Re: Can we get rid of annual title reconciliations for Big Deals? Hutchens, Chad 19 May 2008 22:16 UTC
I agree with Gary on this one...regarding historical title lists (or reconciled lists) determining package cost. How long into the future can we reasonably do this? At some point in time, after college curricula and emphases change, we will need to move away from this pricing model. In addition, it really doesn't seem to make much sense to base cost 20 years later on titles that any library had two decades in the past. What's more is that, just as Gary noted, it's mind-numbing work to keep track of reconciled lists vs. actual access lists and yes, every publisher seems to have a different name for the same thing :( As far as the Big Deal goes, while I do think it's somewhat constrictive, making broad-based generalizations that they are good or bad just doesn't work. At some libraries, like here at MSU, it's a great thing and we could never have as much as we do without Big Deal packages. Even on a cost-per-use basis, we're getting more than our money's worth. On the flip side, I think there are plenty of other larger libraries where it's not so great of a "Deal." And while it would be nice to have all the major publishers agree on the same sort of pricing model...honestly I don't think that's ever going to happen. Many of these publishers are in different countries with different tax rules, economies, currencies, different value systems, etc. I think a more realistic goal would be simplification (as already noted) instead of uniformity. Chad E. Hutchens Electronic Resources Librarian Montana State University Libraries P.O. Box 173320 Bozeman, MT 59717-3320 (406) 994-4313 phone (406) 994-2851 fax chutchens@montana.edu -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Ives Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:12 PM To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Can we get rid of annual title reconciliations for Big Deals? Under the Big Deal licenses we have with the bigger publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley, part of the annual renewal ritual is to verify the subscribed title list with the publisher and subscription agent before invoicing occurs. Every year. Ad nauseum. Taking hours. An alternative model might be one last title reconciliation going into a contract to determine the dollar value, then cutting loose from title-based pricing and moving to package-based pricing based on previous spend, and taking a one-line-item invoice for the package. This doesn't cover all the nuances, but gives the basic idea which might vary from publisher to publisher. -g >>> Barbara Pope <bpope@PITTSTATE.EDU> 5/15/2008 2:35 PM >>> I'm curious. What do you mean by "title reconciliations"? We subscribe to a few deals and I have never heard this phrase. Barbara Pope, MALS Periodicals/Reference Librarian Axe Library Pittsburg State University Pittsburg KS 66762 620-235-4884 bpope@pittstate.edu Gary Ives wrote: > I am so-o-o-o-o-o-o tired of title reconciliations for the Big Deal renewals, and am finding increasingly appealing a model which eliminates annual title reconciliations. > > My questions to the list: > > Have any of you independently negotiated with any of the major publishers for a deal that gives you access to "all" but with no title reconciliations? Was it you who went to the publisher, or did the publisher come to you? What other conditions have you required to make the deal work? If, under such a deal, you receive a single-line-item invoice for the package, do you see any remaining value to putting it through a subscription agent? > > I will compile responses in a post to both this and the SERIALST discussion lists, and maintain anonymity for libraries, publishers, and subscription agents. > > > Gary Ives > Coordinator of Electronic Resources > Texas A&M University Libraries > 5000 TAMU > College Station, TX 77843-5000 > Phone: (979) 458-0726 > FAX: (979) 458-1630 > Email: gives@lib-gw.tamu.edu > > >