ACQNET v2n107 (December 2, 1992) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acq-v2n107 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 107, December 2, 1992 ========================================= (1) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: "Adding value" and acquisitions (111 lines) (2) FROM: Carol Hawks SUBJECT: "Adding value" and acquisitions (54 lines) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 14:02:52 EST From: Richard P. Jasper (Emory University) Subject: MORE ON VALUE ADDED I was very glad to see Andy Stancliffe's eloquent remarks on value added acquisitions librarianship. He articulated perfectly what I was groping to say in my typically off-handed fashion. Although there are many more voices yet to be heard on this topic, there are a couple of related ideas I would like to throw into the hopper. (1) We have all many times heard the view expressed that libraries are a "bottomless pit," consuming university resources and not giving anything back, other than some ill-defined sense that the library is the "heart" of the scholarly enterprise. This view for me was significantly reinforced last year when, as chair of Emory's Traffic & Parking Committee, I regularly sat in on meetings of the University Senate and the University Faculty Council. At one such meeting, the Vice Provost for Campus Planning and Enrollment Management came to discuss the University's budget proposal for FY 1992-93. She very neatly split the University down the middle into groups that were considered "revenue generating" (i.e., the University hospital, the schools and colleges, sponsored research programs) and those groups that were "revenue consumers" (i.e., the libraries, academic computing, and administrative support functions like human resources and university accounting). The other thing that really struck me in the Vice Provost's description of the budget was that at Emory, which has enjoyed tremendous and quite atypical growth in the past 10-12 years, "support services" such as libraries and academic computing have not kept up with "revenue generators" in terms of the total percentage of the university allocation, despite having received budgets and budget increases that other university libraries would find enviable. I think this perception, that libraries and other support services are a drain on university resources, is the concern that lies at the heart of Miriam Drake's call to arms regarding "what value do we bring to the scholarly enterprise"--why do we deserve the same amount, or more, of the pie? And if we can't convince folks that what we do is in of itself intrinsically valuable, does this suggest the need for us to consider "revenue generating" ventures? (2) I think all of the above also ties into the "crisis" in scholarly publishing, which has been appeared most prominently in the form of massively escalating journal prices, and the suggestions Ross Atkinson made at the beginning of this year regarding acquisitions librarians as change agents in the emerging networked information environment. If you've been reading the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_ lately you will have noted that a number of publishers have been openly chagrined at the notion that they are raking in the bucks without doing anything to deserve it. They point out that publishers of all stripes, whether commercial, society or university, add a great deal of value to the "raw product" constituted by the scholarly journal article. And they are right in pointing this out, in my view; publishers really do play an important role in the scholarly communication process and they deserve to be rewarded for doing so. My beef with the publishers is that, like doctor's fees (which are soon to be receiving a great deal of scrutiny at the national level, praise be to Bill Clinton), they are charging more for their product than people can afford and probably more than it is really worth. Moreover, I don't think that anyone--neither the scholars, nor the publishers, nor the university administrators--really appreciates what libraries bring to the scholarly communication process, nor have they paid much attention to the fact that over the past 20 years there has been a great shift (away from individual scholars and the scholarly societies and toward libraries) in terms of who pays for what. So, at some point will do we need to say to publishers, "Look, we can do some things for you that would enhance the value of your product (indexing? abstracting? table of contents work?)--in exchange for taking on some such project for you, why don't you give us a price break or give us a guarantee that your prices won't inflate at more than the rate of inflation for the next 3-5 years?" Likewise, should universities as institutions be negotiating with major publishers for site licenses guaranteeing access to journal material at equalized rates--or the publisher will forfeit receiving contributions of scholarly articles from that university community? Likewise, if we get to a point, as Ross suggested last summer at the Acquisitions Administrators Discussion Group (reprised in the January 1992 issue of _LRTS_), where we are going to be repackaging information for the scholarly community, are we going to have enough gumption to charge what it's really worth, and not just the most basic cost recovery? A couple of years ago I interviewed a number of monographs vendors about what they thought acquisitions librarians wanted. The most interesting answer was from the vendor who flat out told me, "Libraries don't know what they want because they really don't know how much it costs to do the things they do." Just a couple of weeks ago I was asked by a new vendor rep, until recently employed by a major commercial publisher, what I thought a "fair profit" would be for a commercial publisher. I didn't know what to tell him; five percent? Ten percent? Twenty-five percent? Somewhere in the middle I would suppose, but I really don't know. Whatever the case, I think Miriam Drake is right. It's time for us to start thinking about what we do and what value it has. Until we can say with some surety, "these are the true costs" and "this is the real value," of the services and materials we impart to the university community we will always be coming up short. (2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 09:29 EST From: Carol P. Hawks (Ohio State University) Subject: Adding value: a practical example Richard Jasper and Andy Stancliffe have written articulately about ways in which we "add value", but let me give a more practical example with which to illustrate their points. Marsha Hamilton and I recently worked with the University's Purchasing Department to rebid our approval contract. Due to the size and duration of this contract and as a result of the University's financial situation, this contract was tagged for extra scrutiny. In practicality, this meant that Purchasing gave it a great deal of attention and added a number of provisions to ensure that the university received as much benefit as possible for its dollars. In principal, I agree with this approach, but as acquisitions specialists we felt that we had already exercised our expertise in writing the specifications and terms with a realistic eye to the current publishing/bookselling market. We were able to convince the Purchasing folks not to pursue some agendas such as bidding the plan in small pieces to maximize discount. (Of course, that approach would also have maximized staff effort for us.) However, we did agree to allow them to include a number of provisions which were against our better judgment. 1. Including options for the bidder to provide a higher discount for prepayment of the plan. 2. Including options for the bidder to provide a higher discount for invoices pay within 60 days. 3. Including a minimum bidding discount which was very high in the current market. So, what happened? And, why do I feel vindicated? 1. The bidder did not opt to exercise this option. 2. The bidder did not opt to exercise this option. 3. Only one bidder was able to meet the minimum discount -- happened to be the current contract holder who would have no start up costs in continuing a plan they have had for over 10 years. Certainly, we ran the risk of no one in the current market being able to meet this high minimum. Although I couldn't say it to anyone, I certainly felt an "I told you so" kind of response, when we went to review the bids. All this to say that our knowledge of the book market, the library field, the economic realities of this business could have been used more productively if we could have convinced Purchasing that we do "add value". We were successful in discouraging them from pursuing various avenues, but not in everything. The situation turned out fine for us though there was certainly a chance that no one would bid on a contract which currently expires on Dec. 31, 1992. Rebidding would have meant serious if impossible time constraints. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 107 ****** END OF FILE *******