RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website

["Stern, David" <David_Stern@Brown.edu>]

The Big Deal itself is not the problem, but rather the inflexible 
business model.

A big deal approach with a negotiated annual fee, based upon 
actual local use, would provide a happy balance of cost 
predictability and broad seamless coverage. Analyzing and 
adjusting the cost of the package based upon heavy, medium, and 
low use title "value" would allow for better customization and a 
reduction in costs for many libraries. The cost of a package plan 
would reflect the power of the package.  A complete big deal 
package would provide a lower subscription value for lesser used 
titles ... when the desire is for unlimited access to the 
broadest range of materials.

Alternatives to the big deal could be big deal subsets by 
subject, and/or use-based title packages supplemented by document 
delivery for excluded titles.

The big deal could be a fine solution for many libraries if we 
can reasonably adjust the pricing model to reflect actual local 
value.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of
"FrederickFriend"
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:18 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website

Joe's accurate but depressing description of the journal market 
economy illustrates what a bad situation the academic community 
has got itself into over the years in disseminating 
publicly-funded research. Only a radical change in business 
models will break open the market, but the big deals which 
promised so much have now become a ball and chain around our legs 
limiting our freedom of movement.

Fred Friend

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:07 AM
Subject: RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website

>I believe the point Nawin is making is that freezing or lowering
> prices is not in a publisher's interest unless the product is of
> marginal value, in which case a high price may indeed result in a
> cancellation.  The obvious point to be made here is that this is
> an editorial game (the best products win)and other aspects of a
> publisher's trading practices (low pricing, good customer
> service, flexible usage terms, nice people)are rarely rewarded
> (except, to repeat, for marginal publications).  In fact, it may
> be in the interests of a publisher of the higher quality
> publications to raise prices even in desperate economic times, as
> such a publisher is protected by the armor of outstanding
> editorial content and can stand by and watch as the weaker
> editorial products get cancelled, despite the generous trading
> practices of those unfortunate publishers. If I have
> misunderstood Nawin's question (which I took to be rhetorical),
> please correct me.
>
> I don't like the implications of this reasoning any more than
> anyone else; it's a lot like cheering on the Second Law of
> Thermodynammics; so I beg you not to shoot the messenger.  But
> this is the way the economy works, and matters are not improved
> by encouraging "good behavior" only to punish the most noble in
> the end.
>
> Joe Esposito