ELSEVIER SPRINGER WILEY Science Selectors Team Leah Solla, Science Team Leader BIG 3 BIG DEALS How big? 2011 CUL Index [ack Harpers] CU spend on big 3: ~$4.7m % of CUL e-expenditures spend: ~40% % of CUL total materials budget: ~25% % of CU science libraries subject lines: >50% % of CU total ejournals usage: 33% Portion of CUL materials budget spent on e- resources: 2/3 NOTE: total spend figures include non-journals as well, rest of presentation numbers primarily concern journals only to frame complexity of the problem. Optimizing the pain 3 different evolutionary paths, 15 yrs and The numbers tell trends of overall increasing costs, titles and usage Current wins, current pains favorable terms: capped price increases, cross-campus access, universal title lists, good cost-per-use locked in at 25% spend Future challenges and opportunities align & collaborate with top peers supporting new initiatives (tech campus) Core principles Support literature requirements of high-end Cornell research Aggressive stewardship of materials budget across CUL funding streams Maximize collaborative opportunities within and beyond Cornell Overall Cornell goal to attract, retain and enable the best researchers and students Big 3 negotiations Similar contract structures but nuanced approaches Issues over time pricing, full collection access, duplication multi-site arrangements, cancellation allowances, archival rights, disclosure acquisition of some other publishers, price jumps but overall under package terms, often loss of prior access contracting with smaller societies and publishers, complex arrangements and terms outside big deal terms Elsevier (El-severe) gestalt Left big deal for 5 years Many cancellations and no access to unsubscribed titles Interim years difficult for users, ILL requests skyrocketed Prices jumped, tough budget times for unit libraries Current pricing & access terms good for going forward Cornell big deal sub prices ave. 17% below list Base prices too high from 20+% increases in the 80s-90s 30-40% profit margins set then still enjoyed by pubs Much negotiation, refined relationship over time Elsevier numbers Elsevier First Big Deal negotiations expensive, complicated, strict terms much back & forth through Science Team no mutual agreement Elsevier Original NERL deal, yr, no cancellation, 850 subs (many dupes), UTL multi-site access OK for Med, Geneva, Arecibo gobbling up small societies content Not good terms for Cornell too many duplicates, broad discipline coverage made for high costs, and no flexibility for individual subject funds to manage costs Negotiated extension for 2003 while we kept working on our approach 650 still 10% surcharge) Elsevier NO DEAL! No access to UTL Content fee rises from 7% to 20% 2004 not enough initial cancellation when we finally could to bring price down immediately 2005 begins aggressive cancellation of dupes and more intensive move to e-only (10% one-time savings per title) addl cancellation of second tier titles by some units (PSLs 300 UPY cut-off) 2007 start of "satellite fee" for "any new branch or campus $30+K fee for Qatar on top of their portion of regular subs Elsevier NEW DEAL! renegotiated back into NERL contract cost neutral, favorable, long-time customer terms and re-based spend access to unsubscribed titles at very little cost (~2% total spend), no archival rights, but current access covers needs for cancelled relatively lower-use but not no-use titles additional cancellation allowance taken in 2010 units each had portion to decide flushed remaining dupes and lower use titles based on 2008 CPU only 36 p+e subs remaining in 2010, 20 in 2011 Cornells big deal sub prices ave. 17% below list Elsevier 2008 Cost-Per-Use Examples at the extremes: Polyhedron Total Cost: $8, CPU: $24.95 Cancelled in 2010 using cancellation allowance, continuing access through UTL Tetrahedron Most expensive Elsevier title Total Cost: $17, CPU: $0.64 Springer gestalt Good deal relative to peers in terms of pricing b/c of historic spend (gratis access through EMANI project) and pre- contract cancellation of secondary titles No double charging for historic duplicate subs Few exceptions to full collection access Bumpy experience with pricing when merging and contracting with new publishers, tendency to price jump Springer numbers Springer Cornell participated in EMANI, Cornell gratis access to math related titles from Springer (broad coverage incl phys & engr) Internally CUL subject lines contributed equivalent 2001 sub price for these titles into a central CU fund (circa $60,000) to pay for Cornells participation in EMANI (incl some retrodigitization of math journals for Euclid and travel to the EMANI conference, etc.) 2005 Springer acquired Kluwer journals, but