Re: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Also,

PNAS relies to a considerable extent on page charges, adn is 
therefore not wholly dependent upon subscriptions, which should 
offset some of the effect--it would be useful to know the 
relative contributions, and it also has a considerable number of 
hybrid-OA aricles, which shoulddo exactly what they are supposed 
to do, which is to offset subscription loss--how much did that 
help?

I imagine there is some sort of information about the 
discontinuations, and it wouldalso be very interesting to see how 
many of the discontinuations came from schools that might have 
been expected to continue, and how many from truly marginal 
places.

The experience of what would seem an indispensible journal is of 
obvious interest, and it would be useful indeed to know all the 
factors.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Funk <mefunk@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled
To: Liblicense <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>

> Instead of comparing the decrease to the industry average, it 
> would have been more informative to disclose the previous few 
> years' numbers for PNAS. How big a change was this loss? (By 
> the way, what is the industry average?) Also, how many of these 
> cancellations were personal subscriptions, as opposed to 
> institutional subscriptions? Was this a net loss, taking into 
> account new subscriptions, or a gross loss? More information is 
> needed before conclusions can be drawn.
>
> Mark Funk
> Head, Collection Development
> Weill Cornell Medical Library
> New York, NY 10021
> mefunk@med.cornell.edu
>
>
> At 12:01 AM -0500 12/11/06, Electronic Content Licensing Discussion
> wrote:>From: "Sullenberger, Diane" <DSullenb@nas.edu>
>>To: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
>>Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:32 PM
>>Subject: RE: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled
>>Subscriptions
>>
>>Hi Sally,
>>
>>In 2000, we were free after one month. We lost 11% of our paid
>>subscribers in 2001, higher than the industry average, and we
>>switched to 6 months in 2002. The move did not stem the loss in
>>subscribers but it was reduced to 9% in 2002. We do not have hard
>>data to show a causal effect of our one month policy, but the
>>correlation certainly motivated a change.
>>
>>Best,
>>Diane