[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FTE-based pricing



I've always opposed it because it a budget nightmare - there's no easy way to anticipate use, and defining 'use' is, in any case, very tricky. For instance, if a database is hit because of the default setting on a federated search tool, is that 'use'? How long does a user need to look at a record to have "used" it?

An example of why usage based pricing is uncomfortable for libraries. For many years we used FirstSearch pay by the search for a selection of databases we could afford full subscriptions to. Every year we would allocate a generous number of searches (more than the year before) and every year we would run out before we expected to. And we would have to scrape up more money to get more searches. Gradually it became easier, cheaper and less work to either get the databases on subscription, or cancel them.

The analogy to telephones or electricity doesn't really work, because in this case the user isn't paying and never sees the bill, so they have no incentive to moderate their use. Instead a library may find themselves in the position of being half way through the year and suddenly having to tell users "Sorry, we've almost run out of budget on that resource, so stop using it" or worse "We have run out of budget, and we can't afford any more until the next budget cycle, so you'll have to use something else. I hear Google is very useful."

Or they may find that their successful promotion of the resource means that next year they can't afford the new price. And taking popular resources away for budgetary reasons is never fun, because the users don't care about your problems. They just want that resource that they liked last year, and that you trained them to use.

David Groenewegen
ARROW Project Manager
Monash University Library
Monash University
Victoria 3800
AUSTRALIA
David.Groenewegen@lib.monash.edu.au


Sally Morris (Chief Executive) wrote:
What is people's view on usage-based pricing (or at least a component of
the pricing model)?  It would seem to be the fairest way of reflecting
actual use, if that's the issue rather than potential use.  Some have
argued, however, that it would discourage use - though I can't see that
use of telephones or electric lights is affected this way...

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org
Website:  www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefanie Wittenbach" <Stefanie.Wittenbach@utsa.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: FTE-based pricing

I personally believe that FTE-based pricing is quite harmful to the
library community for the following reasons:

Use is not necessarily tied to the institution's FTE. Growing
campuses are penalized because the price continues to increase,
but the users of the resource may not be growing in the same way.

If anything, I think database pricing should be a flat rate or
flat rate plus some factor for high use.

Stefanie

Stefanie Wittenbach
Assistant Dean, Collections
John Peace Library
The University of Texas at San Antonio
San Antonio, TX  78249-0671
stefanie.wittenbach@utsa.edu