Upload
murphymoose
View
696
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lower Costs, Greater Access:What Pay-Per-View Did for Our
Serials BudgetConnie Mead
Operations Group Leader
Steve ObergElectronic Resources and Serials Librarian
Buswell Library All Staff Meeting10 April 2013
(based on LIBRAS SIG presentation given 19 March 2013)
Problem?
Here’s what Buswell Library faced…
Escalating serials subscription costs
Big Deal packages were huge portion of our budget, especially Sage, Elsevier ScienceDirect, and Wiley
Fiscal accountability questions – High costs– Low usage of as much as 70% of titles within the Big
Deals from these three publishers– No money to acquire new resources (e-journals, e-
books, databases, etc.)
…and what we hoped to do about it
Control costs of titles from Sage, Elsevier ScienceDirect, and Wiley
Add more titles from these three publishers
Have money available to – acquire new resources (e-journals, e-books,
databases, etc. ) – retain our other resources, despite price increases
Big Deals had taken over our budget…
FY10 ActualFY11 if
Status Quo
Three Publishers’ Big Deal Packages• Sage Premier Collection• ScienceDirect Collection• Wiley Standard Collection & Wiley Core Collection
$ 216,500 $ 238,508
% of TotalAcquisitions Budget 23% 25%
…but we took our budget back in FY11!
FY10 ActualFY11 if
Status QuoFY11 Actual
Three Publishers’ Big Deal Packages
$216,500 $238,508 $153,778
% of TotalAcquisitions
Budget23% 25% 15%
…and kept budget control in FY12 & FY13
FY10 Actual
FY11 ifStatus Quo
FY11 Actual
FY12Actual
FY13Budget
Three Publishers’ Big Deal Packages
$216,500 $238,508 $153,778 $94,941 $120,48
6
% of TotalAcquisitions
Budget23% 25% 15% 9% 11%
Before After
Big Deals
Rest of Budget
Big Deals
Rest of Budget
Here’s what we did…
FY11 ActualFY12
ActualFY13
Budget
Dropped Big Deal packages
• Sage• Elsevier SD• part of Wiley
• rest of Wiley No packages
Added Pay-Per-View (PPV)
• Sage• Elsevier SD • Wiley Continued
Added Select Subscriptions
• Sage• Elsevier SD • Wiley Continued
Negotiated separate subscription licenses
• Sage• Elsevier SD • Wiley Continued
Negotiated separate PPV license
• Sage• Elsevier SD • Wiley Continued
…and how we did it
2 431
For each title in a package, we:
• Analyzed usage stats
• Recorded current subscription price
• Defined new subscription cost (unless usage was so low we knew we did not want to renew)
• Calculated cost-per-use by year, also average of 2 or 3 years
Determined titles we wanted regardless of what their cost per use
Worked with publisher to understand available PPV options and associated costs
Based on cost-per-use vs. PPV costs, decided titles to obtain as subscription and titles to obtain as PPV
Result
The transition to PPV took a lot of effort: sample timeline
November 1 – December 2010 – Wheaton and Publisher have conversation about 2011 pricing and last date for changes to account for 2011
December 8 - 13, 2010 - Wheaton asks questions about PPV service. Publisher responds, including that PPV service downloads do not expire.
December 13, 2010 – Wheaton notifies Publisher that we will likely cancel subscriptions and move to PPV service only
December 13, 2010 – Publisher states “2010 pricing is good till 12/31/10”
December 17, 2010 – Wheaton places order for 2 Subscription titles and 4 PPV service bundles of 500 articles each
December 21, 2010 – Wheaton called Publisher to confirm receipt of order and to obtain invoice. Publisher confirms acceptance of order and said invoice will come today or tomorrow.
December 22, 2010 – Wheaton emailed Publisher that have not received invoice yet. Publisher responded it is in progress.
