While not currently involved in acquisitions though I teach collection development, I’ve seen this topic discussed for decades. The basic question is whether vendors could up their discounts if they unbundled “free” services. The first issue is whether they would instead of adding any savings to profit, but competition is fierce among vendors so that I think they might. Libraries who didn’t need the extra “free” services wouldn’t pay for them under this model and would effectively receive a higher discount. This model also encourages libraries to decide which services make sense and which don’t.
>From my perspective as a consumer, I don’t like being nickeled and dimed with extra charges, but I also get concerned when the restaurant offers free meals for kids since I don’t have any and would appreciate instead a lower base price for all customers. I certainly don’t evaluate “free” services such as valet parking but would park somewhere else if the charges offended my frugal sensibilities.
Perhaps research studies in the business literature have already answered this question, but valid tradeoffs exist between the two pricing strategies.
Bob
Dr. Robert P. Holley
Professor, School of Library & Information Science
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
aa3805_at_wayne.edu
1-888-497-8754, ext 705 (phone)
313-577-7563 (fax)
From: acqnet-l-bounces_at_lists. ibiblio.org [mailto: acqnet-l-bounces@ lists.ibiblio.org ] On Behalf Of acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:09 AM
To: acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [ACQNET-L] YBP Export service charge inquiry (3 responses)
I’ve been following this discussion and debating whether to pull out my soap box or not…but my resistance has finally crumbled J
That is a good question…”Why should the advanced features be free?” Obviously everything costs someone something to produce it, money, time, resources, energy, etc. and there has to be some type of return to make it worth the person’s time. The question, in this context, is, is it necessary for a vendor to charge extra fees in order for them to do their very best for their customers? Would striving to make the acquisitions process as smooth and efficient as possible for their customers break the bank or is it simply something that they feel they can get away with charging for on top of the money they make from the book sales? I tend to think it is often the latter. You will have trouble convincing me that the extra fees are needed for a company to meet its obligations to its customers in this context and that by foregoing them it would necessitate noticeable, if any, increases in product prices. I’ve only worked in the library world for 17 years and I realize that isn’t much compared to many but early on I became annoyed with such “fees” and with vendors, ILS and book, failing to meet what I consider their ethical obligations to their customers (who they often like to call partners) and thereby costing libraries unnecessarily and/or leaving them vulnerable to others who come along selling services to fill these voids. My response to this annoyance was to produce solutions on a number of fronts, at no cost, for libraries to fill these voids. So the question I have to ask is, if I can do this at no cost, in various combinations of going to school, raising a family, working a job and all the other things going on in life throughout the years, why can’t a company who gets paid millions upon millions of dollars to provide these type of services not do the same? One of my solutions I am reasonably certain does everything all these “advanced” features do, and far more, and yet I don’t see the need to charge for it but, again, it is all about the type of return one is looking for….I like to believe that mine is the privilege of serving the library community and making your/our life a little easier…or at the very least, having the appearance of credibility in my rants about such things ;-)
Don’t get me wrong…I am all for companies and people making money, myself included and I do it where I can, but it is a sad and unfortunate thing when that becomes the goal rather than a by-product of one’s endeavors.
In any event, just my two cents worth on the subject provided at no cost…if you want the full rant it will cost you a nickel J
Jim Taylor
From: acqnet-l-bounces_at_lists. ibiblio.org [ mailto:acqnet-l-bounces@ lists.ibiblio.org ] On Behalf Of acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:16 AM
To: ' acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org '
Subject: Re: [ACQNET-L] YBP Export service charge inquiry (3 responses)
I don’t mind it when vendors charge for advanced features. They have to pay developers to create, maintain, and enhance those features. Why should the advanced features (ones that are not critical to performing acquisitions or collection development work) be free?
Katy G.
Katy Ginanni, Collection Development Librarian
Hunter Library, Western Carolina University
176 Central Drive
Cullowhee, NC 28723
ksginanni_at_email.wcu.edu
828-227-3729 office
I’ll be going to the NASIG conference in Buffalo on June 6-9, 2013. Will you?
From: acqnet-l-bounces_at_lists. ibiblio.org [ mailto:acqnet-l-bounces@ lists.ibiblio.org ] On Behalf Of acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:04 PM
To: acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [ACQNET-L] YBP Export service charge inquiry (3 responses)
Hi. Yes, I can report that the main vendor we use, Coutts/Ingram, does indeed do the customizations that Mike described in his message (i.e. accurately encoded records, fund and location codes), and it's free. This is one of the reasons we have been reluctant to use YBP as our main vendor, because this charge exists, but we're unclear why it exists.
I'm also curious why YBP charges an annual fee for the advanced features of the GOBI platform. Again, our vendor charges no such fee at all for the use of their full platform, and we are unclear why YBP has such a fee.
Rich
_______________________________________________
ACQNET-L mailing list
ACQNET-L_at_lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/acqnet-l
Received on Wed Apr 24 2013 - 16:50:11 EDT