Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Clare Holmes
Sales Director
Cengage Learning EMEA
Presentation to ICOLCStockholm, 1 October 2007
Agenda
• Cengage Learning – The Company
• Gale Product Portfolio
• Meeting the Digital Challenge
• Decision Influencing Factors
• Other Factors
• Working with Consortia
• Conclusions
Cengage Learning – The Company
• Formerly Thomson Learning
• Cen [Centre] gage [Engagement] in Learning:
CENGAGE LEARNING
• Sold in July 2007 to Apax Partners and OMERS Capital Partners
• Imprints remain, eg Gale, MacMillan
Overview
Reference
Digital Archives & Collections
Journal Collections & Resource Centers
Product Portfolio
• Reference, research, teaching & learning resources
Reference: Directories, Encyclopedias, Aggregated Newspapers and Journals
Teaching & Learning: Resource Centers, Micro-Archives, Historical Newspapers
Research: Online monographs, periodicals, unpublished materials
Reference Online
Topical, International, Available as Single Titles or Build own Collection
Cross-searchable
Journals, Reference, Newspapers
Biz/ed Premier
Notable collections…
“Staying in touch with ‘what users want’ has become both a matter of ‘survival’ and a question of professional expertise and self-respect.”
Reg CarrDirector of University Library Services & Bodley’s LibrarianUniversity of Oxford
Gale - Publishing Aims
• Convert “core” titles to online from film vault– Eg ECCO, Times Digital Archive, Making Of the Modern
World
• Respond to teaching/research focus– Eg History of Slavery (Colonial Studies)– Eg The Economist (Global economy, multi-nationalism)
• Push boundaries of digitisation– Eg New Imaging (colour in C19th periodicals)– Eg Creation/expansion of metadata (State Papers)– Eg Non-English language content (Euro newspapers)
Meeting the Digital Challenge
• Digital investment options– Existing back-files– Primary source materials– Blending of multi-media, genres and
teaching/learning/research methods into new user experiences
– Partnership opportunities
Meeting the Digital Challenge
• Publishers’ challenges– Balance investment and product development with
market opportunity (ROI)– Create collections and accommodate the budgetary
constraints of libraries– Google initiatives
• Libraries’ challenges– Define digital library strategy beyond current
“exceptional” funds and budget constraints– Shift investment from hard assets to access,
bandwidth, new types of research & learning tools
Impact of Success
• Example: ECCO– Consortia deals via JISC, DFG, UKB, DEFF,
FinELib, Ireland, Greece, France, South Africa, Australia
– National Libraries in Europe and Australasia– Academic Libraries worldwide– “Transformed” scholarship of the period– Raised expectations in the community– Has pushed Gale to invest heavily in new
projects, imaging techniques, technologies etc
15001500 16001600 17001700 18001800 19001900
State Papers Online, 1509-1714
EEBOEEBO (PQ) Eighteenth Century
Collections OnlinePrinted
Books
Manuscripts/Documents
Newspapers & Periodicals
The Times 1785- 2000 Archive
C19th UK Periodicals
C19 BritishLibrary N/papers
C18 British Library
Newspapers
‘Economist’ Historical Archive, 1843-2003
History & Culture through Media
C19 American Newspapers
Making of the Modern World: Goldsmiths’- Kress Collection
Sabin’s Americana, 1500-1926
2000
Impact of Success
• Example: Times Digital Archive– Consortia deals via JISC, DFG, UKB, Ireland,
Australia, plus National Libraries in Europe and Australasia; > 50 academic institutions in US
– Huge cross-sector subscription base eg public libraries worldwide
– Increased investment from Gale into newspaper digitisation projects (including C19th US Newspapers)
– More collaboration on digitisation projects with newspapers and holding libraries, eg BL
16001600 17001700 18001800 19001900 20002000
17th-18th Century The Burney Collection
19th Century BL Newspapers
19th Century UK Periodicals
Times Digital Archive
The Largest Collection of British Newspapers Online
The Economist Digital Archive
Decision influencing factors
• How does the project emerge?– Own editorial development– Partnership eg BL, European libraries– Fits with existing capabilities– Meets new or unmet needs– Competition and/or duplication– Best investment opportunity– Appeal to largest audience
Decision influencing factors
