----------(1)
>From blacks@MAIL.STROSE.EDU Mon Oct 23 19:48:42 2000
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 10:18:41 -0400
From: Steve Black <blacks@MAIL.STROSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cost per title...

If enough libraries see aggregated packages as substitutes for print
subscriptions, we will either see
1.  The price of aggregated packages skyrocket, AND/OR
2.  Publishers stop contributing to the packages.

My understanding is that the aggregators now pay the publishers $5-20 per
subscriber per title.  If you compare that to regular subscription rates for
most journals, it is obvious that current revenue from aggregators can't pay
the publishers' bills.  (Journals with low circulation could be an
exception, if the aggregator has a large enough subscriber base).

It seems to me that aggregation makes more sense for low-circulation,
low-cost titles.  Instead of expecting aggregated packages to substitute for
core titles, we should ask them to give us affordable access to the
low-circulation journals.

Steve Black
Reference, Instruction, and Serials Librarian
Neil Hellman Library
The College of Saint Rose
392 Western Ave.
Albany, NY 12203
(518) 548-5494
blacks@mail.strose.edu

----------(2)
>From NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM Mon Oct 23 19:48:42 2000
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:05:22 -0400
From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Re: Cost per title...

on Fri, 20 Oct 2000 David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU> wrote:

> Peter, the two choices of
> > plunge ahead into aggregated journal
> > bundles or dig our heels into sticking with individual print subscriptions??
>
> are not the only possibilities. We can (and in my opinion should) continue
> getting individual electronic subscriptions to the titles our patrons need.
> And I'm sure a publisher would be glad to sell a library an aggregated bundle
> of all the print they produce. (Don't laugh--it's no sillier than selling a
> library all the electronic. Some of the scientific societies have been selling
> such print  packages for years and still continue to. A few even still insist
> you take the whole group in paper if you want it in electronic. Now's the
> place to laugh.

There's little laughter about preservation. Computers are
not designed for academic archival standards.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>