RE: Nature Questions

["Dr. Alan M. Edelson" <aedelson@bellatlantic.net>]

Anderson's suggestion makes the most sense of all those I've read thus far
regarding the Nature imbroglio: they should estimate the negative impact
on their revenues resulting from permitting immediate full online access
by libraries, and build that loss into a rate increase for institutional
subscriptions. After all, the long accepted practice of charging higher
institutional rates is based on the theory of multiple use which also
tends to reduce individual subscriptions. This would seem the most logical
and least painful solution for all concerned---provided, of course, that
the calculations are done in a reasonable and fair manner.  To this end, I
would urge that the institutional rate increases be phased in over several
years while assessing what, if any, damage is caused to Nature's
individual subscription revenue, lest the calculations exaggerate this
damage. By the way, Nature's management ought to weigh very seriously the
damage this ongoing dispute is causing to the prestige and reputation of
their publication. Any hope that by putting their heads in the sands and
waiting for the storm to pass is likely to prove foolish in the extreme.

Alan M. Edelson

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On
Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 10:39 AM
To: Liblicense-L@Lists. Yale. Edu
Subject: FW: Nature Questions


> 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