Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Journal Sales Models - Promises and Hidden Agendas

[<bernd-christoph.kaemper@ub.uni-stuttgart.de>]

(This is distributed over liblicense-l and lis-e-resources. 
Please excuse duplicate posting and forward this to interested 
colleagues at serials and e-resources departments.)

It's renewal time again. While tout le monde is eagerly awaiting 
the final release of the Wiley-Blackwell price list 2009, I'd 
like to alert you to some nasty, little known features lurking 
around the corner, things you should certainly be aware of before 
renewing your subscriptions or when you next talk to your 
Wiley-Blackwell Representative.

The last update on the less than optimal transition of Blackwell 
Journals from the Synergy platform to Wiley Interscience was 
given by Emily Gillingham on July 24 (see this list). Most 
license terms and access rights had by then been migrated from 
Synergy and (hopefully) set up correctly on the new system. For 
many subscribers, access to part of their collection had been 
curtailed a full week. OpenURL linking and linking from SwetsWise 
and Google Scholar to Blackwell content that had been disfunct 
for nearly two weeks was finally working again. It was announced 
that more information about the availability of usage data, the 
merging of the subscription systems and models, and the 
development of the new platform would follow in due course.

For the transition, Wiley-Blackwell rightly earned the pan among 
Peter's Picks & Pans in Information Today's Online Magazine vol. 
32, no. 4, July/August 2008 [1]. Right after the transition, 
180,000 articles were reported as missing; on August 1, one month 
later, still 48,000 articles (= 3%) were reported as missing, no 
update has been provided since then [2].

Some time in July Wiley-Blackwell first informed agencies about 
impending changes for the journal sales models of both the former 
Wiley and Blackwell brands. Some agencies passed on these infos 
to their customers, with a request to make decisions how to renew 
the no longer available standard subscriptions to former 
Blackwell titles that included a print subscription with free 
online access to the current year and the two previous years by 
the end of September. Cf., e.g., Harrassowitz' E-Resources News 
of July 2008 [3], or the EBSCO info that arrived by the end of 
August 2008, with a comparison table of old and new options [4]. 
Others waited because Wiley-Blackwell had announced that prices 
would not become available before End of August. That was a true 
statement because now we have end of September, and prices are 
still not available. It's a Wiley World!

In addition, on August 26, 2008, Wiley-Blackwell sent out a 2009 
Journal Sales Model Customer Briefing. I don't know how widely 
this was circulated but it was passed on to Wiley-Blackwell 
account managers, consortia administrators as well as individual 
libraries known to me, with the purpose to allay fears and 
concerns about the new unified journal sales model and to answer 
a lot of the many questions that might be arising in that 
context. In order that I may refer to and discuss this document, 
I provide a link here to the website for our regional consortium 
where I have saved a copy of that document:

http://www.ub.uni-stuttgart.de/Konsortium-BW/Wiley/Wiley-Blackwell_20080826.doc

The 2009 Journal Sales Models Customer Briefing, probably drafted 
for and finalized some time after Wiley-Blackwell's Global Sales 
and Marketing Conference in June, is a remarkable paper. It is 
comprehensive and clear, and pleasantly different from some other 
marketing blurbs and sales pitches recently offered by publishers 
that try to market and justify new sales models (NPG/Palgrave 
Macmillan comes to mind as a particularly egregious example).

Whoever has written it, had a clear vision and was committed to 
help develop and offer sales and access models that are designed 
to preserve some of the better features of the present models and 
to avoid their shortcomings and limitations.

The author presents a new sales policy whose pillars are fair, 
flexible pricing options and the freedom of choice, without the 
disfunctional restrictions attached to some of the options 
offered previously (Wiley's Basic Access License, Blackwell's 
Standard Subscription). All that based on a uniform Wiley Online 
License, offering unlimited access with no restrictions on 
concurrent users nor the number of sites. All subscribers with 
online access are entitled to access usage data, gain access to 
content dating back to 1997 (where available) and benefit from 
perpetual access to paid for years.

The paper is excellently written and an exemplar of good customer 
communications. And Wiley-Blackwell is clearly in need of a good 
external presentation after months of chaos.

Unfortunately, there are indications that Wiley-Blackwell does 
not want to stick to its promises. There are hidden agendas that 
slap into the face of what is clearly written in this paper, and 
attempt to re-introduce restrictions that we long thought to be 
history.

For example, we suddenly hear that the old restriction to class C 
IP address ranges or subnets will be revived. It will apply to 
all pick and choose title by title subscriptions. Campus wide 
access without such arbitrary restrictions will only be available 
for "managed accounts" that come with Core titles / Core 
Collection, Custom Collection / shared access or Fixed 
Collections deals that introduce additional costs, protect the 
publisher's revenue and restrict the library's flexibility to 
cancel subscriptions if necessary.

For former Blackwell customers this will mean that their present 
Premium Online or Print plus Online subscriptions which if now 
renewed for 2009 will be priced at 100% (up from 90%) resp. 110% 
(same as 2008) of the list price, will no longer provide 
campuswide access if the library does not choose to join one of 
the above mentioned deals that cover and bind all its presently 
subscribed titles. None of the agencies was informed about these 
restrictions when the new sales models were communicated. Wiley 
Sales would tell it only if questioned explicitely.

I first heard of it from a librarian at another german university 
library. She told me that her account manager at Wiley-Blackwell 
had insisted that they could not selectively renew their mix of 
Premium and Standard Print + Online subscriptions of former 
Blackwell titles under the new sales model as either Print or 
Print plus Online at 110% of the list price and continue to have 
campuswide access unless they agreed to put all Blackwell titles 
under their existing Wiley EAL (at 15% surcharge, even higher 
than previously), under what is now called the core title model 
and agreed to continue all their present Blackwell subscriptions. 
Otherwise they could get limited access for the subscribing 
university department only for these titles, for a class C 
network only, no longer campuswide access. They could not make 
this commitment, and therefore were forced to make the decision 
to renew all their former Blackwell titles (among them many 
society journals) print only.

I could'nt believe it! In Baden-Wurttemberg universities had for 
years lived with a BAL for selected titles and print only for 
others, until we were finally able to close a consortial deal in 
2007 after we received additional central state funding. None of 
our universities had a problem with it while we negotiated 
towards a consortium, except one which had a second campus in 
another town. However, I knew that other universities had been 
denied campus licenses on BAL basis, e.g., after they had to 
leave a consortium because of budget cuts or just for no apparent 
reason (the promotional material and license wording itself never 
imposed a restriction to Class C networks, but you were told you 
could not get it for campus wide access). So I asked our local 
account manager for Baden-Wuerttemberg what's up. I posed to him 
this question:

According to the 2009 Journal Sales Models Customer Briefing 
former Wiley BAL and Blackwell Standard Subscriptions will no 
longer be offered, there will be only one unified Wiley Online 
License. The customer briefing states :

"The Basic Access License is now disbanded.  All subscribers to 
online content benefit from the same rights to usage data, 
unlimited concurrent users, access back to 1997 and perpetual 
access to paid for years (previously limited to EAL customers 
only)."

and affirms:

"The Wiley Online License offers fair terms and conditions. - 
Unlimited access with no restrictions on concurrent users nor the 
number of sites (...)"

In my view this clearly implies that all previous restrictions of 
the BAL - number of physical sites, arbitrary restriction to 10 
class C networks at maximum, no provision of usage statistics - 
are gone with it. To be completely clear: my question applies to 
"pick and choose" single title purchases not to consortial 
licenses or local core title / core collection deals. Can you 
confirm this in writing, as it would apply to all our current 
Blackwell Premium Print + Online subscriptions that are not 
covered by existing Blackwell collection deals and our Wiley 
Consortium.

His answer was astonishing:

"I cannot confirm that restrictions for BAL licenses will no 
longer apply. "Wiley Online License" will in future refer to the 
present EAL [Enhanced access license, that has to cover all 
existing subscriptions whether print or online, the commentator]. 
Online access to individual titles (BALs) will continue to be 
restricted to a single site and up to 10 Class C IP Addresses."

I told him that it was a brazen attitude indeed of Wiley to deny 
previous Blackwell customers that will loose free albeit limited 
online access with print now also the possibility to license 
titles campuswide on a title-by-title basis, and this after they 
had just announced the discontinuation of the BAL with all its 
limitations. In view of a circulated policy document that speaks 
a totally different language, I could only regard the whole 
Wiley-Blackwell information campaign as a blatant deception of 
customers.

Confronted with my outrage, he made sure his answer was correct 
by asking back internally, but could only confirm that his 
information was the current state of plans for 2009. He even had 
to take back a reassuring qualification that it would not really 
concern us immediately as we had ongoing contracts with Blackwell 
and Wiley that would be renewed another year under the present 
conditions so that these changes would not affect us in 2009; the 
reason that this proviso might not apply is that our Blackwell 
HSS subscriptions are effectively not covered by those agreements 
(we only subscribe to the STM package).

There are other limitations as bad as this that many are not 
aware of and that might likewise continue to be applied by Wiley. 
>From a health librarian on the UKSG Lis-E-Resources listserv I 
learned [5] that Wiley denies an EAL license (not just 
participation in a consortium as I had assumed) to any customer 
that does not meet a certain minimum turnover or is not willing 
to pay that amount on top. What's that supposed to mean? We pay 
for and need access to the scholarly literature, not access to an 
account manager!

I am sure we can get this solved in our case because 
Wiley-Blackwell really cannot afford to alienate its consortial 
customers and we would not accept any pressure to integrate 
titles into present agreements if we see no advantage to it (if 
there is an advantage and if we could handle it in the short time 
remaining to get a workable transition agreement established for 
2009, it's another matter). However, we regard it as totally 
unacceptable to impose such restrictions in the first place. 
Bundles and multi-year deals are not optimal for everyone. 
Bundles and bid deals can turn out unfavorable if the base price 
you have to start with is already too high. We all (well: most of 
us) can get into financial difficulties that don't allow us to 
continue our subscriptions, consortial or package deals. We need 
exit strategies and freedom of choice. Wiley-Blackwell should 
offer (as it does) positive incentives to choose more 
comprehensive deals (consortial or not) in form of price caps for 
multi year deals, shared access and additional access such as 
adding titles from Subject Bundles or other favorite collection 
deals, not use coercive means by continuing to impose restrictive 
and dysfunctional conditions for "pick and choose" licensing of 
individual titles. Why is this needed? It's a shame and an insult 
to customers, nothing else. The many societies that chose 
Blackwell as a trusted business partner and now find themselves 
in bed with Wiley should also ask themselves whether a publisher 
that apparently treats individual title purchasers as inferior 
second rate customers is really acting in their best interest.

Now take into account that as part of the migration of Blackwell 
titles from the Synergy platform to Wiley Interscience, the 
company already had to migrate all Blackwell accounts, Premium or 
not, to Wiley EAL accounts (by functionality if not by name), 
because the Blackwell license agreement that had to be honored, 
did not impose any restrictions on the number of ip addresses or 
the number of concurrent users, nor did it withhold COUNTER usage 
statistics from paying customers. What sense does it make to take 
that back again? Isn't it pure harrassment? I certainly do not 
envy the people who have to do the job as account managers at 
Wiley-Blackwell and explain all this mess to their customers. It 
seems that we have to defend the forward looking progressive 
voices at Wiley Blackwell against the mules in their own 
management that have not recognized that times have changed and 
they cannot continue business as usual.

Finally, what we witness here, corroborates the concerns that 
have been voiced before the merger of Wiley and Blackwell by the 
Information Access Alliance (ARL with 6 other leading library 
organizations: AALL, ALA, ACRL, MLA, SPARC and SLA) in writing to 
the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice in 
November 2006 [6], and likewise by CURL, EBLIDA, LIBER, SCONUL 
and SPARC Europe in writing to the European Commission's 
Directorate General for Competition in January 2007 [7].

The Alliance was concerned that this transaction would 
"exacerbate market dysfunctions and result in further reduction 
in access to critical research information." "Larger publishers", 
wrote the European library advocacy group, "are able, therefore, 
to exploit their monopolistic positions to further bundle their 
products, increase their market share, and squeeze out smaller 
competitors." Blackwell previously offered also 1 year collection 
deals while Wiley deals were multi-year. As predicted, the option 
to get 1 year deals will now no longer be offered. The planned 
denial of campus-wide access to "pick and choose" single-title 
subscriptions is clear evidence for a company fully exploiting 
its concentration of "must-have content" and the resulting market 
power to impose anticompetitive restrictions on journal sales and 
the ability of libraries to select what they need and cancel 
journals if necessary. In this way compensatory cancellations are 
directed onto other publisher's journals.

Wiley has since long stayed in the top quarter of annual serials 
price increases, and there is no reason to assume that they will 
moderate this after the integration of the Blackwell Portfolio. 
Rumors are already heard that Wiley will first install a new EURO 
price list for site licensing their content that will mean higher 
prices for European customers outside UK (but not lower prices 
for US customers). They fulfilled the worst expectations of 
information specialists like Peter Jacso that in order to 
streamline their operations they would disband the superior 
Synergy platform (based on the excellent Atypon software and just 
relaunched in 2007 with brand new improved design and 
functionality) that was in use for the far larger Blackwell 
collection (900 plus journals compared to 300 plus) in favor of 
their own deficient, poorly performing software on Wiley 
Interscience. Market concentration that lowers competition 
obviously does not favor innovation.

Customer relations are strained also: Wiley ignored all requests 
by librarians not to inflict two migrations within short time on 
them, or at least to maintain Synergy and Wiley Interscience in 
parallel for a time, to avoid distress and lost access. 
Wiley-Blackwell has already postponed the introduction of the new 
platform to mid 2009. Peter Jacso writes: "Be ready for similar 
disappointment and distress for a long time as Wiley-Blackwell 
'will be launching a next generation online service during 2009'.

I think they put the cart before the horse. Even if this next 
generation service would ever work nearly as well as Synergy, it 
would have been the minimum of precautions to wait until this is 
proven and tested by independent and competent experts, not just 
declared by the management of Wiley-Blackwell. It should have 
been done the other way around. Wiley has never had the ability 
to develop a sophisticated online platform, nor has it cared 
about fixing its deficiencies (...)" [1] Shibboleth 
Authentication that had been implemented on the Synergy platform 
already in May 2007, is now also gone. Wiley will not offer it 
again before the launch of the new platform in mid 2009.

All this is disappointing and depressing. The barrier to entry 
will probably not be lowered with such a big portfolio and the 
trend to increase bundling, especially with the new pricing 
models for shared and bundled access. The completely revamped 
pricing structure that will be based on paying a proportion of 
what you get as additional access (moderated by FTE based 
pricing) rather than a surcharge on what you currently pay for 
your own collection, will see winners and loosers, and it's 
getting more complicated, not less.

Libraries will have to weigh carefully whether they can afford 
and sustain the new deals. Freedom of choice, also as pick and 
choose of individual titles without arbitrary restrictions on 
functionality, is essential. It's the mantra of the 2009 Journal 
Sales Model Customer Briefing, which would be reassuring if it 
were meant honestly. If libraries still cannot be sure with the 
new price list for 2009, what kind of access they buy for their 
money, the renewals for 2009 will be further delayed and it will 
be distress for everyone. The least we can expect from 
Wiley-Blackwell is that they stick to the promises made in that 
policy paper. If Wiley-Blackwell instead choses to continue to 
pursue hidden agendas that fundamentally limit their customers' 
freedom of choice, it's time for libraries to stand together and 
just say no.


[1] http://www.infotoday.com/online/jul08/index.shtml , abstract 
at 
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34826850_ITM, 
fulltext available, courtesy of the author, Dr. Peter Jacso, at 
http://www.jacso.info/PDFs/jacso-oecd-astrophysics-wiley-blackwell-32-4.pdf 
(Read it!, it's hilarious - or depressing, depending on your 
mood). For earlier accounts of the performance of the Wiley 
Interscience platform, cf. Online Magazine vol. 31(4), 
July/August 2007, p. 49-51 (Picks: SpringerLink, Blackwell 
Synergy, Pan: Wiley Interscience) and vol. 30(2), March/April 
2006, p. 58-60 (pan for Wiley's ASIST Digital Library), fulltext 
available on the author's homepage at 
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jacso/

[2] cf. the Wiley-Blackwell Online Content Transition News, 
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/wiley-blackwell/transition.html 
(last updated: September 4, 2008, viewed: Sep 21, 2008)

[3] http://www.harrassowitz.de/subscription_services/Wiley_Blackwell_2009.html 
(dated: July 2008, viewed: Sep 21, 2008)

[4] posted on Criss Library Focus on Online, 
http://focusononline.blogspot.com/2008/08/wiley-blackwell-2009-subscription.html

[5] posting archived at 
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0807&L=LIS-E-RESOURCES&P=R6733

[6] The IAA letter to the Department of Justice is available at 
http://www.informationaccess.org/bm~doc/doj_wiley_blackwell.pdf , 
the Issue Brief: John Wiley and Sons' Acquisition of Blackwell 
Publishing at 
http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/issue_brief_wiley_blackwell.pdf . For 
background information cf. also the FAQ at 
http://www.informationaccess.org/faq/index.shtml [7] available 
for download at http://www2.kb.dk/liber/news/PhlipLowe.pdf , 
posted on liblicense-l on Jan 18, 2007, 
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0701/msg00049.html

Bernd-Christoph Kaemper, Stuttgart University Library and
Consortium Baden-Wuerttemberg
Universitatsbibliothek
Universitat Stuttgart
Holzgartenstrasse 16
70550 Stuttgart
Tel. +49-(0)711-685-64731 or 83510