Institutional subscription and content licensing models

1
Institutional subscriptionand content
licensingmodels

• Society for Scholarly Publishing
• Thursday, 400-530 pm, 3 June 2004
• Cara S. Kaufman, presenting

2
Which model is right for you?

• What are your alternatives?
• Whos using which model?
• How can you evaluate your alternatives?
• Tips for a successful transition
• Make or buy?
• Publisher direct
• Via third party licensors

3
To bundle or unbundle?

• Bundled print and online subscriptionstill most
  prevalent
• Online only option
• Additional print
• Unbundled online and printcommon among
  commercial publishers
• Archive
• Bundled with subscription
• Unbundled from subscription
• One-time perpetual access
• Annual access or maintenance fee
• No subscription required

4
Examples

• Bundled print and online
• Unbundled
• Bundled, with online only option
• Bundled archive
• Unbundled archive

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Concurrent users

• May or may not reflect usage
• Can keep librarys costs down
• Restricts access
• Need platform support
• Difficult to administer, fulfill

• One or more users accessing journal at any single
  point in time
• Example

9
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?

10
FTE, example

• Single-site online and one print copy lt2,999
• 3,000 - 11,999
• 12,000 - 25,000
• gt25,000
• Total full-time faculty and students

11
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

12
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 institutionnot 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

13
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

14
Site use

• Early days
• Tiered pricing
• Measuring use to assign equivalent rate
• Am Physical Soc, BMJ
• Collection development tool
• Big Dealaccess increases use but identifies low
  use journals
• Focus groupsPDF downloads
• Marketing use
• Linking
• Subscription activation!

• COUNTER Code of Practice, Release 1, January 2005
• Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic
  Resources (www.projectcounter.org)
• 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

15
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

16
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

17
Types of licensors

• Abstracting and indexing services
• Marketing gateways
• Online hosts
• Content aggregators

18
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)

19
Marketing gateways

• One-stop shopping
• Conduits to content

• Examples
• SwetsWise Online Content
• Informatics J-Gate
• Kinokuniyas K-Port
• Library-centric solutions
• Linksolver

20
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
• EBSCOs MetaPress
• AIP

21
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

22
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

23
Open Access

• Not subscription basedno 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

24
Sources of funding

• Membership dues allocation
• Author fees
• Manuscript submission
• Publication
• Institutional memberships
• Grants

25
Open access

• Pros
• Its 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

26
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

27
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
• 410 821 8035 (office)
• 410 821 5460 (mobile)
• 443 269 0283 (fax)
• ckaufman_at_verizon.net
• www.kaufmanwills.com