0.6 Effects of online access on institutional subscriptions  (Page 3/5)

Research Library Journal Medium Preferences Prabha (2007), 8.

Although it is widely recognized that many academic libraries prefer online-only access to journals, the surveys of academic library purchase preferences cut across disciplines. This makes it difficult to determine the number of libraries that will prefer a particular media option for any particular field or discipline. A society that seeks information on library purchase behavior for a particular field will often have to rely on anecdotal evidence, Some fields have their own library associations, and these can be a good source of information on purchase preferences. which will yield only the softest of data for estimating academic library print-retention by discipline.

Duplicate subscriptions

Under a print regime, some large institutions maintained multiple subscriptions in various campus locations. Although academic libraries were initially slow to cancel duplicative print subscriptions, perennial budget constraints and an increased comfort with online dissemination have resulted in such cancellations becoming increasingly common.

A society should analyze its institutional subscriber lists to determine the proportion of its subscriptions that are duplicates. Typically, subscriptions should be considered duplicative if they are held by the same library, by different libraries on the same campus, or by satellite campuses in the same metropolitan area. Subscriptions held by branch campuses in different cities are not typically duplicative if the campuses have their own acquisitions programs. If a significant proportion of the society’s subscriptions are handled by subscription agents, it may be difficult to determine the exact extent of duplicate subscriptions. After determining its exposure, the society can determine whether it needs to take the potential lost revenue into account when establishing its online pricing.

Purchase behavior: other institution types

Typically, academic libraries comprise the largest group of institutional subscribers to peer-reviewed journals, often representing 70 percent or more of a journal’s institutional subscriber base. If a society has a meaningful number of subscribers from other types of libraries or institutions—for example, museums, commercial firms, government agencies, or public libraries—it may need to survey those subscribers directly, as there is seldom meaningful data on the journal purchase preferences for such organizations.

In addition to determining preference for print and/or online by organization type, the society will need to determine the preferred online access channel for each organization type with a significant representation in its subscriber base. For example, public libraries may prefer to gain access to online journals through aggregations such as those offered by ProQuest, Wilson, EBSCO, and others, while commercial firms in some industries may prefer access via aggregations from LexisNexis or Thomson.

Potential market expansion

Marginal markets and online cost allocation

In an online environment, it makes sense for a society to view the profitability of marginal markets differently from that of its core markets. While a society can identify the costs associated with delivering each incremental print subscription, the marginal cost of supplying an online version of a journal to a subscriber will be near zero.