[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Future of the "subscription model?"
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?"
- From: Rick Anderson <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 19:16:34 EST
- 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. I agree that when subscriptions provide poor value for money we have a problem, but it's actually not a problem of sustainability. It's absolutely possible to sustain a poor-value arrangement indefinitely, as long as the price is right. Sustainability is a function of price, not model. The problem with the subscription model is simple: it's fundamentally irrational. It requires me to pay a year in advance for a series of bundles of articles, many of which my patrons don't actually need. At the right price that model can be perfectly sustainable, but that doesn't make it any less silly as a model. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections J. Willard Marriott Library University of Utah firstname.lastname@example.org