December 28, 2010 – Contract sent (but Wheaton College closed until January 4, 2011)
January 4, 2011 – Wheaton responds with questions about terms and asked if two contracts was more appropriate. Term issues were a) wrong price – 500, instead of 2,000, PPV service transactions for $44,000, b) downloads not expiring, c) purchase of additional downloads not extending agreement, d) journal collection access with PPV service, e) backfile access timeframe, f) one-year agreement term
January 5 – Wheaton added one more question g) authorized uses for subscribed titles to include intranet, internet, coursepacks, 3rd party, iLL
January 11 – Wheaton inquires about status of contract because not received any response to January 4 & 5 emails
January 11 – Publisher responded to questions, including that downloads will not expire. Wheaton asked for two contracts, based on Publisher’s responses to our questions
Timeline continued: four months total
January 13 – Publisher acknowledges request for two separate contracts
January 19 – Wheaton inquires about status of contracts
January 26 – Wheaton again inquires about status of contracts
February 2 – Publisher sends agreement for Subscription titles
February 3 – Wheaton responds with items to be resolved with Subscription titles contract
February 7 – Publisher sends revised agreement for Subscription titles
February 7 – Wheaton asks for error to be corrected
February 8 - Publisher sends corrected agreement & Wheaton returns signed Subscription contract
February 8 – Wheaton again asks about status of PPV service agreement
February 9 – Publisher informs Wheaton that it will approximately February 18th before PPV service agreement will be sent
February 11 – Wheaton Library Director calls Publisher to expedite this order
February 15 – Wheaton inquires about status of PPV service agreement
February 22 - Publisher sends agreement for article downloads. Wheaton responds with need to eliminate the expiration language for these downloads
February 23 – Wheaton calls to determine if Publisher received 2/22 email. Publisher responds that agreement needs management approval, due to expire language
February 24 – Publisher sends PPV service amendment with proper terms. Wheaton signs and returns.
Let’s look more closely @ Elsevier ScienceDirect as an example
Cancelled Elsevier SD journals package
Obtained quotes & started individual subscriptions
Negotiated PPV program enrollment
Bought blocks of PPV to obtain volume discount
Negotiated & signed separate licenses for subscriptions vs. PPV
Gave patrons direct access to PPV
Elsevier ScienceDirect: Our Cost Experience
FY10 Actual
FY11 ifStatus Quo
FY11 Actual
FY12Actual
FY13Budget
Package Cost
100% 104%
Select subscriptions & PPV costs
n/a n/a 51% 51% 75%
as % of FY10 Package cost
Elsevier ScienceDirect: Our Usage and Access Experience
CY10 Actual
CY11 Actual
CY12Actual
CY13Estimate
# Titles with subscription access
51 2 3 3
# Titles with PPV access 0
All Elsevier titles, except
approx. 220
All Elsevier titles, except approx. 140
Currently approx. 3,600 titles
Successful full text views/downloads
1,820 1,973 3,436 4,225
CY10 CY11 CY12 CY130
1000
2000
3000
4000
UsageFY10 FY11 FY12 FY130
20
40
60
80
100
120
% of FY10 CostFor Elsevier SD, costs went down, then trended up…
…whereas usage trended up at higher rate of growth
Control costs of titles from these three publishers
Add access to more titlesfrom these publishers(with unexpected benefitof access to backfiles onunsubscribed titles)
Have money available to – acquire new resources (e-journals e-books
databases etc. )– retain our other resources, despite price increases
A WINNING SOLUTION
Our approach allows us to…
What next?
Lots of ongoing issues to consider
CURRICULUM:How does PPV fit?
USAGE:What about
complexities of PPV?
ACCESS:How does it impact overall equation?
EXPANSION:Can and
should we do more?
USAGE: What about complexities of PPV?
Are PPV uses counted within COUNTER reports?
Need to track PPV downloads separately and differently from subscriptions usage due to variable costs
Does high number of PPVs for a particular journal necessarily mean a subscription is a better choice?
Does low subscription usage automatically mean PPV is a better option?
Need to consider longitudinal usage data
ACCESS: How does it impact overall equation?
Subscription titles are made available in all the usual ways to users:– Catalog– Discovery platform– Link resolver– Website
PPV titles are not cataloged, and are not given equal access
Direct implications for usage and variable costs
Is it fair to compare PPV usage to subscription usage when they are not equally accessible?
CURRICULUM: How does PPV fit in?
Which journals should remain as subscriptions?
Which journals should be converted from PPV back to subscriptions?
Larger issues around definition of what are core titles and what are supplemental– What is a core title?– Should core titles always be subscriptions?
Subscription titles imply long term commitment whereas PPV titles are opportunistic, “just in time”
When we began the process, the current PPV model was just beginning to take shape
Now, more and more publishers offering PPV as an option for libraries to consider, e.g.:– American Chemical Society– Nature Publishing Group
We are interested in book chapter, not just article, PPV– E.g. Springer e-books?
EXPANSION: Can and should we do more?
Questions?
We would be happy to hear from you