Experience with consortia – a view from a specialist publisher Peter Williams Academic Director: Professional Engineering Publishing ASA Meeting February 2008

 Brief overview of PE Publishing  Experience with Consortia Usage based initiative JISC Business Models Trials ALPSP: ALJC Other avenues…  Observations  Lessons from the 70’s! Experience with consortia – a view from a specialist publisher

A Brief overview of PE Publishing  Publishers to the IMechE 18 Journals  Proceedings of the IMechE Online Proceedings archive from Magazines Publishing services for partners  40 publishing staff  £7.9m turnover (2007)

Experience with Consortia  PE Publishing Usage Based Model: 2003/04 Negotiable one time set-up fee Negotiable download/article fee Negotiable % of downloads counted No existing subscription cancellation Usage/access fee CAPPED at current subscription rate Three year deal:  Year One Gratis, online access to PE Publishing Journals to all Consortia members Year One usage the basis of Year Two access fee  Year Two Access fee based upon % of Year One usage Access fee capped at current subscription rate Year Two usage used as basis of Year Three access fee  Year Three Repeat of Year Two. Deal re-negotiated All billing and access arrangements negotiable

Experience with Consortia  NELINET: 600+ academic, public, and special libraries in the six New England states of USA  NRW: 30+ academic libraries in North Rhine- Westphalia, Germany  FinELib: Finnish national consortium of 108 University, Polytechnic, Research Institute, and Regional Public Libraries  iGroup: Open Consortia initiatives in Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines and Malaysia

Experience with Consortia  NELINET: 6 months. exchanges and phone calls. No deal. X  NRW:5 months. exchanges. No deal. X  FinELib:11 months. exchanges and face-to-face meetings. No deal. X  iGroup:18 months. exchanges and face-to face meetings. Small trial in Thailand. 

Experience with Consortia  Questions: Unpopular model?  Cost uncertainty  Administrative problems Unpopular product?  Existing market penetration Subscriptions Usage Size/importance of publisher?  Relatively small portfolio  Perception of engineering in marketplace

JISC Business Models Trial  2005 – 2006 Trial managed by Content Complete  PPV converting to subscriptions  U2S: University College London and University of Greenwich  Model: (Essentially that previously trialled by PE Publishing) Access to entire PE Publishing online collection Negotiated article download price Free content and “double clicked” downloads accommodated Usage fee capped at subscription price Usage based on Counter returns

JISC Business Models Trial  Content Complete Report to JISC in May 2007:   Key points: Budget uncertainty – for both Libraries and Publishers Administratively problematic and costly Pure usage-based model unacceptable to Libraries Usage metrics possible element of future consortia models

ALPSP Learned Journals Collection: ALJC  Considered joining ALJC in 2003 and subsequent years. Declined: Didn’t fit desired pricing model Management of internal tensions  Joined ALJC in 2008 collection 728 titles from 53 publishers in 2008 PE Publishing Member of Steering Committee Number of interesting Consortia proposals in progress

Other avenues…  Working with a range of companies developing Consortia proposals for different regions: GIST: India Allied: India iGroup: China and Vietnam EmPact: South America and Eastern Europe PCG: Archive content into Europe NIC: Iran

Observations …  Consortia deals are both time consuming and costly to set up and administer  Are the true costs to both parties clearly identified?  Is it possible for the “smaller” publisher to enter this market?  Is it a fair playing field?  Are large consortia deals legal? Anti-competitive? Exclusionary behaviour: “Big Deal” bundling?  The Bundling of Academic Journals. Edlin and Rubinfield. American Economic Review Vol 95(2)  Exclusion or Efficient Pricing: The Big Deal bundling of academic journals. Edlin and Rubinfield. American Bar Association Antitrust Law Journal Vol 72(1) 2004  Between a rock and a hard place: the big squeeze for small publishers. Prosser. Learned Publishing Vol 17(1) 2004  Are large consortia deals good for scientific communication? Wider access Reduced cost/download More access - but less choice? By-passing the rigours of the market ?

Lessons from the 70’s…  1970’s self help books: I'm Not OK, You're Not OK I'm OK, You're Not OK I'm Not OK, You're OK

Lessons from the 70’s…  I'm Not OK, You're OK “ During the next weeks, the Consortia Negotiations Resource Team (NRT) will continue to evaluate the proposals received and, as a result, may contact you should further clarifications be required on your proposal. The evaluation period may continue until the beginning of December. Due to the longer time required for the evaluation and considering the upcoming Christmas holiday period, it is unlikely that you would be required to meet with the NRT prior to January. However, should we contact you for a possible meeting, we will give you a 10 working days notice to arrange for such meeting. Until then, please, make your schedule as flexible as possible for January and be aware that it is probable that not all vendors will have an opportunity to meet with the NRT.”

Lessons from the 70’s…  1970’s self help books: I'm Not OK, You're Not OK I'm OK, You're Not OK I'm Not OK, You're OK I'm OK, You're OK

Lessons from the 70’s…  1970’s self help books:  EF Schumaker:  Specialist is beautiful……