College and Research Libraries Academic Library Responses to Journal Price Discrimination Jean Walstrom Haley and James Talaga The ability of libraries to mitigate the effects of high journal prices is constrained by publishers' ability to use price discrimination. Based upon this theoretical framework, a mail survey of 213 academic libraries was conducted. It is found that success rates for the most commonly tried strategies are proportionately lower than success rates for less commonly used strategies. It is also found that the price of a particular journal does not seem to drive the selectionfdeselection decisions in many libraries. These findings are consistent with a price discrim- ination view of journal pricing. Finally, alternative strategies are suggested that libraries might employ to deal with the joint problems of publishers' price discrimination and high journal prices. • orne journal publishers, par- ticularly those publishing sci- entific, technical, and medical journals, employ a multiple price policy for their products. This practice is known as price discrimination. Discrimi- natory pricing by journal publishers as- sumes two forms: (1) higher prices for institutional subscribers and (2) prices for foreign subscribers that far exceed post- age and handling and exchange rate fluc- tuations. This article briefly discusses the nature and extent of journal price discrim- ination and reports on a survey of aca- demic library responses to this problem. Virtually all of the literature on journal pricing deals with the problem of high prices. Only infrequently do discussions of high journal prices consider price discrim- ination. The ability to engage in price dis- crimination is central to publishers' ability to charge high prices to libraries. As we noted in a previous article in another jour- nal, all of the criteria necessary for success- ful price discrimination presently exist in the library marketplace.1 Publishers can accommodate the need to cover in- creased costs and realize profits through the use of a dual-pricing structure-one that charges high prices to libraries and lower prices to individuals. Thus, a dis- cussion of price discrimination is central to the more general problem of high se- rials prices. Based on an analysis of the relationship between high prices and price discrimination, the authors con- clude that any strategy used to combat high prices must simultaneously ad- dress price discrimination; any strategy that is successful against price discrim- ination should result in lower prices. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM As noted above, price discrimination takes two forms: (1) higher prices for institutions and (2) higher prices for for- eign subscribers. In the first case, a pub- lisher sets up multiple prices for different classes of subscribers. Typically, the low- est rates apply to personal, individual Jean Walstrom Haley is Director of O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library Center, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55105. James Talaga is Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing, the School of Business, La Salle University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142. · 61 62 College & Research Libraries subscriptions. Publishers then apply a second, higher rate to institutional sub- scribers such as libraries, schools, corpora- tions, government agencies, and so on. In the case of foreign subscribers, a publisher sets up multiple prices on the basis of the country to which the sub- scription will be sent. The price is usu- ally in excess of the additional postage and handling required for overseas de- livery and in excess of the amount needed to offset exchange rate fluctua- tions. In some cases, the subscriber is not allowed choice of currency nor is the sub- scriber allowed to assume the exchange risk. In some instances, both institutional subscriber and foreign subscriber price discrimination are applied. Since sepa- rating the two forms of price discrimina- tion is difficult (for example, foreign publishers may engage in both prac- tices), they will be considered together. EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM A number of studies document the ex- tent of price discrimination. 2 While each of these studies is limited either by the number of titles in the study or by the subject area of concern, they demonstr- ate that the practice of charging libraries higher prices for journals is widespread. For example, Patrick Joyce and Thomas Merz indicate that of 89 academic jour- nals, 66 (74%) charged higher prices to institutions than were charged to indi- vidual subscribers. 