pd separate bill to Springer for based on Kluwer previous spend Annual contract Springer Annual contract with UTL, merged Springer/Kluwer titles incorporated into main package 2007 Springer major 3 rd party contract with MAIK prices jump significantly, separate from main contract terms, not included in main package or UTL we cancel all but a few Annual fee for new/transfer titles to UTL 2011 overall cost drops, 3% price cap increase not implemented due to new ebook sales to NERL members, also a move to more e-only Springer Current multi-year contract pricing based on historic spend good for Cornell b/c original EMANI titles not paid for in original historic spend (we havent paid for these externally since 2001) and rigorous cancellation of secondary titles NERL polling on new agreement options Smaller package options for smaller schools didnt work out too well Big schools all like big package option, especially UTL access Dont like historic spend but too much complexity to re-work Historic spend OK for Cornell b/c of EMANI in history Wiley gestalt Contract based subs ~33% less than list price Very complex terms, especially duplicates and full collection access Willingness to negotiate, especially for small-level arrangements Responsive to access concerns High core pricing Many new titles started Wiley presents to NERL at ALA Mid-Winter next week in preparation for new 2013 contract negotiations Wiley numbers Wiley cycles of 3yr contracts UTL, no cancellation, can swap new titles added only if pd subs no cancellation of dupes w/o full cancellation/swap of titles special arrangement in : some dupes cancelled and Wiley allowed by mistake, double oops maintain our spend (~$35k), but instead of reinstating duplicates of these e-tiles, we negotiated the ability to swap the difference for any other Wiley digital material of equivalent cost we picked up backfiles and other one-time purchases to gain archival rights to these post arrangement internal funding incentives to go e-only, 519 would help funding Wiley merged with Blackwell, re-based contract on core and full collections, 3yr Core: Cornell direct subscriptions Full: UTL equivalent (STM, SSHS or All flavors, we have All) Other 3 rd party titles annual new/transfer title fee for full (we did not take in 2011 or 2012, growing gap b/w our access and actual Wiley UTL list) 5.5% cancellation over 3yrs using to eliminate dupes, now allowed 150 p+e titles remaining (mostly non-sciences) Impact at WCMC Lessons learning Better terms big deal sub prices well below list multi-site and broader full collection access Still locked in to multi-year contracts with limited flexibility High historic base prices still push overall commercial pub costs up Big publisher-contracting with smaller publishers complicated and expensive Bottom line: we need these deals but we need to keep pushing our leverage journals not really a competitive market in terms of content at top or even second tier journals across all disciplines, we have to have direct and immediate access to all years for researchers to support cutting edge research important to do risk analysis, opting out of deals and crafting other opportunities sometimes brings temporary hardship but long term gains Future: the fine art of negotiation Not just journals, increasing focus on ebooks, major reference works, databases licenses and pricing in early stages of evolution still behind peers in these areas Negotiation relationships with big guys still developing Ongoing challenges with (and for) society and small publishers Playing fields for top universities broadening, affecting concepts of rights and access increasing partnerships with non-educational non-profits increasing partnerships with foreign institutions increasing partnerships with commercial enterprises Tech campus implications Terms of FTE and site-based licenses Anticipating challenges with foreign sites and commercial associated efforts Probably can negotiate with big guys Will be significant challenge for small and society publishers, based on historic challenges with complex negotiating Recommendations More budget support, to align with peers, critical to level the playing field for core access and not diminish our specialties More analysis support so we can better watch and learn from these trends, understand impact of our investment and negotiations More advocacy at top levels around concern of concentration of ownership and contracts of content of small societies with big commercial publishers, need to be more options for societies Bottom line: big deals are the best Cornell and NERL can do for ourselves with big publishers. Need to focus on bigger problem of concentration in publishing (ex. Euclid lost title to Springer).