Feedback on posting to Chminf

[#1]

Folks,

As you are aware from Bob's earlier posting this week, there was some discussion of ACS pricing on the SLA listserv earlier in November.  ACS decided not to respond at that point.

Since then, a reporter from the magazine Inside Higher Ed has drafted a story based on the listserv postings, and that story published today.  Around 4:45 EST, Bob Michaelson posted a link to the Inside Higher Ed article on the ChmInf listserv, to which many of you belong.

ACS has drafted the response below to popst to the ChmInf listserv if appropriate.  I'd like to ask you for your review and comments.  There was much in the postings and the article that was left out of the discussion, and while it's tempting to walk through both and draft a point-by-point rebuttal - some of those who posted saw costs go down for 2011 as a result of Value-Based Pricing, as one example - I don't think that's appropriate in this forum.  However, it may be appropriate to share some context from ACS to frame any further discussion.

If you're able to read through this and share your thoughts, that would be appreciated.

Thanks much.

[losalamos]

Steve,

Here are a few of my thoughts on the draft ACS response.  Speaking as a government librarian at a chemistry-heavy institution, I empathize with those institutions who are dealing with the significant price increases for ACS ejournals brought about by the "value-based pricing".  No pricing policy is perfect (you cannot please all the people all the time), but this one certainly has its share of flaws.  In my experience the ACS pricing in its present version for government and corporate institutions is nontransparent, unpredictable, prone to excess and unsustainable.  These are not new claims--you have heard them before.

The criticisms are legitimate, growing in number and becoming more public.  They may be amplified by the present economic situation the world finds itself in, but are real nonetheless.  Your draft response might be better received if it were a bit less defensive and a bit more receptive to the criticisms.  A statement recognizing the effect unpredictable price increases coinciding with current economic difficulties has on libraries will be better received than a simple defense of the ACS status quo.  You might also add that ACS is willing to work with libraries under certain conditions, as I know you are doing anyway.

My two cents.  Hope it is helpful.

Carol

[acwhite]

Steve,

I might also note that the pricing based upon the Carnegie classification in higher ed is not uncommon and is used by other publishers as well. 

In line with Carol's sense of a defensive tone, the description of the ACS portfolio info may not be necessary to include in the response.

Andrew