Ann O'Neill, College of Library and Information Science, University of South Carolina, aoneill@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu.
Cindy Hepfer, State University of New York at Buffalo, began the meeting by describing how she came up with the topic. Her library has several net- worked databases to serve the library and the staff at eighteen associated hospitals. While negotiating the licenses for the library she discovered that there were several different pricing models and definitions of user groups. She thought that it might be useful to hear the experiences of other libraries and how database providers were establishing their pricing policies. Trisha Davis, Ohio State University, spoke first and presented several pricing models based on different formats used to provide information. The basic model contains several variables and reflects what the library knows about the model and how each variable might affect the cost of the product. The variables found in each model are 1) The product format; 2) The access method; 3) The number of users; 4) The definition of a user; 5) The capa- bilities, limitations, or available options. The models she presented were: 1) Traditional print -- a book is the product. The library understands what it is buying, limited to one user at a time, and limited only by copyright restrictions. 2) Database -- online searching of an external database. Access is through a stand alone workstation, limited to one user, and limitations are defined by the product. 3) Local Area Network Database -- hardwired dedicated terminals to search an external database. Access through dedicated terminals, the number of users is limited by the number of terminals, and limitations are defined by the product and software. 4) CD-ROM -- software and CD-ROMS to search a database locally. Access through stand alone workstations for each database, limited to one user, and product defined limitations. 5) Wide Area Network -- tape loaded or CD-ROM database searching. This example allows networked terminals or dial-in access, the number of users is defined by the network, and limitations are defined by the product, software, and network. How the library pays for the database depends on purchase options and defi- nitions of use and user. The library may purchase or lease the database and software together or separately, or subscribe to the database (the library should question how frequent the updates are and when old disks must be returned). Factors such as the medium used to store the information, prod- uct version, search features (full text or abstracts only), functions, or editions (geographic or time) will also affect costs. All of these options may have different definitions, therefore it is necessary to arrive at consistent definitions. Most problematic may be access and definition of "user" and user subgroups. "User" may be defined as the licensee, defined user populations (students, faculty, or a combination), or site license. Librarians also need to be aware of who is using the information, what information they are using, why, where they are accessing it, and when they access it. Davis concluded by noting that pricing models have evolved from transaction and access charges of online searching to user populations with unlimited access of CD-ROM searching, and that pricing options may be moving back to a charge per access or time length or combination of these models. The miscellaneous costs such as set up, instruction, documentation, and re- placement should not be forgotten. Judy Luther of the Institute for Scientific Information followed and dis- cussed the philosophy of pricing materials in electronic format. She began by noting that publishers face risks in the conversion of print to elec- tronic distribution of information because of the rapidly changing technol- ogies. Publishers' pricing philosophy should reflect the user's approach to information, the psychology of demand, and knowledge of what users want. Costs may be based on the value of the information to the user. The format used by ISI is both qualitative (exposing users to more research and data and getting it to them more quickly) and quantitative (getting more data to more users in more locations). The changing formats mean that "a rose is no longer a rose" because the electronic version of a product loses some of the distinctiveness of the original format as libraries and users combine print and electronic versions of the product. The challenge facing publishers is how to be consistent in their pricing. The print price may serve as the base cost, electronic may be slightly higher and a combination of print and electronic may be higher still. Pub- lishers do have costs to consider in establishing a price. Information in electronic form has higher labor costs due to more extensive training of staff, costs to key the data, changing technology, and possible duplication of maintenance for each format. The increased efficiency and access for the user may not necessarily save publishers money. Once the initial database has been created, however, the publisher may face lower maintenance costs. Because libraries want to provide information to multiple users, the costs to libraries are not clear cut and continue to evolve. The price to multi- ple institutions or state networks may be determined by such factors as campus, zip code, size of the institution, or the level of research done there. It may be possible to have tiers within these groups and discounts based on the level of use. The experiments in pricing will continue in the near future but will be clarified as the demands and increased convenience for the user become clearer. Sean Hegerty of SilverPlatter spoke next about the definitions for each pricing variable SilverPlatter is trying to establish, so that prices make sense for the company and libraries. As such, SilverPlatter has 5 goals for their pricing: 1) Fair and equitable; 2) Durable and sustained for a period of time; 3) Easily understood; 4) Independent of technology; 5) Predictable and budgetable. To meet these goals, SilverPlatter is working on definitions such as: sim- ultaneous users (the number of users inside the title screen); customer (same institution or city); media independence (emphasis on data rather than storage/distribution media); remote access (user may be "resident" at the institution); single or consortium network user. Hegerty pointed out that two years ago there were approximately 6,000 data- bases and now there are 10,000, and charges have dropped from $100/hour for online searching to $10/hour for CD-ROM searching, to $1/hour for network access searching. Even though the costs per search have dropped, publishers have not lost money because the market became larger. For this trend to continue, however, libraries and patrons must be able to afford to use the databases. Karen Hunter of Elsevier Science presented the perspective of a full text provider, rather than the indexing and abstracting services discussed prev- iously. The development of full text access to electronic information is in much earlier stages, and is being pilot tested with the TULIP project. Elsevier is following five principles to establish pricing models: 1) Price is media neutral, the cost to the library should be the same whatever the medium; 2) Include present and future costs in the price structure -- if Elsevier were to charge all electronic development costs up front, the cost to libraries would be prohibitive, so these must be distributed over time; 3) In the long term, prices for electronic information should reflect the function of the information; 4) Price to encourage use, more individuals than institutions, or consider flat rates rather than metered use; 5) Fair- ness in relation to the number of users. Licenses should include the following considerations: who buys the license, where the information is kept, who uses it, who controls it, how is it used, who pays for it, what happens to the information at the end of the relationship, and who has archival responsibility. Currently, use is hard