This document discusses expectations for licensing and pricing with library consortia. It provides an overview of different types of consortia and considerations for pricing models. Pricing can be based on factors like full-time enrollment, current print holdings, or services provided. The document also reviews licensing expectations outlined by organizations like ICOLC, such as complying with COUNTER usage statistics and allowing interlibrary loans. Resources for further information are provided.

1. Consortia Expectations
for Licensing and Pricing
SSP Fall Educational Seminar
Innovations in Pricing and Licensing
November 14, 2007
http://muse.jhu.edu

2. Outline for Today
• Consortia 101
• Consortia Pricing Models and
Considerations
• Consortia Licensing Expectations
• Resources
http://muse.jhu.edu

3. Library consortia come in
many flavors…
http://muse.jhu.edu

4. Composition
• Geographic area
– National (particularly international)
– Statewide (public HE’s, private HE’s, public + private, multi-type)
– Regional
• Affinity Groups
– Research institutions
– Small private liberal arts colleges
– Institutions with religious affiliations (i.e. Jesuit colleges)
– Independent schools
– Museums
http://muse.jhu.edu

5. Funding
• Central – subsidized (full/partial),
government funding
• Membership fees
• Grants
• Individual institution payments
• Mixed
http://muse.jhu.edu

6. Organization
• National or state government office
• Non-profit organization
• Volunteer-run
http://muse.jhu.edu

7. Purpose
• Buying group – secure discounts for members on
products of choice (cost savings)
• Provide access to same content for all members
(equality of access)
• Provide access to more content for all members
(expansion of access)
• Secure access to particular kinds of content for all
members
• Other services not related to purchasing
(cooperative catalogs, training, etc.)
http://muse.jhu.edu

8. Services consortia may provide…
• Single point of contact for multiple sales
• Opportunities for group sales presentations
• Consolidation of billing and collections
• Renewals
• First line customer support
• Gathering/updating technical data
• Conduit for dissemination of information to
subscribers
http://muse.jhu.edu

9. Consortia as marketing partners…
• Mentions in newsletters
• Links on web sites
• Materials in member mailings
• Visibility at member events
• Special promotions or offers
• Group trials
• Mail/email lists
http://muse.jhu.edu

10. Some benefits of working with consortia…
• Increase reach and market penetration (especially
when launching a new product)
• Access to new markets and customers
• Greater dissemination of content
• “Serendipity factor” for bundled content (new
readers)
• Reduction in overhead/expenses (accounts payable,
accounts receivable, customer service, renewals, order
entry, sales force)
http://muse.jhu.edu

11. Some challenges of working with consortia…
• Must have enough content to garner consortia interest
• Decision by committee
• Lengthy negotiations which do not always lead to a sale
• Contract negotiations may require legal expertise
• Contract requirements (functionality, service guarantees)
may be beyond current capabilities
• Centralized funding disbursements may not be on track
with subscription term
• Centralized or subsidized funding may not be stable
• Substantial risks if too much business is tied up in
consortia, and one or more unexpectedly cancel
http://muse.jhu.edu

12. There are as many ways of
pricing to consortia as there
are flavors of consortia…
http://muse.jhu.edu

13. Selected Pricing Models
• Special per-user price based on total FTE
• Pricing based on current print holdings “plus”
• Sliding volume discounts based on number of
participants
• Flat rate discounts based on services provided
• Standard discount for all consortia
• Customized price based on composition of
members, level of participation, other factors
• Multi-year contracts
– Annual price caps
– Contractual spend
http://muse.jhu.edu

14. ICOLC “Preferred Pricing Practices”
International Coalition of Library Consortia
Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for Selection
and Purchase of Electronic Information (October, 2004)
• Electronic and paper purchasing unbundled
• Allow print cancellation
• Flexibility in bundled collections (ability to switch
out titles, shave off titles)
• Shift from “print plus” to “electronic plus” model
http://muse.jhu.edu

15. Some considerations…
• What types of content/journals benefit from consortia
sales, and which may experience considerable risk?
(widely held journals vs. niche titles, society journals)
• Do you have the expertise and resources in house, or
easily available, for license negotiation, contract
review, pricing analysis, risk analysis, and other
elements essential to successful consortia sales?
• Does the pricing to consortia accurately reflect the
value to the publisher of consortia sales? Does the
additional business balance potential lost revenue?
http://muse.jhu.edu

16. More considerations…
• Consortia sales may reduce personnel needs in
customer service and fulfillment, but require new
hires in sales and technical development – what, if
any, are the savings?
• Consortia can ask for and expect more in terms of
functionality, service, customization – who pays
for this, especially if consortia prices are
discounted? If all customers benefit from
enhancements made to meet consortia demands, is
it fair for all to absorb some of the cost?
http://muse.jhu.edu

17. Licensing expectations are as
varied as consortium types
and pricing models…
http://muse.jhu.edu

18. ICOLC “Goals for Access”
International Coalition of Library Consortia
Statement of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for Selection
and Purchase of Electronic Information (October, 2004)
• Facilitate information technologies
• Educational “exceptions” to national copyright
laws not lost in electronic environment
• Permanent access and archiving
• Effective measures of use and value
• “Broadest possible access”
http://muse.jhu.edu

19. ICOLC Guidelines for Usage
International Coalition of Library Consortia
Revised Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-Based
Information Resources (September, 2006)
• Reiterates endorsement of Project COUNTER
• Endorses NISO’s Standardized Usage Statistics
Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
• Endorses XML delivery of usage statistics
http://muse.jhu.edu

20. Model NESLi2 License
National Electronic Site Licensing Initiative (UK)
Model NESLi2 License for Journals (most recent revision, May 2007)
• Compliance with COUNTER
• Compliance with Open URL
• Compliance with W3C standards
• Compliance with Project Transfer
• Support access via Athens/Shibboleth
• Allow interlibrary loan
• Allow authors’ deposit of material in institutional repositories
• Electronic version available simultaneously with print
• “Acceptable levels of service”
• Cancellation/substitution options for multi-year deals
• Perpetual access
http://muse.jhu.edu

21. Resources
• International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC)
www.library.yale.edu/consortia
• Model NESLi2 Licence for Journals
www.nesli2.ac.uk/model.htm
• Project COUNTER (usage statistics)
www.projectcounter.org
• National Information Standards Organization (Open URL,
SUSHI)
www.niso.org
• Project Transfer Code of Practice
www.projecttransfer.org
• W3C standards
www.w3.org
http://muse.jhu.edu

22. Contact Information
Melanie Schaffner
Marketing and Sales Manager, Project MUSE
melanie@muse.jhu.edu
410-516-3846
http://muse.jhu.edu