Re: Preferred pricing model for journals

["Sally Morris" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Both this and David Summers' reply seem to be more about the level of
journal pricing than the model.  I really would like to know what is
libraries' preferred pricing model

Sally Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Picerno <ppicerno@choctaw.astate.edu>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Date: 13 November 1999 02:03
Subject: Re: Preferred pricing model for journals


>I have to chip in my $0.02 of support to David Summers' note of cynicism.
>In recent conversations with publisher reps, when I have had the
>"audacity" to question their pricing, I have run into an impenetrable wall
>of non-sympathetic non-understanding which finally brought me to point out
>to one rep that they were a profit-making organization with a profit
>margin of >30% while I was a representative of a not-for-profit
>institution with a devolving budget for serials, and that at a certain
>point, my institution would have to question, in real terms, the
>possibility that we could not *afford* to support some departments at the
>expense of jepoardizing the entirety of the library's core offerings. The
>rep responded with a sort of "that's your problem" reply, and I'm not sure
>that the rep understood that in the longer run it would really be *his*
>problem as the subscription base shrinks and prices are driven even higher
>in order to maintain profit margins. But none of this is new to
>librarians: I wonder if it will be new to publishers as they begin to feel
>effects of cancellations because of overpricing?
>
>P Picerno
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Summers, David" <d.summers@lancaster.ac.uk>
>> To: "'ALPSP'" <sec-gen@alpsp.org.uk>,
>>         LIS-serials
>> <lis-serials@mailbase.ac.uk>,
>>         Liblicense <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
>> Subject: RE: Preferred pricing model for journals
>> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:31:07 -0000
>>
>> Sally,
>>
>> Sorry to add a cynical note but I can't help thinking that the publishers
>> have been told (directly or indirectly) but may not wish to hear.
>>
>> Firstly, HE Libraries struggle annually to renew their subscription lists
>> and have to make cuts on a reasonably regular basis.  Secondly, many of
us
>> have devolved a lot of our funds and decision-making to faculty and
>> departmental level and find the policy of top-slicing to finance deals
>> based on a publisher's full multi-disciplinary list administratively
>> inconvenient and unpopular with departments.
>>
>> Pricing policies involving percentile add-ons for cross-access, or
bundled
>> print and electronic, result in publishers competing with one another for
>> a larger slice of an ever smaller cake.
>>
>> Why is it still rare to see a pricing model which reflects the fact that
>> most HE libraries (a) select journals on a title-by-title basis and (b)
>> regularly have to cut subscriptions?
>>
>> Given a choice of format most of our departmental colleagues still prefer
>> hard-copy.  Given a choice between cancellation and conversion to
>> e-format, most would welcome electronic journals with open arms.  I am
not
>> unfamiliar with the publishers' argument that e-journals are not so much
>> cheaper to produce than paper journals and at least 70% (?) of a
journal's
>> cost is paid out before the printing process begins.  I merely suggest
>> that if publishers do not offer their customers an attractive option to
>> convert to a cheaper format they will lose some of them altogether.
>>
>> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> David Summers
>> Deputy Librarian
>> Lancaster University Library
>> Lancaster
>> LA1 4YH
>