[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- From: <Toby.GREEN@oecd.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:04:55 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
I don't think the "subscription model" is the problem. It has many merits for both librarians and publishers - simplicity and budget/income predictability being just two. I think the problem is that some subscriptions are no longer providing value for money, but the alternative, item-by-item purchase (be they articles, books or chapters), is also unattractive. As Rick says, he needs something that is sustainable and, clearly, anything that doesn't provide value-for-money in the long run isn't sustainable. Toby Green Head of Publishing Public Affairs and Communications Directorate OECD firstname.lastname@example.org -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: 04 November, 2011 12:17 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?" >Rick, when your library cancels the $300,000 worth of >subscriptions, I'm guessing that most of that will go back into >subscription like-services (paying for the price increases of >the subs you do keep, paying for new e-resources - most of which >will have some kind of subscription-like component, even if not >for actual journals). Would that be a fair guess? If it is, >then the subscription model isn't exactly eroding? Good point, Ann. Yes, the $300,000 we "save" by cancelling some subscriptions will, in fact, be used up by the annual cost increases for those that remain. So when I offer our subscription cut as "evidence that libraries... are willing to substantially reduce and/or forego the subscription model," I guess what I'm saying is that whereas until recently we were willing to shore up the subscription model in our library by redirecting money from other areas to support it, we're no longer doing so. Instead, we're now cutting subscriptions substantially rather than ponying up more and more money to preserve the prevalence of that model in our library. As this process continues, we'll be purchasing dramatically less and less content under the subscription model from year to year -- in fact, at this rate we'll have roughly half as many subscriptions six years from now as we do today. So in a real sense, yes, we'll still be paying for subscriptions for the foreseeable future and therefore the model itself will still be alive in our library. But it will be constantly diminishing as we continue to "substantially reduce and/or forego" our subscriptions. At the same time, we're actively looking for alternatives to the subscription model and are anxious to try out any that look sustainable. Right now, the only thing keeping me from cancelling all of our subscriptions wholesale is the punitive pricing imposed by publishers for access at the article level. Chris, I think your follow-up question was basically the same as Ann's, but let me know if you need more clarification. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections J. Willard Marriott Library University of Utah firstname.lastname@example.org