I have not used the ScholarlyStats service at all.  I know that it is
used in Europe; at least those in the U.K., e.g., seem to be more
familiar with it than those on this side of the Atlantic.

While I haven't used the service, I have read quite a bit about it.
Basically it seems to me that the service offers libraries the
opportunity to outsource all of the fairly extensive effort needed to
gather and maintain usage statistics.  While that is significant in
and of itself, and I'm sure beneficial, I think there may be a better
solution coming soon in the form of SUSHI integration within
electronic resource management systems.  The idea behind SUSHI is to
automate the process of gathering COUNTER compliant statistics via a
web service.  These statistics can then be ingested into an ERMS with
little to no direct intervention, and then the ERMS can, at least in
theory, provide the proper analysis tools needed to make the
statistics useful.

In contrast, as far as I can tell, ScholarlyStats is basically doing
this manually, in a manner similar to what you and I might do on a
quarterly or annual basis.

I have high hopes for the widespread adoption and efficacy of SUSHI as
a smarter approach.  Those who attended the recent NASIG conference
may have heard more about it from a session on SUSHI that was part of
the program (unfortunately I wasn't able to go this year).

There are downsides to SUSHI but they apply equally to the manual
approach, whether done in house or outsourced to ScholarlyStats.  The
main downside that I can see is that vendor/content provider
compliance with COUNTER Code of Practice is spotty.  A particular
vendor may be listed as compliant with release 1 of the COUNTER Code
of Practice but not with release 2 (made available earlier this year).
 Then again, compliance can be quite iffy.  Also, SUSHI is based upon
availability of XML output and as of this date there are very few
vendors who provide this kind of output for COUNTER stats.

Before switching to my new job I worked on a project to integrate
SUSHI capabilities into Endeavor's ERMS, Meridian.  These are a few of
the things I learned as part of that project.  Others no doubt know
more or may be able to correct me, particularly with regard to my
statements about ScholarlyStats.  However, my impression is that while
COUNTER is a great start, and so is SUSHI, we have a ways to go in
terms of reliable, consistent, and widespread adoption of these
initiatives.

Steve

(my new job is Administrator for Library Systems and Technical
Services at Abbott Laboratories)