3 Evidence exists that publishers price discriminate in a deliberate pattern, charging more for journals that are in higher demand (indexed, heavily cited, etc.). Glenn R. Wittig found that price discrimination for general readership magazines (such as those indexed in the Reader's Guide) was nonexistent.4 Joyce and Merz found that the "best" journals do engage in price discrimination, with ''best" defined by scholars in the respec- tive disciplines rather than by citation frequency or other measures.5 Robert L. Houbeck, in a comprehensive study of British publishers, found higher prices charged for journals that were heavily used (cited) or had high value (recom- mended, heavily used).6 January 1992 Finally, evidence indicates that some publishers seem to engage more actively in price discrimination than others? James C. Thompson indicates that at the University of California, Riverside, 1% of journals account for 25% of annual journal expenditures. He notes that one of the major contributors to the problem is the propensity of publishers to price discriminate. 8 COST OF THE PROBLEM Joyce and Merz suggest that the differ- entials between individual subscription prices and institutional subscription prices are, on average, nearly 200%.9 Dif- ferences vary from discipline to discipline, with chemistry journals having a mean differential of 389% and economics jour- nals having a mean differential of 69%. Deana L. Astle and Charles Hamaker find that U.S. subscribers pay, on aver- age, 39% more than British subscribers, in addition to any already existing price differential for institutional subscrib- ers. 10 If these figures are correct, it could be argued that discriminatory pricing practices of journal publishers consume as much as one-half of an average aca- demic library's serials budget. A library with a serials budget of $500,000 is thus paying perhaps $250,000 more than indi- vidual subscribers. Academic libraries that specialize in the sciences pay a higher proportion in discriminatory price charges, while libraries that spe- cialize in the humanities and social sci- ences pay a lower proportion. THE SURVEY: ACTUAL UBRARY BEHAVIOR In order to understand better library behavior in response to price discrimina- tion, we conducted a mail survey of aca- demic libraries. The sample consisted of 213 academic libraries: the 107 largest U.S. academic libraries (referred to below as "large" libraries) and a ran- domly selected sample of 106 academic libraries with 1,000 to 1,200 current jour- nal subscriptions (referred to below as "small" libraries). Excluded from this latter group were medical libraries, com- munity college libraries, and seminary Journal Price Discrimination 63 TABLEl RESPONSES ACTUALLY USED BY ACADEMIC LIBRARIES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION Have Done This Have Not Done This Don't Know If Done Responses a. Increased reliance on ILL b. Informal resource-sharing agreements c. Notifying faculty of journal prices d. Formal complaints to publishers (as individual library) e. Formal complaints to publishers (as part of group, e.g., ARL, RLG) f. Cancellation of subscription (more as a protest than because of high price) g. Seeking outside funding for journals h. Shifting complete responsibility to faculty for journal selection i. Shifting funds from monograph budget j. Reliance on journal donations from individual subscribers k. Increased reliance on document delivery systems (e.g., DIALORDER) 1. Other libraries. The sample was selected from the current online version of the Ameri- can Library Directory. The ability to engage in price discrimi- nation is central to publishers' ability to charge high prices to libraries. Each library in the sample was mailed a cover letter explaining the nature of the study, a survey form, and a stamped re- turn envelope. In all cases, the material was sent to the library director, who was asked either to fill the survey out or to forward it to the appropriate person in the library. A follow-up mailing consist- ing of the same materials was sent to those libraries that did not respond after a reasonable length of time. One hundred thirty-four libraries re- turned a total of 128 completed, usable Frequency (%) Frequency(%) Frequency(%) 96 71 107 32 62 41 41 13 99 41 36 28 (75.6) 28 (22.8) 3 (2.4) (57.7) 49 (39.8) 3 (2.3) (84.9) 18 (14.3) (0.8) (25.6) 87 (69.6) 6 (4.8) (49.6) 55 (44.0) 8 (6.4) (33.9) 75 (62.0) 5 (4.1) (33.9) 78 (62.9) 5 (4.0) (10.6) 108 (87.8) 2 (1.6) (78.6) 24 (19.0) 3 (2.4) (32.5) 83 (65.9) 2 (1.6) (29.8) 82 (67.8) 3 (2.4) (21.9) ( 0.8) 0 (0.0) responses. Sixty-five