Institutional subscription and content licensing models

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

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC
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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

“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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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

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? 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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

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) 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

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 Cara S. Kaufman, Partner Alma J. Wills, Partner Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC 24 Aintree Road Baltimore, MD 21286 (office) (mobile) (fax) 3 June 2004 Kaufman-Wills Group, LLC

Institutional subscription and content licensing models

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Institutional subscription and content licensing models"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Institutional subscription and content licensing models

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Institutional subscription and content licensing models"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback