Re: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled

["Mark Funk" <mefunk@med.cornell.edu>]

Instead of comparing the decrease to the industry average, it 
would have been more informative to disclose the previous few 
years' numbers for PNAS. How big a change was this loss? (By the 
way, what is the industry average?) Also, how many of these 
cancellations were personal subscriptions, as opposed to 
institutional subscriptions? Was this a net loss, taking into 
account new subscriptions, or a gross loss? More information is 
needed before conclusions can be drawn.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
New York, NY 10021
mefunk@med.cornell.edu
PH: 212-746-6073
FX: 212-746-8271


At 12:01 AM -0500 12/11/06, Electronic Content Licensing Discussion wrote:
> From: "Sullenberger, Diane" <DSullenb@nas.edu>
> To: "Sally Morris (Chief Executive)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Study Identifies Factors That Could Lead to Cancelled
> Subscriptions
>
> Hi Sally,
>
> In 2000, we were free after one month. We lost 11% of our paid
> subscribers in 2001, higher than the industry average, and we
> switched to 6 months in 2002. The move did not stem the loss in
> subscribers but it was reduced to 9% in 2002. We do not have hard
> data to show a causal effect of our one month policy, but the
> correlation certainly motivated a change.
>
> Best,
> Diane