Title: Some Economics of OSA
1Some Economics of OSAs Journals
Ted Bergstrom Professor of Economics, UCSB
2Research Team
Our Research Team in Action
3Professional SocietiesA Success Story?
- They publish the best journals in their areas.
- They manage to make a profit doing so.
- Still they are priced far lower than the
for-profit journals.
4Pricing and Citations
Barshalls Physics Journals--updated to 2002
100 Optics-related Journals
5Costs of a Complete Economics Collection
Publisher Type Percent of Cost Percent of Cites
Non-Profit 9 62
For-Profit 91 38
6Each type plays a major role
- Non-profits supply most of the citations.
- For-profits collect most of the money.
7What do your colleagues think?
- OSA Survey
- Which kind of journal do you think is more costly
to libraries? - ___Non-profit journals ___They cost about the
same - ___For-profit journals
8 Which costs more?
Librarians say
Non-profits 0
About same 4
For-profits 96
Physics Dept Chairs say
Non-profits 8
About same 38
For-profits 53
9What do we conclude?
__Librarians are brighter than dept chairs?
Overpricing arises when users do not know costs
of what they demand. (other examples, textbooks,
medicine.)
_
___Societies should advertise their lower
prices? __ Scientists should avoid donating
labor to overpriced journals?
10How do OSA prices compare?
11Optics Express and Open Access
- Great idea. Societies dont need to sell all of
their products to cover costs. - Other societies should learn from this.
- OSA price/performance statistics should be
adjusted (price/page down by 10) to account
for this free 1600 page journal.
12Pages published by U.S. Societies
Discipline Members Pages publ.
Microbiology 42,000 53,000
Physics-APS 40,000 96,600
Math-AMS 30,000 12,000
Optics-OSA 13,000 19,000
Econ-AEA 18,800 4,300
Entomology 6,500 4,100
Polit. Science 14,000 2,000
13Not all is bright
- OSA subscription numbers are falling
- OSA institutional prices have been rising at 8.5
per year in recent years - Access to electronic editions is remarkably
sparse - Many respectable universities do not have access
to all of top 4 journals - Very few subscriptions to JON, JOT, OS
14AO
15OL
16Market Penetration of Top 4 OSA Journals
17Market Penetration of Other OSA Journals
18Quiet Life
The best monopoly profit is a quiet life
Sir John Hicks, 1932
19Whats the Problem?
- Technology has improved. Costs have fallen.
- Yet subscriptions are falling and to maintain
revenue, societies raise prices, which further
reduces subscriptions. - Big universities used to have multiple
subscriptions, now have none. Some small schools
drop out.
20A Vicious Circle
- Electronic access and rising costs of for-profit
journals lead big wealthy universities to drop
multiple subscriptions. - To make up lost revenue, societies raise
subscription rates. - Price rise forces small universities to drop.
- Subscriptions fall further, new price rises.
21Technical change
- Online access has closed off some revenue sources
and opened new opportunities . - Having multiple copies is much less valuable for
big universities. - Having access is now technically feasible for
schools with limited shelf space. - Marginal cost of providing access to smaller
libraries is drastically reduced.
22Profit-Readership tradeoff
- Academic societies want to maximize readers,
subject to making some limited profit. - Authors want readers. Readers want access.
- Commercial publishers want simply to maximize
profits. -
23Profit-Readers Frontier
Efficient Commercial pub
Profits
Many Commercial pubs
Efficient Society pub
Typical Society Pub
Open Access
of readers
24A Better Pricing Method
- Different prices to buyers with differing
willingness to pay. - Two-part tariff principle. If you pay the entry
fee, you get to buy everything at marginal
cost. Package would include - Full electronic access to all OSA products
- Purchase of as many print copies as you like at
marginal cost (about .01 per page.)
