPU), and then ranked them overall and within their aggregator/database. This information was provided to subject specialists to help guide their de-selection decisions.

10. Implementation - Elsevier
First, Pay-per-view access to Science Direct was rising at an unsustainable rate, and it was decided to cut this service.
The UO Collection Managers Group began meeting with their Oregon State University counterparts to look at general ways to collaborate on collection development in the future.
The biggest success from this effort was collaboration on a shared Elsevier collection deal.
Portland State University was later added to this particular initiative.

11. The Elsevier Deal
The previously-existing Elsevier deal covered the entire Orbis-Cascade Alliance (then 36 schools), not just UO, OSU and PSU.
Of the three schools in the new deal:
OSU: 55% of dollars spent
UO: 25%
PSU: 20%

14. Downsizing the Elsevier Deal
We initially needed a combined cancellation of 18% across all three schools.
Elsevier wanted us to hold cuts to 10%.
We negotiated a reduced content fee, which enabled us to reduce cancellations to 14%.
OSU and PSU needed to be released from their current contracts.
After some negotiation, we agreed on a three-year deal, with full sharing of a UTL, 14% cuts, a 12.5% content fee, and a favorable inflation rate. (0%/2%/5%)

15. Elsevier Downsizing Impacts:
While ILL/DD requests had risen dramatically overall, Elsevier title ILLs only rose modestly.
Pre-selection of titles based on best cost-per-use seemed to mitigate most customer dissatisfaction.
No significant student concerns.
Only a minor amount of faculty concern, due to the loss of certain STM titles, especially in Chemistry and Physics.
Considered a library-run PPV option for certain science disciplines, but effort was aborted over fairness concerns to other disciplines.

16. The Wiley Deal, Background:
Access to ~1,000 titles via the Greater Western Library Alliance.
Shared access to the majority via our GWLA partners.
Made 96 cancellations, worth $166,103 in initial cancellations.
Re-ordered desired/affordable titles:
278 titles, worth $353,513.
Loss of 534 consortial titles from GWLA partners.

17. Getting Rid of the Wiley Deal:
Mini-deal with OSU considered.
UO Collection managers were pretty battle-scared after long Elsevier analysis and re-negotiation.
It was determined that not enough time and energy remained to put together a second mini-deal.
Requested and received a single-institution “enhanced access license.”

18. Life in a Post-Wiley Deal World
300+ subscribed titles.
Currently pay $567, for subscribed titles. (Including Anthrosource and the Cochrane Library).
Still get partial access to 862 post-cancellation access titles and free titles.
For Post-cancellation titles, access generally stops in Jan 2010.

19. Post-Deal Wiley Expenditures:
2009 (before cuts): $519,616.00
After cuts:
2010: $351,567.02
2011: $379,315.03
2012: $402,973.93
2013: $453,206.50
2014: $493,922.56
2015: $516,050.70
2016: $541,452.59
2017: $567,834.08

20. Post-Wiley Deal Life
UO is generally happy with the results of the Wiley Big Deal cancellation.
We have adequate access to our highest-use titles.
Uptick in ILL/DD of these titles has been minimal due to the time spent at the front-end pre-selecting the titles that made the most financial sense.
We recently negotiated a cancellation clause.
Otherwise, not much has changed.
We may need to cancel individual titles further, with some campus budget cuts looming.

21. But, wait!

22. (Just when we thought we were out... Elsevier pulled us back in…)
In Summer 2015, the three Oregon schools entered into contract negotiations with Elsevier.
Elsevier put the Freedom Collection back on the table.
We initially anticipated rejecting it, as we had in previous contract renewals.
We found a large number of high turnaway titles that we could access with Freedom.
4.25% price cap with a five-year deal.
Option to revert to old UTL if we dropped Freedom later.
They tried hard to pull us into Scopus, but we declined.

23. In the end, it was the best financial deal for us, so….

24. Elsevier Now 2009: (before cuts): $406,566.20 After cuts
2010: $361, (-11%)
2011: $372,540.18
2012: $390,043.19
2013: $405,644.91
2014: $425,927.16
2015: $447,223.52
After Freedom
2016: $514,807.88
2017: $536,687.19
2018: $559,496.40
2019: $583,274.99
2020: $608,064.19

25. Aftermaths
We maintained electronic access to our most-used titles, while shedding many high-cost, low-use titles.
We had a sustainable materials budget for the next few years.
Inflation has caught up with us in the last few years, which, combined with campus budget cuts, has caused another round of reductions.
Considering another possible big publisher deal to eliminate at present.

26. Was getting roped back into Elsevier a Good Thing?
Negative: With current budget climate, it reduces our flexibility to make cuts to titles, as many are wrapped up into the Elsevier deal.
Positive: The new titles are getting well-used, so a demand is getting met for our patrons.
Positive: Budget stability with a small inflation rate for five years.
Big Positive: With the coming addition of a new $1 billion sciences campus, the library ends up looking prescient.

27. Thank you.
Questions?
David C. Fowler
University of Oregon