Thanks to all for your responses to my earlier post.  Most responders answered to the list, a handful directly to me.  Hoping some of you will again share your thoughts and experiences in response to this new post, either to the list or directly to me.  Again, I will summarize to the list some time next week.

Why some can't get rid of annual title lists..LIBRARIES:
=================================
I think the most common reason that many libraries in Big Deals are reluctant to give up annual title lists is their need (perceived??) of being able to account for title-level costs back to cost centers or subject areas, so they need to receive title level invoicing.  I've been batting this thought around: in the context of a big deal, where the publisher is treating their content as a database, where we are getting access to the whole (or most of) the enchilada, and especially where we are getting permanent access rights to both the historically subscribed and the unsubscribed, DOES TITLE LEVEL INVOICING BASED ON THE HISTORIC SUBSCRIPTION LIST STILL MAKE SENSE?  If we were to do an analysis of the value we get from Elsevier, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Frances, Wiley, or others under various forms of the Big Deal license, we're not looking very far if we're not looking beyond the historically subscribed titles.  Costing back to subject areas and cost centers has to take the value of the historically unsubscribed into account.

Why some can't get rid of annual title lists..PUBLISHERS:
==================================
My take is that there are at least 3 reasons:
  1.)  Libraries demand title level invoicing, to meet their local needs.
  2.)  Some publishers have their own internal (perceived??) accounting needs, where dollars rather than usage are the "votes" being tallied to place comparative value and relative success among their stable of titles.
  3.)  Some publishers may have arcane computing and process/people systems in place where title-level accountability is necessary to feed the beast.  (Same can perhaps be said maybe of some libraries. :-)

Where do AGENTS come into play?
=====================
As long as annual Big Deal pricing coming from the publisher is dependent on accurate title lists, THEN I ABSOLUTELY NEED THE AGENT.  Don't know how others feel, but I don't think I'm the only one.  Of the major Big Deal reconciliations I've had for 2008, 2 did not carry over the corrections from last year and I'm still redoing work I had done on these last year.  As has been demonstrated again and again over the 8 years I've been doing this, I cannot trust the publishers' title lists, and I absolutely need the Agents records and backroom help for the annual verification. If, however, both publisher and library agree to move to a single-line invoice with an annual cap and simple math to calculate next year's single-line invoice, what value-added does the Agent then have to offer (either for the publisher or for the library)?

Thoughts and comments?  If you respond to me directly, I guarantee anonymity for libraries, publishers, and agents.  Or anybody else.

Best,

-g

P.S.:  If you wanna see a fool jump out of a perfectly good airplane, take a look at http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/album.jsp?aid=768a5498cf434139efa7

>>> Gary Ives <GIves@LIB-GW.TAMU.EDU> 5/15/2008 2:24 PM >>>
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