際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

87 nathan

?
?
S
Society for Scholarly Publishing

The document discusses the evolution of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology's (ASBMB) publications from print-only to fully online over 10 years. It evaluates 5 potential pricing models for online subscriptions and concludes the current single-rate pricing model remains the best option for its simplicity. It also introduces the Papers in Press program launched in 2001 to publish peer-reviewed manuscripts online prior to final copyediting and formatting, which has not negatively impacted subscriptions or citations.

1 of 7
Download to read offline
Evolving Business Models and Pricing Update Scott Nathan Director, Sales & Marketing American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) June 1, 2005 ASBMB ＾Family￣ of Publications Our first... l First issue published C 1905 l First online issue - 1995 l Number of articles = 4,528 l Number of pages = 31,400 l HTML format only l Limited searching 1
10 Years Later´ l 56,000 pages/yr l 6,591 articles/yr l HTML, PDF, Advanced Searching, DOIs, Email Alerts (e-TOCs and CiteTrack), PDA, Download figures into Powerpoint, etc. l Complete Archive: Back issues online to Volume 1, Issue 1 (Over 750,000 pages). l Supplemental Data 391,800 pages published online since 1995. How do we price this thing? l FTE vs. Part-Time l Carnegie l # of beds l Size of institution l Single rate The Verdict´ One price based on a % below print price. C Help drive behavior. C Easier for the market to understand. C Less complex to manage. 2
Success or Failure? l After its first year online, online subs represented 7% of the total subs, and 2% of the total subscription revenue. l After 5 years´. 21% of the total subs, and 17% of the total subscription revenue. l By the end of 2004... online subs were now 45% of the total subs and 41% of subscription revenue. Tiered-Pricing Pricing Model # 1: Based on amount of online usage at a given institution. Pricing Model # 2: Based on Full-Time Employees (FTEs), at a given institution. Pricing Model # 3: Based on the Carnegie Classifications (Medical School, Doctorate, Masters, and Baccalaureate). Pricing Model # 4: Based on "Type of Institution". Pricing Model # 5: Based on single rate. Pricing Model # 1: Usage-based l ADVANTAGES: C Fairly simple. C Equitable - institution(s) would pay based on usage . l DISADVANTAGES: C Difficult to determine price ranges. C Reliant on accuracy of data. C ＾Low" usage may be perceived by librarians as less valuable, and in turn either not subscribe or possibly cancel a subscription. 3
Pricing Model # 2: FTE-based l ADVANTAGES: C Quick and easy way to price. C Good for corporations - which can easily determine number of employees at a given location. C Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their user base. l DISADVANTAGES: C ASBMB and librarian must agree on how many employees there are who use/access. (Leaves for a lot of interpretation). C Difficult for academic librarians to determine the number of researchers within a given scientific area (especially with the increasing amount of interdisciplinary fields). C For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 3: Carnegie-based l ADVANTAGES: C Good for academics. C Equitable - Institutions would pay according to user base. l DISADVANTAGES: C Carnegie Classifications only apply to academic institutions. C Carnegie Classifications are not easily understood by institutions and subscription agents outside the U.S. C For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 4: ＾Type of Institution￣ l ADVANTAGES: C Applicable to all types of institutions. C Equitable - Institutions would pay according to user base l DISADVANTAGES: C For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. C Major effort to reconfigure workflow. 4