25Simple Proposal--Part I
- For Current subscribers, charge a subscription
fee equal to the total amount they paid for OSA
journals in 2002. - In return, give them the paper subscriptions they
had in past plus electronic access to all OSA
journal, including archive. - Also allow them to purchase as many additional
paper copies of journals as they like at true
marginal cost (about .01-.02 per page
26Simple Proposal--Part II
- For those not subscribed in 2002, offer
electronic access to Infobase at an extremely low
price, say 100-200 a year. - Enough to cover cost of handling subscription and
server capacity, plus small profit. - Publicize this offer extensively .
27Simple ProposalIIIThe Longer Run
- In the long run, prices should be adjusted to
more recent experience. - Suggestion use a weighted average of 2002-based
price and post 2002 usage data to determine
prices. - As time passes, weight on usage increases.
- Note that you cant get usage data until you
actually have electronic subscriptions.
28Tier Schemes and Price Discrimination
- Several societies, including APS and AIP have
introduced tiered pricing. - Tiers are constructed as weighted average of
variables measuring size and wealth of
university. - Bottom tier price is more than half of top tier
price.
29APS and AIP Tiered Prices
Tier Ratio to top price APS Ratio to top price AIP
5 1 1
4 .96 .60
3 .88 .58
2 .80 .56
1 .69 .55
30Serials budget range
Type of School Ratio Median Serials Budget to Top 20 Median
Top 20 1
Carnegie Top Class (155 schools) 0.5
Masters I 0.04
Liberal Arts I 0.02
Junior Colleges 0.004
31Damage Control Only?
- APS plans to raise prices by 8.7 in 2004, and
projects continued loss of subscriptions at same
rate as in past. - APS and AIP are not cutting prices to low
subscription groups, but are raising prices
substantially for big universities who have been
dropping secondary subscriptions, (though not
allowing them extra copies.) - No thought of recovering lost subscription base.
32Why have the others been so timid?
- They have been afraid of losing revenue
- by losing revenue from current buyers as price
is cut - By losing sales to those whose price is raised
- Differences in demand among middle-sized schools
are quite difficult to predict. - Regression models leave large residuals.
33(No Transcript)
34How radical is our proposal?
- Q--If pricing based on previous expenditures is
such a good idea, why havent others thought of
it. - ASomebody has.
- Q---Who?
- A---Elsevier.
- Of course they use it to maximize their profits,
but you can use it to maximize your distribution.
35Enough for now.
36A Publishers View
- So, we should have models where we make a deal
with - the university, the consortia or the whole
country, where for - this amount we will allow all your people to use
our - material, unlimited And, basically the price
then depends - on a rough estimate of how useful is that product
for you - and we can adjust it over time. It is a
principle, which, - in my view, is not immoral.
-
- From a speech by Derk Haank, CEO, Elsevier
Science
37A Librarians View
- In the Big Deal, libraries agree to buy
electronic access to - all of a commercial publisher's journals for a
price based - on current payments to that publisher, plus some
increment. - Academic library directors should not sign on to
the - Big Deal or any comprehensive licensing
agreements - with commercial publishers
- You read that right. Don't buy the Big Dealthe
Big - Deal serves only the Big Publishers.
- Ken Frazier, head librarian, University of
Wisconsin.
38References
- Free Labor for Costly Journals, by Ted
BergstromJ Economic Perspectives, Fall 2001.
(at - Comments on above article JEP Fall 2002.
- At http//www.econ.ucsb.edu/tedb/Journals/siteli
cense.html - Do university site licenses benefit the academic
Community? by Carl Bergstrom and me - The Librarians Dilemma, by Kenneth Frazier, from
D-Lib Magazine - Is Electronic Publishing Being Used in the Best
Interest of Science The Publisher's view Speech
by Derk Haank. -
39Journal Prices by Discipline
(In US )
Cost per page
Cost per cite
For-profit
Non-profit
For-profit
Non-profit
Ecology 1.01 0.19 0.73 0.05
Economics 0.83 0.17 2.33 0.15
Atmosph. Sci 0.95 0.15 0.88 0.07
Mathematics 0.70 0.27 1.32 0.28
Neuroscience 0.89 0.10 0.23 0.04
Physics 0.63 0.19 0.38 0.05