Pricing models, was RE: Message from Kevin Guthrie, JSTOR's President

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

Barbara and Jim, I have in the past been one of the supporters of pricing
by use. But there are two problems:

First, a simultaneous user model is not pricing by use. If we are to avoid
preventing users from getting access, it is necessary to buy the maximum
likely number of simultaneous users. I have never been able to get any
supplier to agree to price either on the actual maximum of simultaneous
users, or the average number of simultaneous users. Either of these would
be more defensible. The models being offered inevitably lead the library
to try to get the least number of simultaneous users without generating
too many complaints for denied access. In my personal view, one such
complaint is too many, and generates immense ill-will. Even if the
publisher lets you adjust month by month, and you do adjust the number by
the logs, you have already made many unnecessarily dissatisfied users.

The second is that even if we were to be charged by actual use, it will
encourage libraries to charge back the users. This will result in a
situation like that with Dialog databases, when these resources were
drastically underutilized until suppliers began providing databases at a
flat rate. Another exact analogy is having users pay for interlibrary
loans, still the practice in many libraries. Notice that the problem here
isn't the publishers--it's us.

Until the Charleston meeting this fall, I thought it would be possible
that libraries would be sufficiently devoted to the interests of the
patrons that this would not be a problem. Discussions there with many
librarians convinced me that in many cases this would not be true. In a
difficult budget year, many people told be that the temptation for a
university administrator or a library administrator to balance the budget
this way might be irresistible. Of course, it's charging the users per
item for providing what they have already paid for getting by supporting
the library as a whole. And the problem isn't the publishers this time,
but us.

I think a possible model might be charging per use up to a flat maximum
figure. I think this might be relatively impervious to charge-backs, but I
have not thought about this aspect sufficiently, and I invite comments on
it.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, BARBARA SCHADER wrote:

> I totally agree with Jim Morgan regarding simultaneous user licenses.  I
> too much prefer to sign simultaneous user licenses and receive monthly use
> logs so I can monitor actually use and adjust the number of paid
> simultaneous users accordingly.
>
> There are numerous problems with the FTE pricing model.  The most onerous
> for me is that it is based on hypethetical/potential use NOT actual use;
> the numbers for FTE pricing are impossible to accurately obtain for major
> universities.  I refuse to sign FTE pricing models.
>
> I was also very disappointed that FTE pricing models received much
> attention at the last Charleston Conference but virtually nothing was said
> of the alternative simultaneous user pricing model.
>
> Barbara Schader
> UCLA Biomedical Library
> Head, Collection Development