1. VIVA’s View of the Big Deal, Cost Sharing, and Cooperative Collection Management; Why sometimes having just one key is not enough. Museum of Innocence: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/05/orhan-pamuks-museum-innocence Remodeling Cost-Sharing in a Consortial World Kathy Perry VIVA Director April 18, 2014 ANKOSlink Conference Antalya, Turkey 1

2. VIVA and the Big Deal Museum of Innocence: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/05/orhan-pamuks-museum-innocence 2

3. “Consortia are like snowflakes, each one is unique”– Merryll Penson, GALILEO http://www.psdgraphics.com/file/png-transparent-snowflakes.png 3

4. 73 VIVA Members

5. Know when to “Just Say No” 5

6. Total Articles in FY13: 877,000 Previously Subscribed Titles vs. New Titles in Big Deal FY13 Use from Previously Subscribed Titles 443,349 6

7. Total Articles in FY13: 877,000 Previously Subscribed Titles vs. New Titles in Big Deal FY13 Use from Previously Subscribed Titles FY13 Use from New Titles in Big Deal 7

8. Proportion of FY13 Usage from Titles Not Previously Subscribed 8

9. VIVA and Cost Sharing Museum of Innocence: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/05/orhan-pamuks-museum-innocence 9

10. Total Biennial Budgets, All Sources 1994-96 to 2012-14 10

11. VIVA and Cost Sharing Getting to “Win-Win-Win!”  Original Subscribers:  Want to pay less than they currently pay  Don’t want to think they are carrying the other members  Original Nonsubscribers:  Some are willing and able to contribute  It must be less than what they would have to pay on their own  Vendor:  Gets some additional $$$ plus  Single contract  Single invoice  A multi-year commitment  Other benefits (e.g. negotiated cancelation rates/year) 11

12. Sample Cost Sharing Win, Win, Win # public colleges Current Revenue to VendorAdjust TOTAL Cost Sharing Original Subscribers8$500,000-$100,000$400,000 Original Nonsubscribers (4 yr)7$0+$84,000$84,000 Original Nonsubscribers (2 yr)24$25,000+$10,000$35,000 VIVA Central (state) funds$0+$80,000$80,000 Total39$525,000+$74,000$599,000 =14% more for vendor 12

13. Uniquely Tailored! http://www.farmol.com/tailor-made-projects 13

14.  Leverage the available state funds  Ensure that all participants see improved value http://agenda.turkeyvision.com/the-museum-of-innoncence / Goals (This seems to work well… for about 3-4 years….) 14

15. Assess and Re-Evaluate  Look at usage data  Evaluate new circumstances  New models balance:  % Use in recent 3 years  % Original spend or cost sharing previously paid  % Program level in that subject area (Bachelor’s Masters, Ph.D., other)  The precise formula for one product is unlikely to work for the next product  Continue to strive for a Win-Win-Win and to tailor each deal 15

16. Advice?  Strive to find the Win-Win-Win proposition  Seek to optimize a culture of collegiality and shared success  Remain flexible  And remember, sometimes it helps to have more than one key… 16

17. VIVA and Collection Analysis http://lareviewofbooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Museum-of-Innocence1.jpg 17

18. 3 Pilot Projects Purpose of Analysis: to inform local weeding projects AND to inform future e- book acquisitions 1.Last Copy Video Pilot (SCS) 2.Print Monograph Collection Pilot (SCS) 3.Print Monographs by Subject and Publisher (In-house) 18

19. Last Copy Video Project  7 participating libraries with strong media collections  Project Goals:  To evaluate content and ensure that content deemed to be of long-term value will be retained by at least one of the participating libraries.  To address video deterioration and assess the need to reformat some of the holdings.  To provide data to support VIVA’s licensing more media content for VIVA members. 19

20. Notes  Videos are a new area for Sustainable Collection Services (SCS)  Different circulation rates for videos (much higher circulation rate than books – 86% had circulated)  Different unique title rates for videos (many more unique titles – 5% of the holdings were uniquely held in the United States) 20

21. Print Monograph Collection Project  12 participating libraries  Project Goals:  To quantify overlap and distribution of the existing collection with a view toward informing future collection development.  To assist our members realize space savings (particularly of low-use titles) without reducing the integrity or the maximum range of the overall VIVA collection of monographs. 21

22. Holdings Levels by Library 22

23. Title-Holdings by Publication Year Sustainablecollections.com Does this quick decline show the impact of e-books? 23

24. Number of Title Holdings Average Uses per Title-Holding Holdings and Usage Levels by LC Subject Sustainablecollections.com Few holdings But highly used Many holdings And less used 24

25. Print Book Analysis by Subject and Publisher Titles contributed by the 7 representative participating libraries 25

26. Report Criteria  Circulating print books only.  Published in 1980 or more recently.  Last circulated July 1, 2008, or more recently.  Total circulations so that the total number of records equals 10% of the institution’s FTE. 26

27. From the ISBN to the Publisher Using a listing of almost 116,000 publishers, the ISBN was mapped to individual publishers. 0195161467 27

28. Top 25 Overall Publishers by Number of Titles 28

29. Sample Analysis by Subject Top 10 Publishers in Mathematics Publishers represented by VIVA’s current content purchases Publisher represented by VIVA’s demand driven plan 29

30. Lessons So Far  Have proven that the SCS service can do more than just help libraries weed – we plan to use the data to help us acquire additional resources.  We have proven that we (Anne) can do a publisher analysis in-house as a very low cost analysis of print titles.  Analysis of print titles must take into consideration e-book acquisitions in recent years.  Garbage In; Garbage Out.  This is a new area that we think is worth pursuing. 30