Here's what I noted from Monday's call. If you have comments/want to add, please do!
1. The biggest challenge ACS is facing is moving away from pricing to "ability to pay" toward a pricing model that's consisten/transparent. Some schools experience this as a cost increase and other's as a decrease.
2. Two key lessons we're noticing: 1. There are competing options for consortial pricing (see above) and 2. statewide/consortia pricing policy varies from group to group --> i.e. SUNY's price increase was considerably smaller than what SUNY billed back to SUNY Potsdam
Bob S. expressed concern that usage is not a fair way of calculating cost and Stanford is actively looking at ways to disincentivize use in order to manage cost including removing our titles from their federated search and other catalogs.
3. We looked at usage as the metric around which to examine our prices because cost-per-use seems to be an agreed upon metric in the community (but this doesn't change Bob's point that event a 5-7% increase in price is not reflected in library budgets).
There was also mention of the role that the # of faculty play in the pricing also unfairly damages smaller schools -- Andrew, did you make this comment? I wasnt' able to get a complete note.
4. We need to do a better job of communicating pricing on the website.
5. Do we want CAP members and their names/affiliations made public? TBD.