small libraries re- turned completed survey forms; 63large libraries returned completed survey forms. The response rates are as follows: Total responses Usable responses Small libraries Large libraries 134 (62.9%) 128 (60.1 %) 65 (61.3%) 63 (58.9%) Although response rates of 60% were somewhat below expectations, the au- thors are confident of the generalizabil- ity of the findings. Libraries that did not respond apparently did so on a random basis. We recognize that every study is lim- ited in some way. The following limita- tions in this study are noted: • Only the very largest libraries and a sample of relatively small libraries were included. Libraries with different 64 College & Research Libraries January 1992 TABLE2 MOST AND LEAST COMMONLY EMPLOYED RESPONSES USED BY ACADEMIC UBRARIES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION Response a. Increased reliance on ILL b. Informal resource-sharing agreements c. Notifying faculty of journal prices d. Formal complaints to publishers (as individual library) e. Formal complaints to publishers (as part of group, e.g., ARL, RLG) f. Cancellation of subscription (more as a protest than because of high price) g. Seeking outside funding for journals h. Shifting complete responsibility to faculty for journal selection i. Shifting funds from monograph budget j. Reliance on journal donations from individual subscribers k. Increased reliance on document delivery systems (e.g., DIALORDER) 1. Other Total collection sizes, particularly very small academic libraries, may have slightly variant behaviors. • The cover letter and the survey explic- itly requested that the respondent an- swer in terms of price discrimination. However, some respondents rna y have replied in terms of high prices. This does not seem to us to be a serious problem since the strategies used to combat price discrimination and high prices appear to be generally inter- changeable. The responses listed in the questionnaire can be used as effec- tively (or ineffectively) against both price discrimination and high prices. • About one-third of the respondents provided no data, incomplete data, or inaccurate data with regard to num- bers and prices of titles added and dropped. The 77libraries that did pro- vide all the data reported the addition of a total of 20,202 titles and the drop- Most Common Response Frequency (%) 30 (24.4) 6 (4.9) 12 (9.8) 3 (2.4) 3 (2.4) 13 (10.4) 2 (1.6) 2 (1.6) 42 (34.1) 2 (1.6) Second Most Common Response Least Common Response Frequency (%) Frequency (%) 27 922.3) 0 (0.0) 19 (15.7) 0 (0.0) 19 (15.7) 0 (0.0) 3 (2.4) 5 8 (6.6) 3 10 (8.3) 13 6 (5.0) 7 (0.8) 48 13 (10.7) 8 4 (3.3) 33 (4.0) (2.4) (10.4) (5.6) (38.4) (6.4) (26.4) (0.8) 3 (2.4) 7 (5.6) 7 (5.7) 7 (5.8) 1 (0.8) 123 (100.0) 129 (100.0) 125 (100.0) ping of 27,843 titles. In instances where the numbers reported seemed to be out of line (e.g., dropping more than 10% of the titles in the collection), we verified the results before includ- ing them in the survey data. FINDINGS: ACTUAL LIBRARY BEHAVIOR The survey asked libraries questions about three types of behavior: (1) what practices do they follow to mitigate the impact of price discrimination? (2) what practices do they think would actually work in mitigating discriminatory prac- tices? and (3) what was their actual be- havior regarding the adding and dropping of journals? What practices do libraries actually follow to mitigate the impact of price discrimination? The data are presented in tables 1 and 2. Most libraries have tried a variety of responses, and every Journal Price Discrimination 65 TABLE3 ACADEMIC LIBRARIES' PERCEPTION OF SUCCESS RATES OF STRATEGIES AVAILABLE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION Strategy a. Increased reliance on ILL b. Informal resource-sharing agreements c. Notifying faculty of journal prices d. Formal complaints to publishers (as individual library) e. Formal complaints to publishers (as part of group-e.g., ARL, RLG) f. Cancellation of subscription (more as a protest than because of high price) g. Seeking outside funding for journals h. Shifting complete responsibility to faculty for journal selection i. Shifting funds from monograph budget j. Reliance on journal donations from individual subscribers k. Increased reliance on document delivery systems (e.g., DIALORDER) 1. Other approach has been tried by at least one library. The three most frequent responses were: notify faculty about journal prices (85% have done this); shift funds from the monograph budget (79%); and in- crease reliance on interlibrary loan (ILL) (76%). The least frequently tried ap- proaches were shifting