[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled

Instead of comparing the decrease to the industry average, it would have been more informative to disclose the previous few years' numbers for PNAS. How big a change was this loss? (By the way, what is the industry average?) Also, how many of these cancellations were personal subscriptions, as opposed to institutional subscriptions? Was this a net loss, taking into account new subscriptions, or a gross loss? More information is needed before conclusions can be drawn.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
New York, NY 10021
PH: 212-746-6073
FX: 212-746-8271

At 12:01 AM -0500 12/11/06, Electronic Content Licensing Discussion wrote:
From: "Sullenberger, Diane" <DSullenb@nas.edu>
To: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled

Hi Sally,

In 2000, we were free after one month. We lost 11% of our paid
subscribers in 2001, higher than the industry average, and we
switched to 6 months in 2002. The move did not stem the loss in
subscribers but it was reduced to 9% in 2002. We do not have hard
data to show a causal effect of our one month policy, but the
correlation certainly motivated a change.