Pricing Model # 5: Single Rate l ADVANTAGES: C Quick and easy way to price C Provides simplified pricing for librarians. C Proven model (from ASBMB¨s perspective) C No time, effort, and money needed to implement. l DISADVANTAGES: C Doesn't differentiate between larger and smaller institutions. C Definition of ＾Site￣. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Pricing Model # 1 1. Fairly simple. 1. Difficult to determine price ranges. (USAGE C based) 2. Equitable - institution(s)) would pay based on 2. Reliant on accuracy of data. usage . 3. ＾Low" usage may be perceived by librarians as less valuable, and in turn either not subscribe or possibly cancel a subscription. Pricing Model # 2 1. Quick and easy way to price. 1. ASBMB and librarian must agree on how (FTE C based) 2. Good for corporations - which can easily determine many employees there are who number of employees at a given location use/access (this could involve 3. Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their considering many items such as usage, seats, concurrent users, etc.). user base. 2. Difficult for academic librarians to determine the number of researchers within a given scientific area (especially with the increasing amount of interdisciplinary fields). 3. For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 3 1. Good for academics. 1. Carnegie Classifications only apply to (Carnegie Classifications) 2. Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their academic institutions. user base. 2. Carnegie Classifications are not easily understood by institutions and subscription agents outside the U.S. 3. For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 4 1. Applicable to all types of institutions. 1. For ASBMB's specialized journals, ("Type of Institution") 2. Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their charging a higher rate to larger user base institutions may erode subscriber base. 2. Major effort to reconfigure workflow Pricing Model # 5 1. Quick and easy way to price. 1. Doesn't differentiate between larger and (Single rate) 2. Provides simplified pricing for librarians smaller institutions. 3. Proven model (from ASBMB ¨s perspective) 2. Definition of ＾Site￣. 4. No time, effort, and money needed to implement. Our Conclusions´Keep It Simple Silly l The current online subscription pricing model of one rate for al l institutions remains the best option for ASBMB. l Increased time, effort, and money to implement a new pricing structure is unlikely to change subscriber behavior or to increase revenue significantly. l Although we reached this conclusion for the 2004 subscription year, we will continue to look at new online subscription pricing models in the future. 5
Papers in Press (PiPs) l Launched 2001 l Accepted, peer-reviewed raw manuscript published online ahead of print. l Not copyedited, not formatted. l No increased functionality (i.e. Hyperlinks) Impact of PiPs l No negative impact on online subscriptions. l Faster acceptance to publish time. l Increased citations and searches of articles. Closing Thoughts´ l Obtain market input. l Analyze thoroughly. l Use many factors to help drive decision. l Communicate (internal & external) l Keep It Simple. 6
7

