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
>
>
>