complete respon- sibility for journal selection to faculty (11% have tried this); formal, individual complaints to publishers (26%); and in- creased reliance on document delivery systems (30%). Because a library states that it has used an approach does not necessarily mean that the approach was extensively used by all libraries. Data in table 2 report on what were the most frequently and least frequently used library strategies. Every strategy was considered as the most or second most common strategy by at least one library. The two most frequently used responses were increased reliance on ILLs (47% cited this as the most or A Very Successful Not AVery Strategy Neither Successful Strategy Frequency(%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%) 59 (48.8) 36 (29.8) 26 (21.5) 67 (55.8) 21 (17.5) 32 (26.7) 50 (40.3) 36 (29.0) 38 (30.6) 17 (13.9) 30 (24.6) 75 (61.5) 56 (45.9) 36 (29.5) 30 (24.6) 54 (43.5) 34 (27.4) 36 (29.0) 15 (12.2) 50 (40.7) 58 (47.2) 6 (4.7) 26 (20.8) 93 (74.4) 29 (23.6) 44 (35.8) 50 (40.7) 9 (7.2) 23 (18.4) 93 (74.4) 52 (43.0) 46 (38.0) 23 (19.0) 19 (95.0) 0 ( 0.0) ( 5.0) second most common strategy) and shifting funds from the monograph bud- get (45% did this as either the most or the second most common strategy). Most re- spondents used one or both of these strat- egies. The least commonly used strategies were shifting complete responsibility to faculty (38% considered this their least likely strategy) and relying on individ- ual subscriber donations (26%). What libraries actually do may not represent what they think is the best strategy (because of budgeting, political, or other constraints). Questions were asked, therefore, about what strategies libraries think would be the most suc- cessful in combating the problem of price discrimination, regardless of whether or not they use them. Libraries were free to use whatever standard they thought ap- propriate in judging success, although the question implied that success meant obtaining some form of price relief. Table 3 indicates that no one strategy stood out as best. 66 College & Research Libraries Several respondents indicated that none of the strategies had any success potential. The three strategies thought to be potentially the most successful were informal resource-sharing agreements (56% thought this to be a very successful strategy); increased reliance on ILL (49%); and formal complaints to publishers as part of a group-e.g., Association of Re- search Libraries, Research Library Group (46%). The three strategies thought to be the least successful were reliance on jour- nal donations from individual subscrib- ers (7 4% thought this to be a very unsuccessful strategy); shifting complete responsibility for journal selection to fac- ulty (74%); and formal complaints to publishers as individual libraries (62%). Several interesting comparisons can be made between what libraries think might be successful and what they actu- ally do. Comparing the most frequently used strategies with their perceived suc- cess rates, we note some small discrep- ancies: notify faculty about journal prices (85% have used the strategy; 40% view it as successful); shift funds from the monograph budget (79% have done this; 24% view it as successful); and in- crease reliance on ILL (76% have done this; 49% view it as successful). Gener- ally, libraries do not consider the strate- gies they have tried to be successful. In comparing the least frequently tried approaches with their perceived success rates, we find the following: shift com- plete responsibility for journal selection to faculty (11% have tried this; 74% view it as unsuccessful); make formal, indi- vidual complaints to publishers (26% have tried this; 62% view it as unsuccess- ful); and increase reliance on document delivery systems (30% have tried this; 19% view it as unsuccessful). Libraries that had actually tried a par- ticular strategy rated that strategy as more successful than did libraries that had not tried the strategy. For example, while 56% of all respondents thought informal resource sharing was poten- tially a very successful strategy, 65% of respondents that had actually tried resource sharing thought that it was a very successful strategy. The strategies January 1992 that elicited the greatest positive re- sponse from libraries that had actually tried them were: shift responsibility to faculty (30% that tried this found it to be successful versus 5% of all respondents who felt it was a potentially successful strategy); protest cancellations (68% ver- sus 44%); and make individual com- plaints (29% versus 14%). What libraries actually do may not