Access Fees by Another Name

By Amy Pham (Database and eBooks Manager, SCELC) <amy@scelc.org>

If 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.”

(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 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,” “building and facilities,” “building maintenance,” and “fixtures and equipment” (p. 544).

With electronic resources, vendors have taken on the cost of 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.

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.”

“By outsourcing the hosting of our collections, we have lost cost transparency.”

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.

If the cost to assert ownership may be prohibitive, then we need to ask if libraries actually own the content we purchase, and whether libraries should be investing money in “perpetual” ownership. If electronic content is important enough for us to purchase, we need to consider how to keep that content. How long is a perpetual purchase valuable? Can we calculate that in terms of length of time? If we could assess the future value of an electronic purchase, we could open a conversation about the value of its ongoing maintenance.

A majority of the vendor survey respondents currently calculate access fees as a “flat rate based on FTE tier” or a “flat rate per product.” A few more calculate access fees based on a percentage of product cost or previously purchased content.

(Figure 2)

What might it look like to price access fees according to the long-term value of a resource rather than a set market price? We could decrease access fees for depreciating value, for example, over a period x years. We could advocate for an existing model that provides a more customized approach to a collection, such as the “update fee” model, wherein a library may choose to pay annually for newly added or updated content. Or we could eliminate access fees entirely, rolling the cost of long-term access into the original cost of purchase instead.

In a way, there are vendors who are already practicing an alternative model to the standard access fee. When asked “are there instances where an annual fee is waived?,” over half of respondents (12 out of 20) said yes: by purchasing new content, by purchasing over a certain amount, or by buying out the annual fee. Eight of the 12 respondents would also waive access fees on a case-by-case basis. For one company, the access fee is “always waived the first year.” For these vendors, the access fee seems to act as a tether to continue relationships with existing customers.

(Figure 3)

What should we call access fees?

To start, we should ask for more transparency in the costs for hosting and maintenance.

Some vendors have renamed access fees to “hosting fees” or “platform fees,” which could serve as suitable alternatives if the fees are reevaluated to reflect the actual cost of these components of access.

If the access fee is necessary as a shared cost to cover equipment or IT expenses, then the fee is really a tax or subsidy to maintain collections. If libraries are sharing collection responsibilities with publishers and vendors, then we need to assess who is financially responsible for what. If libraries are collectively paying what amounts to a tax, do the fees being collected cover or exceed the actual maintenance costs of the resource? As a tax, access fees would need to be reviewed as the total amount collected from all libraries to avoid “excessive taxation.”

If we rethink purchased collections entirely, the access fee might be converted and accounted for elsewhere.

There is no definitive answer, but as collections currently stand, we should consider what we want our collections to look like in ten years. Will content purchased now be valuable in the future? Will access be our primary objective, or do we want our collections to provide additional value beyond access?

references

Lawrence, S., Connaway, L., & Brigham K. (2001). Life Cycle Costs of Library Collections: Creation of Effective Performance and Cost Metrics for Library Resources. College & Research Libraries, 62(6), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.62.6.541

rumors continued from page 6

Guardian-chief-executive-Annette-Thomas-quits-just-15-monthsjob-600-000-payoff.html and https://www.theguardian.com/ media/2021/jun/09/guardian-media-group-announces-departureof-chief-executive-annette-thomas.

Just announced on June 9, 2021 — OverDrive, is acquiring Kanopy, a leading video streaming service for public and academic libraries. The acquisition of Kanopy will bring one of the industry’s most-acclaimed video catalogs (over 30,000 highly curated films) to the OverDrive platform to better serve public and academic libraries around the world. Kanopy is used by millions of students and library patrons and is available on all major web, mobile and TV platforms. Steven Potash is the founder and CEO of OverDrive. www.kanopy.com and www. overdrive.com.

Charleston Conference main director Beth Bernhardt’s Trivia nights during the virtual 2020 Charleston Conference were very popular. I’ll bet they will be back in 2021! The Charleston Post & Courier has recently begun running a trivia column for the past few months. And there’s another Charleston Conference Connection! Bryan Dillon from the Charleston County Public Library pens the P&C columns. Bryan used to work with me at the College of Charleston. Bryan’s father (now retired) is Robert T. Dillon, Jr. of the Biology Department of the College of Charleston and author of several monographs for Cambridge University Press about freshwater gastropods. It’s definitely a small world. Check it out at https://www.fwgna.org/dillonr/ and https://www.fwgna.org/publications/index.html. continued on page 45