Lower costs greater access

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


Negotiated separate subscription licenses


Negotiated separate PPV license


…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?

[email protected]

We would be happy to hear from you

Lower costs greater access

Documents

Transcript of Lower costs greater access