Issue 9: Winter 2008
Interview with Kate Duff, Licensing & Permissions Manager, Journals Division, University of Chicago Press
Janet Fisher Senior Publishing ConsultantKate Duff is the Licensing & Permissions Manager for the Journals Division of the University of Chicago Press. Previously, Kate held a number of positions at the Press, most recently as Publications Manager with responsibility for journals in general sciences, law, and education. Originally hailing from Canada, Kate holds a Ph.D. in Biology from Queen's University, Ontario, and a Masters in Publishing from Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.
Janet Fisher: How can aggregators enhance a publisher's sales strategy?
- readership
- disciplinary context
- sales force reaching new areas
- building customer recognition for titles
Kate Duff: A publisher’s sales strategy needs to optimize (not necessarily maximize!) the reach, readership, and revenue of its journals portfolio, and aggregators can be very beneficial in each of these areas. Publishers can take advantage of aggregators’ well-established positions in the marketplace and their sales and marketing expertise. For smaller or niche publishers, the aggregators’ ability to reach new markets can be vital – international and emerging markets, for example, or specialized markets like hospitals and public libraries. By placing a publisher’s titles in a broader disciplinary context, aggregators can foster title recognition and serendipitous cross-discovery, especially with students who have yet to develop enough familiarity with the field to go straight to the journals they need.
JF: What negative impacts might it have for a journal?
- loss of direct relationship with customer
- impact on brand/imprint
KD: I think one of the key drawbacks for the publisher – and of course this holds true any time there is an intermediary in the supply chain – is the loss of a direct relationship with the customer. As a university press and therefore a member of the academic market it serves, the University of Chicago Press is keenly aware of its responsibility to understand and respond to the needs of its library customers. Our aggregator partners can be a terrific source of information, but we do need to consider that the feedback they give us is necessarily filtered through the lens of their own needs and mission, which may not align with ours in all cases.
JF: How might the version in an aggregated database differ from the primary publisher's version and why?
KD: We describe the versions of our titles in aggregated databases as derivative versions, and I think this would hold true for most publishers. Many of Chicago’s journals routinely publish enhancements or supplemental material to the articles that are available only in the definitive, online edition available on our Web site – content such as audio or video files, expanded datasets, interactive equations, and so on. Some classes of content – such as editorials, announcements, and classified advertising – and subsequently added content – such as errata – may be of considerable importance to a journal’s readers but may not be reproduced in the aggregated version. Finally, some content may not be present in the aggregated version at all because the publisher lacks the necessary rights to sublicense it. This is especially true of artwork reproduced in the journal with permission of the copyright holder; such permissions often specifically preclude sublicensing.
JF: What kind of subscription erosion have you seen due to aggregated databases?
KD: This is a difficult question to answer, because we know our customers weigh a number of factors before making cancellation decisions. From surveys of our lapsed subscribers, however, we can say that availability of our titles through aggregated databases has been a major consideration in approximately one-third to one-half of cancellations in recent years. That’s an overall estimate; it varies among disciplines.
An issue that is of concern to us in this respect is the use of usage statistics to guide cancellation decisions. If the total usage of a title from all sources isn’t considered, it’s quite possible that the true value of the title to the library’s users will be underestimated and the risk of subscription erosion will increase. It’s discouraging to hear from some of our library customers that they don’t always have the time or the tools to do consolidated usage statistics analyses before they make their decisions.
JF: How might an aggregated database affect the publisher's ability to sell to consortia?
KD: Consortia use their size and buying power to try and get the most value for their members. A publisher trying to sell a package of journals to a consortium is at a disadvantage if the consortium believes it can purchase the same titles at a lower cost per title as an aggregated database.
JF: Are other forms of revenue potentially impacted?
KD: Yes, in addition to the potential impact on primary sales, the availability of content through aggregated databases may negatively impact subsidiary sales – single article sales or coursepack use, for example. This problem can be exacerbated greatly if the aggregator sublicenses their database products to other third parties, who use the content in new products or services of which we may not even be aware. Further, the publisher’s ability to develop new products, such as stand-alone journal archives, or new sources of revenue, such as online advertising, may be undercut. Online advertising is sold based on the audience that the publisher can deliver to the advertiser, so every user that accesses an article through a database instead of at the publisher’s site is a user lost to the advertiser. As publishers adjust to a changing market and evaluate new business models, we need to consider these potential consequences very seriously.
JF: When might it be a good strategy to include a journal in an aggregated database?
KD: I think aggregated databases can be a viable component in the sales strategy of any journal, but the benefits can be especially pertinent for some titles. For example, aggregators can be tremendously important in building recognition of newly launched journals or re-introducing established journals whose editorial focus has shifted. The ability to position a title among others in the discipline can be particularly useful for a publisher with a smaller portfolio, or a publisher with a limited number of journals in a particular field but without the critical mass to market them effectively as a group. In my experience, the relationship with the aggregator is key; aggregators who take the publisher’s concerns seriously and develop creative ways to benefit the publisher’s journals while minimizing the drawbacks are more likely to be seen as true partners. For not-for-profit publishers in particular, it’s crucial for the (mainly) commercial aggregators to demonstrate that they understand our mission and know that our responsibilities to our parent institution and society partners extend beyond a healthy bottom line.