represent what they think is the best strategy. What was actual library behavior with regard to the adding and dropping of journals? If, on the one hand, libraries worried only about price in selecting journals, increases in journal prices would result in large numbers of can- celed journals. If, on the other hand, li- braries make selection and deselection decisions based on factors other than price, increases in prices would cause relatively little net decrease in subscrip- tions.11 To test this hypothesis, the au- thors asked libraries to indicate the number of titles both added and dropped during 1987-88 and 1988-89. Also asked were the approximate sub- scription costs and savings associated with adding and dropping journals. About one-third of respondents either had no available information about this area or had only partial data. As a result, fewer respondents are included here than in the above sections. Tables 4 through 7 use four categories: $0.00; $0.01-100.00; $100.01-250.00; and over $250.00. The first category includes those libraries that neither spent nor saved money on added or dropped jour- nals for the given year. The second cate- gory represents libraries that added or dropped almost exclusively inexpensive journals. Using Thompson's 1989 fig- ures as a guide (mean physical journal prices = $431.62; mean humanities/ so- cial science journal price = $76.09), 12 we calculate that a library that dropped ten humanities/ social science journals for every one physical science journal Journal Price Discrimination 67 TABLE4 MEAN REPORTED PRICES OF JOURNALS ADDED, 1987-88 All Libraries Large Libraries Small Libraries Prices No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) $0.00 17 (21.5) 13 (40.6) 4 (8.5) $0.01-100.00 44 (55.7) 11 (34.4) 33 (70.2) $100.01-250.00 15 (19.0) 6 (18.8) 9 (19.1) Over $250.00 3 (3.8) 2 (6.2) (2.1) Total 79 (100.0) 32 (100.0) 47 (100.0) TABLES MEAN REPORTED PRICES OF JOURNALS DROPPED, 1987-88 All Libraries Prices No. (%) $0.00 22 (26.8) $0.01-100.00 26 (31.7) $100.01-250.00 21 (25.6) Over $250.00 13 (15.9) Total 82 (100.0) would average savings of about $100 per journal dropped. Similarly, if a library added ten humanities/social science journals for every one physical science journal, the average increased expendi- ture per journal would be about $100. The third category represents those li- braries that added or dropped predomi- nantly inexpensive journals. A library that dropped three humanities/social sci- ence journals for every one physical sci- ence journal would save, on average, about $165 for every journal dropped. Finally, the last category represents li- braries that added or dropped predomi- nantly expensive journals. A library that dropped one humanities/ social science journal for every one physical science journal would have average savings of about $250 for every journal dropped. Average costs and savings of journals added and dropped during 1987-88 are presented in tables 4 and 5. We make two observations: first, few libraries tended either to add or drop predominantly expensive journals. Only 4% of all libraries added journals that had average prices of $250 or more, Large Libraries Small Libraries No. (%) No. (%) 11 (33.3) 11 (22.4) 7 (21.1) 19 (38.8) 10 (30.2) 11 (22.4) 5 (15.2) 8 (16.3) 33 (100.0 49 (100.0) while only 16% of all libraries dropped journals that had average prices of $250 or more. Second, a large number of li- braries reported neither adding nor dropping journals (22% reported adding no journals, 27% reported dropping no journals). Tables 6 and 7 show an in- crease in cancellation of expensive jour- nals in 1988-89. The percentage of libraries adding ex- pensive journals remained nearly constant (4%), while the percentage dropping ex- pensive journals rose to 22% of the total. Large libraries were virtually un- changed in terms of dropping expen- sive journals-most of the increase in cancellation of expensive journals was by smaller libraries. About one-fourth of the responding libraries reported that they were dropping predominantly more ex- pensive journals. Finally, table 8 shows that during 1987-88, slightly more than 44% of the respondents spent more money for added journals than they saved from journal deletions. Slightly more than 48% saved more money from journal de- letions than they spent on new journal 68 College & Research Libraries January 1992 TABLE6 MEAN REPORTED PRICES OF lOURNALS ADDED, 1988-89 All Libraries Large Libraries Small Libraries Prices No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) $0.00 14 (15.2) 7 (17.9) 7 (13.2) $0.01-100.00 56 (60.9) 18 (46.2) 38 (71.7) $100.01-250.00 