Re: FW: Nature Questions

[Kent Mulliner <mulliner@ohio.edu>]

         I would really beg to differ, Rick.  While the embargo has been a
concern and I really haven't followed up to get specific pricing, the
ballpark figures that I have seen have made concern about the embargo
pretty academic.  I have seen nothing to suggest that Nature's prices
would be at all acceptable.

I would also add that while I am not a Nature reader, my understanding of
its role and value would make cancellation unlikely.  As a library
analogy, if I had online access to Against the Grain at work, I certainly
wouldn't cancel my print subscription that I can read at my leisure at
home. My selectors similarly advise me that they can't do without paper
notification slips for books because they review those slips waiting for a
dental appointment or sipping cognac by the fire.

But, to the central theme, pricing is surely as unrealistic and
unjustified as the embargo.

kent mulliner, ohio university
K. Mulliner       Collection Development Coordinator
Ohio University Libraries               Phone: 740-593-2707
Athens, OH 45701-2978, USA              FAX:    740-593-2708
mulliner@ohio.edu




At 10:38 AM 3/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
> > And I wonder why, if they think that libraries are just acting as an
> > archive, they aren't PAYING US instead of CHARGING US so very much? (Ok,
> > that may be a wee bit unrealistic. But if we are only getting part of the
> > thing, shouldn't we pay less?)
>
>The answer to that, I'll bet, is that if you were to subscribe under the
>current arrangement, you WOULD be paying less than you will once Nature
>figures out a pricing solution for fully current online access.  As I
>understand it, the folks at Nature are scared that if they provide access
>to full current content under the institutional pricing model currently in
>place, the individual subscriptions they lose will result in a net revenue
>loss.  They're probably right -- wouldn't you cancel your personal
>subscription if you had full online access at work?  (Maybe not, but
>Nature is probably right in thinking that lots of individuals would.)
>What Nature needs to do is try to forecast what those losses would be
>like, and adjust its institutional pricing accordingly.  That will result
>in a more expensive institutional license, but maybe it should be more
>expensive than it is; I don't know.  (I bet we'd complain less about a
>price hike than we do about the 3-month embargo.)
>
>Another thought: maybe Nature should go to a simultaneous-users model.
>Then the price could be driven by actual use, and a humanities-oriented
>school (which would presumably get less use from the product) wouldn't
>have to pay the same price as a sciences-oriented school.
>
>-------------
>Rick Anderson
>Electronic Resources/Serials Coordinator
>The University Libraries
>University of Nevada, Reno
>1664 No. Virginia St.
>Reno, NV  89557
>PH  (775) 784-6500 x273
>FX  (775) 784-1328
>rickand@unr.edu