Ejournal pricing redux: perspectives

1
E-journal pricing redux perspectives

• Ann Okerson
• Charleston Conference
• Friday, 1 November, 2002
• Ann.Okerson_at_yale.edu

2
Pricing for the day after tomorrow

• We are all looking for better models
• Fairer ones
• More affordable ones
• Much of e-resource pricing already tries to be a
  surrogate for use
• Carnegie, budget, FTE, sites, etc.
• A feeble or blunt surrogate for now
• But better days are coming, right?

3
Pricing for the day after tomorrow (2)

• Will describe two models recently discussed in
  our consortium
• Applicable to publish packages
• The sliding scale model
• The pay for what you use model
• Both are more nuanced versions of current
  practice
• None got very far why is that?

4
Sliding Scale model (1)

• Applied when the basis of pricing is the print
  subscription and e- is the add-on
• And publisher offers customers free e-access to
  titles taken in print paid access to the rest
• Whats a fair way to charge for the rest?
• Extreme 1 library doesnt take many print
  titles low motivation for the rest
• Extreme 2 library takes most of the print
  titles low motivation for the rest

5
Sliding Scale model (2)

• Ergo, the middle range subscribers would pay
  the most for the rest
• Refinements are needed, for example
• Library chooses to cancel print and go e-only
• Cost becomes 80 of print price unsubbed price
  remains as per sliding scale
• Library chooses to cancel a title altogether
• Title moves from subbed and changes position on
  sliding scale

6
(No Transcript)
7
Pay for What You Use model (1)

• This model works for e-only as well
• It depends on usage data
• The usage data are put into a spreadsheet and
  graphed
• Customer identifies the low use point on the
  graph, where
• Loss impedes customer service
• Document delivery is affordable
• Or other factors

8
Pay for What You Use model (2)

• So, low use could be, e.g.,
• Uses below 50 per year
• Uses that average at a certain defined percentage
  of average use
• Or, one could define high use
• A cap would need to be placed on the high use
  so that predictable budgeting is possible

9
(No Transcript)
10
Miles to go

• Why didnt these work?
• They are not universally applicable
• They are not (as) easy to understand
• They need a lot of work (god is in the details)
• Libraries didnt like (usage data are so
  unsophisticated, price for use controversial)
• Publisher didnt like the idea (access loss,
  revenue loss)
• Maybe the models are just plain wrong
• Is it too soon? Yes and no!