RE: universities experiment with paying OA fees

["Michael Zeoli" <mzeoli@ybp.com>]

We aggregators whose core businesses are Approval Plans with 
workflow support (MARC records with imbedded local data for batch 
load to ILS & batch invoice creation, online tools for various 
aspects of collecting - including real-time views on consortium 
and peer library activity) find this discussion highly 
interesting.

Our first role has always been that of aggregating *appropriate* 
content for academic libraries (like academic publishers who edit 
and vet the works they publish, we too are a part of the 
filtering mechanism to libraries).  As we refit our internal 
mechanisms to support ebooks, we are not only thinking along 
traditional lines, i.e. aggregating like titles one-by-one from 
1500+ publishers and forcing them through our tens of thousands 
of approval plan profiles to reach the appropriate selectors in 
our customer libraries (still a valid process in e however), but 
we are beginning to work with libraries to define "approval 
packages" (as opposed to "approval books").  This process is more 
complex than a simple blanket order or standing order, as it 
incorporates experience and systems developed over several 
decades, allowing libraries better control over the dollars spent 
on content ingested while still benefiting from bulk purchasing 
(in price and in efficiency of delivery).

The same reasons that created a space for aggregators in the 
academic print world should absolutely remain central to library 
acquisitions and collections in the coming years: aggregating 
content from thousands of publishers, providing definition and 
indexing to that content, providing delivery mechanisms 
supporting selection, ordering, comparison with peers, sharing of 
information and purchasing within consortia, and offering 
critical data customization and delivery to make the process of 
ingesting masses of content manageable for libraries with limited 
staff. There's a huge amount of value there that is in no way 
offset in the 'big deals.'

As middlemen we are increasingly reaching out to publishers to 
share our experience with what libraries want and need a develop 
renewed partnerships as a critical percentage of content shifts 
to 'e' (e.g. when will publishers like Samuel French and 
Dramatists Play Service let us help them deliver their content 
online to our libraries? - Many of whom have blanket orders for 
these publishers - libraries hate those types of materials in the 
print format and would jump at the opportunity to purchase them 
in e; When will we be able to aggregate various groups of UP 
titles into these packages for rapid and immediate delivery to 
our customers without making the libraries either have to go to 
50-70 individual sources, etc.).  It seems to many of us that 
there is a renewed partnership between the publishers and 
aggregators just waiting for the season of the 'big deals' to 
pass.  There are some terrific opportunities just waiting for 
people to start talking again.

Mike

******************************
Director of Sales, Canada
YBP Library Services
999 Maple Street
Contoocook, NH  03229

mzeoli@ybp.com
(603) 746-3102  ext. 3345

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Bridges
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 6:48 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; Joseph J. Esposito
Subject: Re: universities experiment with paying OA fees

I agree with this.  I have no real argument with the idea of
bundles of books in whatever format.  My problem is that it
inevitably is the case that those bundles contain a mixture of
items so I end up buying ten items to get the 3 I really want.
This seems especially a case with e-book collections.

It just points out that vendors need to develop highly focused
"bundles" that give the purchaser collections that are focused on
their needs. I like the idea of thematic bundles.

There needs to be an approach, call it "just in time bundling",
where bundles can be quickly customized to the needs, if not of
single users, at least to the needs of particular classes of
libraries -- land grant, public, ect. -- which is what I think
Toby was getting at.


Quoting "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>:

> Toby has this exactly right.  Kudos.  Note the central economic
> issue:  lowering the administrative cost of effecting a sale.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Toby.GREEN@oecd.org
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:29 PM
> Subject: RE: universities experiment with paying OA fees
>
> Adam,
>
> Thanks for your posting and for introducing me to your platform.
> I've looked at the Lessig books. It's a nice, clean interface. I
> like the clip feature. I didn't like that I can only print off
> pages one-by-one - this would be very tedious if I wanted to read
> a chapter on the train home tonight.
>
> I disagree with your view that selling subscriptions is
> increasingly inefficient. In my experience, it is quite the
> reverse. Selling books by the one, whether in print or online, is
> inefficient.
>
> Think about the costs involved in deciding to buy a book on a
> one-by-one basis and then the transaction costs involved in
> making the purchase. According to ALA data from around 2000, the
> administrative cost of buying a single printed book is around
> $50. I guess it might be a little lower for a digital copy today,
> for the sake of argument let's say it is half - that's still $25
> per book. The administrative cost of subscribing to a multi-issue
> print journal was around $75 c.2000, it's probably lower for
> online-only journals, but for the sake of argument, let's stick
> with $75.