to measure and control. At the end of a relationship involving paper cop- ies, an individual library keeps the information and may have unlimited use. With electronic full text however, use can expand to the university, country, or consortium; use can be measured; but the library may not have access to the information at the end of the relationship. Price options for single sites might include paper, paper and electronic, electronic only. Paper would act as the base price, paper and electronic would be more expensive, and electronic only would fall between the first two options. Additional options might be a flat fee for unlimited use, metered use depending on how much was downloaded or printed, multiple sites and users, and relationships between multiple sites (e.g. University of California system versus the University of Michigan and Ford relationship). Additional problems that must be settled include charging for the number of people, not machines, and off-site distribution of electronic information. A user may be defined by a "home base" but could access the information from different sites. However, no distribution to noninstitutional users would be allowed without remuneration, which would mean charging for inter- library loan or document delivery. Another concern is the rights of both parties at the termination of the agreement. Options include keeping what was bought and having unlimited access if it is stored locally, or remote storage with a service fee to access the information. Questions that still need to be answered include the following: What will be the role of the traditional agent and new hosts or technology providers? Who pays for service and support, archiving information? Should prices be fixed or negotiated? Beverlee French, University of California at Davis, concluded the meeting by summarizing the presentations. The theme she heard most often was the idea of choosing and defining options. Librarians want to understand elec- tronic costs in terms of print costs and to preserve the ability to provide access to simultaneous users. They are also concerned with measuring use by issue or title, archiving the information, and understanding what happens to the idea of library "assets" of the paper copy. She recognizes that first copy costs will be about the same, but distribu- tion costs should decrease. Other questions about costs are: who will fund initial investment, how do the number of potential uses and users fit our previous understanding, what will be the effect on access to information, and will we contribute to the creation of information rich and information poor? Two ideas she was pleased to hear publishers considering are the concept of media independence and that prices should be sustained over time. However, the issue of who will monitor use and how continues to trouble her. For example, the cost to the library to provide all users with a password is prohibitive. Is it possible for librarians to prevent the abuse of the password by users? Can prices be determined by the purpose of the use, for example, research versus reserve readings. Furthermore, librarians will not want to negotiate each individual title with each publisher. The idea of sustained prices should help alleviate this concern. Will libraries be able to pay for the product? What is the value of the product or information compared to the money we will have. She recognizes that value is added because of the improved access, but the content is the same. We must remember that money saved on buildings will not be returned to the library for other purchases and that the money to pay for the infor- mation and the hardware may not be available. The discussion following the presentations focused on a number of issues. Several audience members questioned the idea that the costs of electronic information would be higher than paper costs. Karen Hunter responded, say- ing that publishers now have the costs of producing two parallel products and that they can't increase the cost of the paper product to offset the electronic product. It was suggested that standardized pricing might be a way to offset this. Karen Hunter responded that FTC regulations would pro- hibit standardized prices, but it would be to everyone's benefit to have guidelines and standardized definitions to negotiate the costs. Others suggested that perhaps, in the future, costs could be lowered by having more services for the price so that cost per use was lower. It was also suggested that medium size libraries may want to negotiate as a group so that the cost for an individual institution would be less than if they negotiated as a single entity. Other questions focused on the "no interlibrary loan" policy for electronic information. Karen Hunter said that CONTU guidelines were designed for paper copies, but because electronic information could be shared much more easily ILL would cause more problems. She reiterated that document delivery or ILL would be allowed with remuneration, either directly or via the CCC. An audience member suggested that it might be easier for authors to dis- tribute the information themselves since they already had it in electronic format for the publisher. Others responded that authors would not want to take on this responsibility in addition to research, teaching, and tenure requirements. The issue of the authority of the author was also raised, as well as control of copyright of the self-distributed material. Beverlee French then suggested that it might be scholarly organizations rather than individual authors who would distribute material. Other concerns were raised about changing technology, journals moving from publisher to publisher, and archival responsibility in all cases. Trisha Davis and Karen Hunter mentioned that several task forces are investigating these issues and that librarians should be thinking about their role and responsibility in archiving information. Liability issues were discussed briefly. If libraries made their "best effort" to prevent fraudulent use of passwords, this may be acceptable. More discussion is needed about the changing role of network providers such as cable or telephone companies.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Statements of fact and opinion appearing in the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_ are made on the responsibility of the authors alone, and do not imply the endorsement of the editor, the editorial board, or the Uni- versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper methods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is published by the editor through the Office of Information Technology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, Internet: tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu; Paper mail: Serials Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27514-8890; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-4450. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Christian Boissonnas (Cornell University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Janet Fisher (MIT Press), Fred Friend (University College London), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), Daniel Jones (University of Texas Health Science Cen- ter), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on the Internet, Black- well's CONNECT, and Readmore's ROSS. EBSCO customers may receive the News- letter in paper format. To subscribe to the newsletter send a message to LISTSERV@UNC.EDU saying SUBSCRIBE PRICES [YOUR NAME]. Be sure to send that message to the listserv- er and not to Prices. You must include your name. To unsubscribe (no name required in message), you must send the message from the e-mail address by which you are subscribed. If you have problems, please contact the editor. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically. To get a list of available issues send a message to LISTSERV@UNC.EDU saying INDEX PRICES. To retrieve a specific issue, the message should read: GET PRICES PRICES.xx (where "xx" is the number of the issue). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++