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


Dan, I am very encouraged to see that so many libraries took advantage of
the savings you offered . This is different from the experience of some
other publishers. The difference is, in my opinion, due to the large
discount you offered.

A savings of 10% for electronic only is just not that attractive in most
circumstances. If publishers would like to encourage the transition to
electronic subscriptions, they should do just what your organization has
done, and offer a 50 percent savings.

Incidentally, though the maximum percentage for automatic renewal "x" may
have been 25% in the past, at most libraries it is now much more likely to
be 15% or 10% or even anything more than the average value expected for
the year. And it's no longer just a percentage: the absolute value matters

I wish you continued success in the quest for a rational economic model.
David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library				
dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-3235


On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Daniel Feenberg wrote:

> We can provide some evidence for Mr Goodman's point. When we added an
> online access service to our print service we initially charged $200
> additional (over the $950 annual fee). Of the first 300 renewal notices
> sent out, none added the online service. So we changed the offer to online
> only for $550 or online and print for %1,150. (No print only allowed).
> There were no complaints, about half renewed to online only, and there was
> a nearly 50% growth in total subscriptions over the next two years.
> I conclude that most libraries have default rules of the form: (a) renew
> anything that has increased in price by no more than x% where x is
> probably no less than 25%. (b) convert to online only if there is a cost
> savings. (c) don't add any new things offered if they cost money.
> Our printing/mailing costs are very high, (about 600
> pieces/year/subscriber) so the print/online cost differential is fully
> justified by our cost differential.
> We currently offer a half price subscription to academic libraries, and
> would like to offer an additional 50% off to small colleges. Does anyone
> know of an easy way to distinguish? An online list somewhere?
> Daniel Feenberg
> ______________
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, David Goodman wrote:
> > To me, this is another example of publishers charging add on fees that
> > will cost more to collect than they're worth. That this is such a major
> > respected and generaly progressive society publisher adds to the
> > absurdity. $100s of dollars in clerical work ond confusion on both
> > sides--all three sides if you count the agents--just to collect $50 fees.