Perception of the Big Deal one year on (Monday PM)

Jill Taylor Roe had her work cut out running a discussion-based workshop in the not very intimate surroundings in the Pentland Auditorium. She started by presenting plenty of evidence that budget pressures are starting to bite.

A survey of Nesli colleagues showed a rough 50/50 split between those happy and unhappy with big deals. Those unhappy complained about

• lack of options in adding/excluding content
• increased costs
• hard to find money for non big deals

An ALPSP 2009 survey showed high renewal rates for big deals, but cancellations and downgrades to subject clusters were starting to increase. A CIBER survey from 2009

The Economic Downturn and Libraries [pdf] noted that academic libraries expect to reduce budgets and reduce spending on information resources, going beyond efficiency savings into real cuts.

From a UK perspective, currency rates have improved since last Jan/Feb, and so far libraries generally haven't cancelled big deals. Some publishers have shown sensitivity in terms of zero price increases, but librarians' wish list of improvements still haven't been met (eg deals not based on historical print spend, easier to switch to e-only, more flexibility).

There are still hard times ahead: library budgets are at best static (meaning cuts in real terms) whereas Swets are forecasting 5% increases in journal costs on average. Many people in the room felt that 2010 was better than expected but 2011 may be a worse year, certainly in the UK, as one-off funding and emergency measures come to an end.

Were any solutions offered during the discussion?

• Agents/intermediaries may be in a position to help both sides, especially where there are language/cultural differences between publishers and libraries
• The library community needs to send price messages to publishers in same way consumers do: are they willing to walk away from deals, and force re-negotiation of terms?
• Is Open Access an answer? Libraries are paying out to publishers on both sides at the moment, and take up of open access for the biggest STM publishers is still tiny compared to overall costs
• Would wholesale migration to e-only reduce library operating costs in a significant way? Only up to a point, since eventually print processing is minimised and as much as possible switched to e-only. Necessary staff for managing e-resources tend to be at a higher level compared to print, not to mention that budget for staff and resources are often in separate pots and libraries cannot use one to pay for the other.

What's the one thing which participants thought would make things easier?

• UK libraries negotiating jointly like Scandinavia, Germany etc, and as SHEDL are doing in Scotland.
• Most people don't want to see big deals abolished but they need to be smaller and more flexible.
• Would document delivery models be an answer? They would have to be financially viable. Pay per view has proved to be more expensive than individual subscriptions and big deals in many cases.
• Zero VAT on electronic books/journals would help (although others felt that an overall increase in VAT was a more likely scenario)

It was obvious from the discussion that there wasn't a straightforward answer, and also noticeable that although there were many vocal librarians, there weren't many voices in the room representing the major STM publishers.

Consortia: not flaky, but unique

Kathy Perry reminds us that library consortia are not new; libraries have been cooperating for more than a hundred years (1876 - ALA committee on cooperation in indexing and cataloguing college libraries, and cooperative purchasing "expedition" started in 1913!) Since then, statewide consortia have sprung up - Ohio broke the mould by getting (new) state monies for this in 1987. ICOLC has been meeting twice annually since 1996 and now comprises 211 consortia representing over 5000 libraries, with particular growth outside the US in the last 10 years. Kathy quotes Merryll Penson (Galileo): "consortia are like snowflakes"; not flaky - "unique". Most have very low staffing and rely on volunteers.

Priorities are changing for consortia - tasks that wouldn't even have been on the radar some years ago are now among the top priorities - training, digital initiatives, next generation catalogues. Budgets are a problem here as everywhere - when asked how they are addressing this, one respondent to Kathy's recent survey said "Prayer". Tom Sanville, OhioLINK guru commented that "Flat is the new 'up'." Curiously, "negotiating contracts" is given as a 'new' priority - I don't understand how this wasn't already a priority for consortia! I was pleased to know that "advocacy / marketing" is a growing aspect of consortia's budget management - I think measurable end user engagement and traffic will be key to justifying and growing budgets ongoing (later, in the context of training, Kathy talked more about "justifying our value to our decision makers"). Very few consortia have research projects and very few are working together on issues related to archival storage of print collections.

During questions, Peter Burnhill suggested that a lot of information discovery, retrieval and usage is happening outside the library - between peers in both formal and informal contexts. How can libraries and consortia engage with this? Kathy's initial thoughts: this is why libraries and consortia are prioritising next-gen catalogues, to "more readily reflect the world as we know it". We're also working with products like Zotero to help researchers collaborate in a way that reflects not just scholarly publications but web-based materials and conversations. Libraries are trying to engage at this level. Jill Taylor-Roe adds comments from the OA perspective - we're managing a lot of the OA payments to publishers that we're also licensing big deals from, and there should be some synergies in managing the fiscal movements in a more cohesive and efficient way. Hugh Look notes the skills shortfall in this area and the lack of guidance. We need more investment in these skills that would be transferrable to many other areas.

July issue of Serials now published

The Editorial Board of Serials thought it would be a good exercise to alert blog readers to the new issue of Serials which has just been published and contains many of the popular presentations from the recent conference (including T Scott Plutchak's and Melinda Kenneway's highly regarded papers). We've also included some of the breakout sessions, including Paul Harwood's briefing on the UK consortia landscape with a guide for librarians, publishers and intermediaries, and Nol Verhagen's briefing on "the licensing battlefield" from a consortium perspective.

Other papers concern the scholarly community in China, e-textbooks, the usage factors project, journal collection evaluation and much more..

Read it here (subscription or members only for current three issues) - http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=issue&issn=0953-0460&volume=20&issue=2
Subscription information here: http://www.uksg.org/serials/subscribe

Let us know what you think!