• Faculty/librarian consultation– Evaluate proposition– Contribution to libraries’ portfolio– Contribution to learning/understanding
• Specification– Interactivity required, eg Wikis, VLEs– Production requirements eg OCR– Scoping of project in context of existing
programming/platform capability
Decision influencing factors
• Business Models– Costs of developing the collection– Potential Sales (global)– Sales phasing– Pricing– Return on investment– Payment schedules
Other Factors: Consortia Requirements
Functionality• Ideal Situation:
– Users can cross search all products
• Gale’s Current Position– Resources sit on different platforms– “Like” resources sit on “like” platforms
• Future Position (2008 onwards)– Single, adaptable, multi-purpose platform– Cross-searchable by all/some media types– “Familiar” interface for little user training– Pre-packed platform for fast product development
within Gale and for partners
Search all Gale Databases
Search All Other Databases
Search Library Catalog
Search Open Web
New Platform
Other Factors: Consortia Requirements
Fair Use• Ideal Situation:
– “Fair Use” for all products
• Gale’s Position– Gale supports “fair use”– Have to meet needs of customers & IP Holders
• We allow– Personal saving; Printing– Emailing; Book-marking and linking
• We support– Text Creation Partnership project– Host libraries by supplying page images
Other Factors: Consortia Requirements
Archiving• Ideal Situation:
– Comply with ICOLC wishes• Gale’s Position
– Often offer choice of purchase or subscription– Purchasers receive data/image files on tape– Own raw data in perpetuity– Option to host collection locally– Institution/consortium has to develop interface
• Gale’s Future Position– Need a non-Gale electronic hosting option, BUT lack
of capable or willing provider to support library market
Other Factors: Consortia Requirements
Licensing• Ideal Situation:
– One license fits all• Gale’s Position
– Journals databases – limit embargoes• Perpetual licenses for journals & newspapers
– Limited by terms from publishers & IP Holders• Digital Collections
– Purchasers guaranteed access– Purchasers receive content load of text/images
• Model Licenses– Try to accommodate existing clauses – but Digital
Collections are NOT journals
Challenges – working with consortia
• Understanding– Expectations of individual libraries– Decision making process– Who to talk to– Budget– Consortia strategy for collection
development– Collaboration between consortia members
Challenges – working with Consortia
• Consultation Process– Agreement on methodology– Communication to the community– To librarians only?– Include academics?– Timing
• Trials– Creation of specific websites– Online feedback form– Share results
Challenges – working with consortia
• Enabling a sale - considerations– Potential sales to individual institutions– Departmental (faculty) funding or library
budget– Pricing models to suit different sectors– What is “fair” to all parties?– National v regional
Pricing Models (i)
Model• Purchase + Hosting Fee
• Purchase only
• Purchase + Standing Order
• Subscription
Comments• High one-off payment; low on-
going costs; institution/consortium owns raw data; access via Cengage
• Institution/consortium owns raw data and hosts content; no on-going access fees
• High up-front payment; planned on-going ordering
• Low initial payment; higher on-going costs; institution does not own content
Pricing Models (ii)
• Recognising the differences– Price to market – Tiers A and B– Price to institution size – 4 levels– “Niche” products– Increased number of participants & products– National/cross national deals– Payment plans
Worked Example
Small Small/Medium Medium Large
Tier A 400 600 800 1000
Tier B 280 420 560 700
Collaboration – after the deal is done
• Driving Awareness and Use– Training – librarians, academics, students– Setting up access
• Promotion– Email information to academics– Information packs– Posters– Case studies– Online blogs
Conclusions
• We want to:– Develop climate for success– Make it possible for consortia to buy
• To make that happen, we all need to:– Increase understanding of others’ priorities and
strategies– Appreciate each others’ “drivers”– Work together on pricing models to facilitate
purchase– Work together on licensing models to
accommodate changes in study/research