18 (19.6) 12 (30.8) 6 (11.3) Over $250.00 4 (4.3) 2 (5.1) 2 (3.9) Total 92 (100.0) 39 (100.0) 53 (100.0) TABLE7 MEAN REPORTED PRICES OF JOURNALS DROPPED, 1988-89 All Libraries Large Libraries Small Libraries Prices No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) $0.00 21 (25.3) 12 (37.5) 9 (17.6) $0.01-100.00 27 (32.5) 6 (18.8) 21 (41.2) $100.01-250.00 17 (20.5) 9 (28.1) 8 (15.7) Over $250.00 18 (21.7) 5 (15.6) 13 (25.5) Total 83 (100.0) 32 (100.0) 51 (100.0) TABLES LIBRARIES HAVING NET SERIALS BUDGET INCREASES AND DECREASES AS A RESULT OF ADDING AND DROPPING JOURNALS, 1987-88 AND 1988-89 Change Increased over $10,000 Increased $1,000-9,999 Increased $1-999 Budget unchanged $0 Decreased $1-999 Decreased $1,000-9,999 Decreased over $10,000 Total titles. Only 13% of all respondents saved more than $10,000. During 1988--89, 50% spent more money for added journals than they saved from journal deletions, and 42% saved more money from jour- nal deletions than they spent on added titles. Only 13% saved more than $10,000. The above data lead us to the follow- ing conclusions: (1) Libraries appear to make selection and deselection decisions 1987-88 1988-89 No. (%) No. (%) 7 (10.0) 12 (15.0) 18 (25.7) 18 (22.5) 6 (8.6) 10 (12.5) 5 (7.1) 7 (8.8) 10 (14.3) 8 (10.0) 15 (21.4) 15 (18.7) 9 (12.9) 10 (12.5) 70 (100.0) 80 (100.0) based on factors other than price alone and are hence vulnerable to price dis- crimination. (2) In 1987-88, only one in six libraries canceled predominantly ex- pensive journals. If the number adding predominantly expensive journals is re- figured in, about one in ten libraries tended to deselect expensive journals. During 1987-88, 90% of libraries tended to deselect less-expensive journals. (3) In 1988-89, only one in four libraries deselected predominantly expensive journals. After adjusting for additions, about one in five libraries tended to de- select expensive journals. Thus, 80% of libraries during 1988-89 tended to de- select less-expensive journals. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS A discrepancy exists between what li- braries think are potentially effective strategies and what strategies they actu- ally use. The two most commonly used strategies, increased reliance on ILL and shifting funds from monographs, are not viewed as being the most likely to be successful. In fact, shifting funds from monographs is viewed as being one of the least likely to be successful strate- gies. The two strategies believed to have the most potential for success, protest cancellations and group complaints to publishers, are not commonly used strat- egies. Fewer than 10% of libraries used protest cancellations, and fewer than 2% used group complaints. The two most commonly used strate- gies, increasing reliance on ILL and shifting funds from monographs, are not viewed as being the most likely to be successful. Libraries that actually try a strategy consider it to be more successful than do libraries that have not tried the strategy. This does not imply that every strategy tried will be successful. However, the strategies open to libraries are more po- tentially successful than they think. Although libraries have expressed concern about the effects of price dis- crimination (such as high prices), few libraries do anything about it. This lack of reaction reinforces publishers' percep- tions that prices can be raised without fear of library retaliation. Evidence about library selection and deselection practices supports the position that libraries are vulnerable to price discrimination. Finally, despite concern about high prices, many libraries actually increased Journal Price Discrimination 69 spending on new journal titles (this ex- cludes the increased costs due to infla- tion). Apparently, few libraries practice a vigorous program of journal title dele- tions in an effort to decrease their serials budgets. The ability of libraries to deal with high journal prices depends on the abil- ity of libraries to modify or reduce the power that journal publishers now have over them. The relationships between the library and the faculty as well as the relationship between the library and the publisher needs to be changed. Based on what libraries perceive to be successful strategies and on what libraries actually do, the following would appear to have some potential for success: 1. Libraries could engage in protest cancellations of expensive journals. If this is to be an effective strategy, however, the number and fre- quency of library actions needs to be substantial. Sporadic, irregular, and unpublicized cancellations are unlikely to have much, if any im- pact on publishers. 