Re: Librarians push back against complicated e-packages

["Rollo Turner" <rollo.turner@dsl.pipex.com>]

As one who has often been asking these questions of publishers I am very
interested in librarians feelings about this issue. Publishers who refuse
to let serials agents become involved often claim that because they
receive no complaints from the libraries they therefore feel they are
doing a good job. But serials agents know this is not the case because
they are always being asked by librarians to undertake such services. The
agents do tell the publishers but unfortunately some publishers must feel
this is just agents talking and does not reflect the real concerns of the
libraries. So if libraries want their serials agent to undertake this sort
of work for them then it would be helpful if they could tell the
publishers concerned (and let the agents know as well!). We see the
refusal by some publishers to either deal with agents or to enable agents
to set up subscriptions on behalf of their library clients as some of the
biggest problems preventing agents from providing a comprehensive service
to librarians - how do librarians feel about this? And publishers for that
matter.

Rollo Turner
Secretary General
Association of Subscription Agents and Intermediaries
10 Lime Avenue
High Wycombe
Bucks HP11 1DP
UK

www.subscription-agents.org
rollo.turner@dsl.pipex.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Picerno" <ppicerno@nova.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Librarians push back against complicated e-packages

> 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