Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

245 m schaffner

260 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

245 m schaffner

  1. 1. Consortia Expectationsfor Licensing and Pricing SSP Fall Educational Seminar Innovations in Pricing and Licensing November 14, 2007 http://muse.jhu.edu
  2. 2. Outline for Today• Consortia 101• Consortia Pricing Models and Considerations• Consortia Licensing Expectations• Resources http://muse.jhu.edu
  3. 3. Library consortia come in many flavors… http://muse.jhu.edu
  4. 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. 5. Funding• Central – subsidized (full/partial), government funding• Membership fees• Grants• Individual institution payments• Mixed http://muse.jhu.edu
  6. 6. Organization• National or state government office• Non-profit organization• Volunteer-run http://muse.jhu.edu
  7. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. There are as many ways of pricing to consortia as there are flavors of consortia… http://muse.jhu.edu
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17. Licensing expectations are as varied as consortium types and pricing models… http://muse.jhu.edu
  18. 18. ICOLC “Goals for Access”International Coalition of Library ConsortiaStatement 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. 19. ICOLC Guidelines for UsageInternational Coalition of Library ConsortiaRevised 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. 20. Model NESLi2 LicenseNational 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. 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. 22. Contact InformationMelanie SchaffnerMarketing and Sales Manager, Project MUSEmelanie@muse.jhu.edu410-516-3846 http://muse.jhu.edu

×