2. Library actions (along with the ra- tionale) need to be made known to the faculty. If the library wants to reduce the ability of publishers to price discriminate, the library needs to integrate the faculty more closely into the journal management process. Faculty need to have explicit and de- tailed knowledge of serials pricing practices in order to view price dis- crimination as a problem shared by the entire academic community. 3. Increased resource sharing, either through formal methods, such as ILL and formalized resource-shar- ing agreements, or through infor- mal agreements, should be used to reduce the cost of journals to any particular library. We note, how- ever, that resource sharing does not reduce journal prices to libraries that are not part of resource-sharing agreements. This seems to us to be a partial solution. 4. Libraries may wish to enter into price negotiations with journal publishers. While a publisher may be willing to 70 College & Research Libraries negotiate with one or a few librar- ies, a large number of negotiations would substantially increase the publisher's transactions costs (as well as each library's) and may result in a willingness to decrease prices in order to avoid negotiation costs. Again, for this to be an effective strategy, libraries would need to be January 1992 willing and able to carry through on a threat to drop the journal. While the above strategies may not be successful for all libraries, we are con- vinced that failure to change library be- havior will ensure that the problem of price discrimination and the attendant high prices will not disappear in the near term. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. James Talaga and Jean Walstrom Haley, "Marketing Theory Applied to Price Discrim- ination in Journals," Journal of Academic Librarianship 16:348-51 (Jan. 1991). 2. Dick R. Miller and Joseph E. Jensen, "Dual Pricing of Health Sciences Periodicals: A Survey," Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 68:336-47 (Oct. 1980); Patrick Joyce and Thomas Merz, "Price Discrimination in Academic Journals," Library Quarterly 55:273-83 (July 1985); Charles Hamaker, "Journal Pricing: A Modest Proposal," Serials Librarian 11:171-75 (Dec./Jan. 1986); Deana L. Astle and Charles Hamaker, "Pricing by Geography: British Journal Pricing 1986, Including Developments in Other Countries," Library Acquisition: Practice & Theory 10:165-81 (#31986). 3. Joyce and Merz, "Price Discrimination in Academic Journals," p. 275. 4. Glenn R. Wittig, "Dual Pricing of Periodicals," College & Research Libraries 38:412-18 (Sept. 1977). 5. Joyce and Merz, "Price Discrimination in Academic Journals," p.280. 6. Robert L. Houbeck, "British Journal Pricing: Enigma Variations, or What Will the U.S. Market Bear?" Library Acquisition: Practice & Theory 10:183-97 (1986). 7. Charles Hamaker, "Library Serials Budgets: Publishers and the Twenty Percent Effect," Library Acquisition: Practice & Theory 12:211-19 (1988). 8. James C. Thompson, "Confronting the Serials Cost Problem," Serials Review 15:41-47 (Spring 1989). 9. Joyce and Merz, "Price Discrimination in Academic Journals," p.276. 10. Astle and Hamaker, "Pricing by Geography," p.173. 11. This argument is further developed in Talaga and Haley, "Marketing Theory," passim. In essence, since libraries frequently act as information intermediaries, they do not often directly control the demand for any given journal title. 12. Thompson, "Confronting the Serials Cost Problem," p.42. Build Your Future with ACRL The library association that • contributes to the total professional development of over 10,000 academic and research librarians • improves service capabilities of academic and research librarians • promotes and speaks for the interests of academic and research librarianship • promotes study and research relevant to academic and research librarianship Membership benefits include free subscriptions to College & Research Libraries. ACRL's official journal, and College and Research Libraries News. ACRL's news magazine for the profession - a $50 value ; reduced rates for conference registration and continuing education courses, discounts on ACRL publications -and much more. The Association of College and Research Libraries is a division of the American Library Association (ALA) . ALA membership is prerequisite to ACRL membership. ~,----------------------, I Please rush information about joining ACRL to: I I Name I ~~~ I I~ ~ ~ I L----------------------~ Mail to: Association of College and Research Libraries • American Library Association • 50 East Huron • Chicago, lL 60611 • 312/944-6780