Access Fees by Another Name By Amy Pham (Database and eBooks Manager, SCELC) <amy@scelc.org>
I
f the smallest part can represent the whole, then we should think about access fees as a proxy for a broader conversation about collection management. Are access fees sustainable as they currently exist? Can our libraries afford to continue paying what they are paying for access fees? Does it make sense for vendors to continue their current access fee pricing models? Now substitute “collections” for “access fee.” Are collections sustainable? Can our libraries afford to continue paying what they are paying for collections? Does it make sense for vendors to continue their current pricing models? On further consideration, access fees should be called something else. It is a misnomer to refer to access fees as a mechanism for access when they are being used as a mechanism for outsourced collection maintenance. If we rename access fees, it would be a start toward reframing the discussion around collections from “access” to “collection sustainability.”
What exactly are access fees? Initially, I thought this was clear cut: an access fee is any annual fee that is levied on a one-time purchase. This includes fees referred to by another name, in which case, all such fees can be colloquially referred to as “access” fees. Of the numerous librarians that I spoke with, either to interview for this issue or to casually poll, all agreed with this definition. Let’s chalk that up as consensus. However, there is a lack of consensus amongst vendors. In a survey to 92 vendors with 45 respondents, 22 vendors self-identified as a company/organization that has, at some point, levied an annual fee for a one-time purchase or perpetual access purchase. Of these 22 vendors, six call this annual fee an “access fee.” 14 vendors call an annual fee by various other names, including “hosting fee,” “platform fee,” and “maintenance fee.” At least two vendors label annual fees that follow one-time purchases by multiple names, including “access fee.”
fees because vendors seem to have a different understanding of what the fees go towards. If we look at access fees as a proxy for a conversation on collection management, what exactly are libraries paying for? Lawrence et al. (2001) calculated that the “total life cycle cost” of a single print monograph is $343.03, or 718% of the purchase cost, and concluded that “the purchase price of library media is a small fraction of the life cycle ownership costs of library collections” (p. 548). To maintain a collection beyond the initial purchase also requires “operating expenses” “wages and salaries,” “By outsourcing “building and facilities,” “building maintenance,” and “fixtures and the hosting of equipment” (p. 544). our collections, With electronic resources, venwe have lost cost dors have taken on the cost of transparency.” maintaining a purchased resource through its life cycle. From the aforementioned survey, when asked “what is the primary reason for charging an access fee?”, 14 out of 20 respondents cite hosting, platform, or maintenance costs and refer to the cost of equipment or IT expenses. Two vendors cite enhancements or additional features. Two vendors explain the annual fee they charge is an “annual update fee” or “additional annual content fee,” different from an access fee. One publisher uses their annual fee as a membership fee to fund their organization. One vendor answered, “We are a cloud tool. It is a subscription fee for access.” Hosting, platform, and maintenance costs sound like a means of providing access. Yet, by avoiding the label “access fee,” vendors seem to be implying they are providing a service beyond access. If we take into consideration the categories of maintenance costs as laid out by Lawrence et al., the life cycle costs of a library resource are extraordinary. It would be fair to say, in that case, vendors are providing a service beyond access. However, it’s not clear what part of the “life cycle” libraries are subsidizing through these access, hosting, or maintenance fees. By outsourcing the hosting of our collections, we have lost cost transparency. We don’t know exactly what we’re paying for or what services vendors are providing to maintain electronic content in perpetuity, and as a result, we lack the ability to weigh in on priorities influencing the ongoing maintenance of our collections.
(Figure 1) Of the 25 vendors that self-identified as not having ever levied an annual fee for a one-time purchase, at least one did levy what a librarian would colloquially call an “access” fee. Another vendor initially refused to answer the survey because they believed they no longer had any association with access fees despite continuing to charge legacy fees. In separate conversations with two different vendors, I was corrected on my use of “access fee” to refer to their annual fees. This is not to show vendors in a bad light, but to illustrate that vendors seem to have different names for access
Against the Grain / June 2021
The solution is not as simple as hosting purchased content on a library platform. As one vendor pointed out, “The customer can mount the data they have purchased on their own platform, with the security in place as described in the license agreement. They can choose to pay an access fee to access the data on our platform. Every customer prefers the access fee, which is lower cost than maintaining the data themselves.”
What’s the point of access fees? Should we be paying for them? The point of access fees is to maintain access to purchased content. If a library cancels an access fee, the content is typically made available by the publisher for a library to host on a different platform. Although, as previously stated, the cost to self-host may be prohibitive.
<https://www.charleston-hub.com/media/atg/>
21
