I think that J.F. Rowland is missing my point. Whether we are dealing with a reader's market (subscription model), or an author's model (membership model) was not my argument. I was attempting to illustrate that that shifting from a market model that involves *individual costs*, to one that involves *institutional costs* is problematic. Most publishers use a price-discriminatory model whereby institutional subscription prices eclipse individual subscription prices by many times. We also know that an individual subscription model is price elastic (individuals are not tolerant of large price increases), while an institutional subscription model is price inelastic (libraries unfortunately are very tolerant of price increases). Libraries have been tolerant of paying exorbitant journal prices because we act as purchasing agents for our consumers, and consumers in this model are unaware and uninterested in containing costs -- this is well-documented in both the economics and library literature. So whether we are discussing a reader's market, or an author's market is beside the point. A move to an institutional membership fee can be economically disadvantageous, especially if this model is controlled by a price-maximizing entity, of which BioMed Central is one. Phil Davis Philip Davis, Life Sciences Bibliographer Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-7192 ; (607) 255-0318 fax pmd8@cornell.edu http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/