More Related Content

87 nathan

  • 1. Evolving Business Models and Pricing Update Scott Nathan Director, Sales & Marketing American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) June 1, 2005 ASBMB ＾Family￣ of Publications Our first... l First issue published C 1905 l First online issue - 1995 l Number of articles = 4,528 l Number of pages = 31,400 l HTML format only l Limited searching 1
  • 2. 10 Years Later´ l 56,000 pages/yr l 6,591 articles/yr l HTML, PDF, Advanced Searching, DOIs, Email Alerts (e-TOCs and CiteTrack), PDA, Download figures into Powerpoint, etc. l Complete Archive: Back issues online to Volume 1, Issue 1 (Over 750,000 pages). l Supplemental Data 391,800 pages published online since 1995. How do we price this thing? l FTE vs. Part-Time l Carnegie l # of beds l Size of institution l Single rate The Verdict´ One price based on a % below print price. C Help drive behavior. C Easier for the market to understand. C Less complex to manage. 2
  • 3. Success or Failure? l After its first year online, online subs represented 7% of the total subs, and 2% of the total subscription revenue. l After 5 years´. 21% of the total subs, and 17% of the total subscription revenue. l By the end of 2004... online subs were now 45% of the total subs and 41% of subscription revenue. Tiered-Pricing Pricing Model # 1: Based on amount of online usage at a given institution. Pricing Model # 2: Based on Full-Time Employees (FTEs), at a given institution. Pricing Model # 3: Based on the Carnegie Classifications (Medical School, Doctorate, Masters, and Baccalaureate). Pricing Model # 4: Based on "Type of Institution". Pricing Model # 5: Based on single rate. Pricing Model # 1: Usage-based l ADVANTAGES: C Fairly simple. C Equitable - institution(s) would pay based on usage . l DISADVANTAGES: C Difficult to determine price ranges. C Reliant on accuracy of data. C ＾Low" usage may be perceived by librarians as less valuable, and in turn either not subscribe or possibly cancel a subscription. 3
  • 4. Pricing Model # 2: FTE-based l ADVANTAGES: C Quick and easy way to price. C Good for corporations - which can easily determine number of employees at a given location. C Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their user base. l DISADVANTAGES: C ASBMB and librarian must agree on how many employees there are who use/access. (Leaves for a lot of interpretation). C Difficult for academic librarians to determine the number of researchers within a given scientific area (especially with the increasing amount of interdisciplinary fields). C For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 3: Carnegie-based l ADVANTAGES: C Good for academics. C Equitable - Institutions would pay according to user base. l DISADVANTAGES: C Carnegie Classifications only apply to academic institutions. C Carnegie Classifications are not easily understood by institutions and subscription agents outside the U.S. C For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 4: ＾Type of Institution￣ l ADVANTAGES: C Applicable to all types of institutions. C Equitable - Institutions would pay according to user base l DISADVANTAGES: C For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. C Major effort to reconfigure workflow. 4
  • 5. Pricing Model # 5: Single Rate l ADVANTAGES: C Quick and easy way to price C Provides simplified pricing for librarians. C Proven model (from ASBMB¨s perspective) C No time, effort, and money needed to implement. l DISADVANTAGES: C Doesn't differentiate between larger and smaller institutions. C Definition of ＾Site￣. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Pricing Model # 1 1. Fairly simple. 1. Difficult to determine price ranges. (USAGE C based) 2. Equitable - institution(s)) would pay based on 2. Reliant on accuracy of data. usage . 3. ＾Low" usage may be perceived by librarians as less valuable, and in turn either not subscribe or possibly cancel a subscription. Pricing Model # 2 1. Quick and easy way to price. 1. ASBMB and librarian must agree on how (FTE C based) 2. Good for corporations - which can easily determine many employees there are who number of employees at a given location use/access (this could involve 3. Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their considering many items such as usage, seats, concurrent users, etc.). user base. 2. Difficult for academic librarians to determine the number of researchers within a given scientific area (especially with the increasing amount of interdisciplinary fields). 3. For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 3 1. Good for academics. 1. Carnegie Classifications only apply to (Carnegie Classifications) 2. Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their academic institutions. user base. 2. Carnegie Classifications are not easily understood by institutions and subscription agents outside the U.S. 3. For ASBMB's specialized journals, charging a higher rate to larger institutions may erode subscriber base. Pricing Model # 4 1. Applicable to all types of institutions. 1. For ASBMB's specialized journals, ("Type of Institution") 2. Equitable - Institutions would pay according to their charging a higher rate to larger user base institutions may erode subscriber base. 2. Major effort to reconfigure workflow Pricing Model # 5 1. Quick and easy way to price. 1. Doesn't differentiate between larger and (Single rate) 2. Provides simplified pricing for librarians smaller institutions. 3. Proven model (from ASBMB ¨s perspective) 2. Definition of ＾Site￣. 4. No time, effort, and money needed to implement. Our Conclusions´Keep It Simple Silly l The current online subscription pricing model of one rate for al l institutions remains the best option for ASBMB. l Increased time, effort, and money to implement a new pricing structure is unlikely to change subscriber behavior or to increase revenue significantly. l Although we reached this conclusion for the 2004 subscription year, we will continue to look at new online subscription pricing models in the future. 5
  • 6. Papers in Press (PiPs) l Launched 2001 l Accepted, peer-reviewed raw manuscript published online ahead of print. l Not copyedited, not formatted. l No increased functionality (i.e. Hyperlinks) Impact of PiPs l No negative impact on online subscriptions. l Faster acceptance to publish time. l Increased citations and searches of articles. Closing Thoughts´ l Obtain market input. l Analyze thoroughly. l Use many factors to help drive decision. l Communicate (internal & external) l Keep It Simple. 6
  • 7. 7