| Previous by Date |
Index by Date
Threaded Index |
Next by Date |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Thread | Next by Thread |
RE: Costs of Electronic Resources
Forwarded message: From: "Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu> Subject: RE: Costs of Electronic Resources Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:16:40 -0600 I'd been hoping that someone would have jumped in on this thread by now. As our moderator notes, the issue of pricing models is an important one, and it's an issue that I begin spending a lot of time with at this point each year as I open up discussions with database vendors for license renewals for the upcoming fiscal year for the 45 libraries that participate in the Illinois Library Computer Systems Organization (ILCSO). Right now I'm opening up discussions with about a half dozen different vendors, and I am struck by how no two vendors come even half way close to using similar pricing models. One uses the price of a paper subscription for the institution in question and then adds so much per FTE. Another gathers information on the various institutions and then assigns each institution to a tier or level, with a fixed price for that tier. Another gives credits for paper and CD-ROM versions of the database. Another charges a flat fee, and then so much per concurrent user. Another bases its calculations on book budget and FTE, and then assigns each institution to a tier with a fixed price for that tier. Yet another asks for a list of institutions and their satellite branches. We even charge fees. We recoup a certain (small) percentage of processing fees by charging back to the users who subscribe to each service. Our processing fees are based on a flat fee per institution, plus so much per FTE. In two of the cases above, the database vendor constructs a consortial cost quote in a way that we cannot pass along directly to each institution. In these two cases, we start out charging a flat fee (the same for each institution) and then add a charge of so-many-cents per FTE. When we can, we favor using FTE as at least one element of the pricing structure, using the argument that FTE is a good measure of the potential user base. (Note: we only use student FTE counts, not faculty/staff). We have discovered though, that you can't simply use FTE. In our consortium we have a variety of academic libraries, from very small private liberal arts colleges, to community colleges, to large research institutions. There is a sort of apples-to-oranges effect. That's why, in cases where we have had some control over allocating database fees and processing costs, we use a combination of a flat fee, plus cost per FTE. The net result is a distribution of costs that most folks seem to find "fair". I'd like to hear from others about what they might feel is a "good" pricing model. Bernie Sloan ************************************ Bernie Sloan Senior Library Information Systems Consultant University Office for Planning & Budgeting University of Illinois (217) 333-4895 BernieS@uillinois.edu ************************************ >---------- > From: Ann Okerson >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 1997 5:30 AM >To: liblicense-l@pantheon.yale.edu >Subject: Costs of Electronic Resources > > >[MOD. NOTE: Dianne Nicholson poses a particularly important question. In >our Library, we have identified at least 15 diverse pricing models for >electronic resources, ranging from no price at all to extraordinarily >creative fee structures based on types of campus subnets to an array of >consortial prices. As she suggests, these are hard to compare. We all >have our favorite models, for our own reasons; we have ones we dislike (in >my case, the simultaneous user model which too often seems applied to >resources where it is illogical to do so). Can we discuss the modes of >charging for electronic resources and hear from producers about how they >create their pricing mechanisms? Thanks to Dianne for starting this >thread.] > >_______________________________________________________ > >Forwarded message: >Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:12:59 -0800 (PST) > From: dnichols@awinc.com (Dianne Nicholson) >Subject: costs > > >I would be interested in seeing a discussion on how different libraries >have negotiated around the calculation of site licence fees. ie. I have >seen some vendors base pricing on # of branches, # of pac workstations, >population served, and there may be other versions. This has >particularily far reaching impact when one is a multi branch system. > >Is there some concensus on some kind of mixed formula which is fairer? > >Dianne Nicholson >Okanagan Regional Library >Kelowna, British Columbia > >dnichols@awinc.com
|
http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense © 1996, 1997 Yale University Library |
Please read our Disclaimer E-mail us with feedback |
|