RE: Librarians push back against complicated e-packages

["Peter Picerno" <ppicerno@nova.edu>]

You're correct in assuming that a publisher *should* be interested in
knowing that there's been subtracted-value from one of its titles because
of access problems, but, alas, reality has shown me that such is not the
case. As I tried to describe, there are really two problems which must be
addressed:

1. Some publishers apparently will not work with serials vendors in
arranging the registration necessary for online access, thus the vendors
report to us (the intended users) that *we* must initiate the registration
process ourselves. Why some publishers can not or will not work with
serials vendors in this regard is something which ought to be further
probed.

2. When we have gone about the business of initiating our own access
registration -- at the publisher's request and the serials vendor's
direction -- we have run into blank walls in the form of non-returned
phone calls, non-answered e-mails, etc. (and I hasten to add that this is
not a general rule for all publishers we've encountered but it does
exist).

3. The staff time necessary to jump through all the hoops which the
publisher requires is costly. If there were a satisfying result, the cost
to the library could be 'swallowed' as part of the price of doing business
(which, however, we pay our serials vendors to do for us but in this case
the publisher stands in the way of allowing), so the real incentive here
is, unfortunately, for the library to cancel the title to which access
proves to be difficult to obtain and, in a real economic sense, a
financial loss in terms of subscription price for value received (i.e.,
access to their product).

It seems to me that if a publisher wants to sell their product, they would
be more than willing to accomodate their prospective clients rather than
erecting barriers to access to their product. But, like all things in the
marketplace, it would certainly appear that a certain flavor of Darwinism
will eventually determine which products survive and this survival will be
based on more factors than merely subscription price. In our particular
case, our IT transactions are handled by a member of the library staff, so
inflexibility is not a problem (I can attest to that), rather it is the
unresponsiveness of the publisher's personnel which obstructs access and
by so doing withholds services which the library has paid to have.

Peter Picerno

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of James A. Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:26 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Librarians push back against complicated e-packages

> titles where we end up paying for what amounts to reduced value because of
> the difficulties in access. Is there a way around this? I'd look forward
> to hearing from anyone who has managed to circumvent these time-consuming
> problems!

I'd be surprised if the publisher and/or implementor of an online journal
wouldn't be very interested in hearing your complaints. If it's made known
that a customer has been unable to get a quarter's worth of "value" from a
subscription they have paid for, due to either poor customer service or
inflexible access control models, that should be strong incentive to fix
the problem.

I know some people might look at that last paragraph and say "But
shouldn't it be obvious to the publisher? They've been working on it for
months!" I don't think that's necessarily the case.  Sometimes it appears
as though different sections (customer service vs. technical implementors)
don't communicate as much as they should, and valuable feedback gets lost.

Of course, without knowing the details of problems you had, I can't say
whether a breakdown in communications might explain the lack of help you
discuss. It's also possible that a particular IT group at the customer end
is inflexible and unresponsive to questions whose answers are needed by
the publisher's site. I've seen both sides of the story, and I don't think
it's usually ill intent on one side or the other.

Jim