RE: Springer Open Choice uptake affects 2011 journal pricing

["Hamaker, Charles" <cahamake@uncc.edu>]

Dear Jan: So some assumptions before determining that 
"cancellations" mean lost income.  First, must we assume that 
costs didn't go down for the journal (none of that cheaper by the 
pound stuff--cost effectiveness measures must not be considered?)

Isn't the assumption of "lost subscriptions"  a major 
hypothetical itself, dependent again on some accounting tricks to 
even determine if a title has "lost" subscriptions since most 
"subscriptions" at this stage are package or big deal revenue 
base?  How do you get at one title's performance when most of 
your sales are package driven anyway?

It would be hard to credit a publisher complaining of 
cancellations without asking the concomitant did you see 
increased revenue i.e. more big deal packages sold? Cost 
efficiencies in online support? Did you credit "that" journal 
with increased market share because you increased big deal sales? 
Or credit that journal with decreased cost because replacement 
servers cost less? In total, this isn't enough information to 
even begin to judge that increased cancellations should result in 
failing to follow through with the expectation that OA fees will 
reduce subscription prices. And how does that subscription price 
reduction offer impact package sales anyway?? (probably not at 
all is my guess)

I seem to remember more than one publisher saying last year we 
can't reduce your cost increase even if your budget is cut by X% 
because you signed a contract guaranteeing us a certain level of 
increase. I'd say something similar to publisher's trying to 
squeeze out of commitments to reducing the cost of a title based 
on OA sales. Hold on there. What about public commitments made? 
Chuck Hamaker