>From the meta point of view, I am opposed to big deal packages a la Frazier
(cites below). From a cost point of view, however, they ARE often a bargain,
and from an electronic resources management point of view, most of the time
they are SO MUCH better than dealing with individual titles.

I agree though, in terms of titles included, large packages can be like
shifting sands. In something like ScienceDirect, it is hard to keep track of
what is "your title for ever and ever" vs. what is yours through the Freedom
Collection (not that it really matters unless you cancel or if a title moves
to another publisher.)

And with a package like Cambridge Journals Online, each year, when Cambridge
takes over a new title, they have to ask you if you subscribed to it
individually before. If you did, you have to pay more. If you didn't you get
it free! Yes, how about just a simple package price based on FTE or
something!

On a related note, last year, my library signed onto Sage Premier through
the NERL consortium. There are so many "flavors" of this package, based on
when you signed up, that I'm not totally sure which version to select in the
Serials Solutions Client Center, or if I need to add any other titles to my
selection.

Finally, I recently priced (but did not purchase) a number of back file
packages from the major publishers. They too, were complicated, depending on
whether or not you wanted the package to be "frozen" at the time of purchase
or if you wanted back file access to titles that may be acquired by the
publishers after you signed up.

Personally, I think that a) the packages themselves and b) the complications
of annual title changes are due to the publishers trying to extract every
last bit of value out of their titles to enhance their revenue stream. I can
only hope that, like the big oil companies trying to make their profits
before peak oil, regulation, and alternative energy drives them out of
business, the big publishers are doing the same because open access will
make them obsolete.

My two cents,
andree

========================
Frazier, Kenneth. 2001. The librarians' dilemma: Contemplating the costs of
the "big deal." *D-Lib Magazine* 7, no. 3 (March),
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/frazier/03frazier.html.

Frazier, Kenneth. 2005. What's the big deal? *Serials Librarian* 48, no.
1/2: 49-59.

And this is a great article, by the way:

Lewis, David W. 2008. Library budgets, open access, and the future of
scholarly communication: Transformations in academic publishing. C&RL News
69, no. 5.
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crlnews/backissues2008/may08/librarybudgetsscholcomm.cfm<dleewis@iupui.edu>
*

* =========================

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Gary Ives <GIves@lib-gw.tamu.edu> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
>

--
Andree Rathemacher
Associate Professor
Head, Serials Unit / Electronic Resources Librarian
University Library, University of Rhode Island
15 Lippitt Road
Kingston, RI 02881-2011
work: (401) 874-5096
fax: (401) 874-4588
e-mail: andree@uri.edu
e-mail: andree.rathemacher@gmail.com
http://www.uri.edu/library/