ALL-SIS BNA Task Force Report

Last summer, ALL-SIS Chair, Merle Slyhoff, set up our task force to review the impact of BNA’s Law School Campus-Wide Electronic Program on academic law libraries. She asked us to gather information and arrange a meeting with BNA representatives to discuss our findings. We began by examining the results of a survey of academic law library directors that was conducted by Dan Freehling in spring 2002. Before meeting with BNA representatives, we decided to update the findings of this survey. In December 2002, we posted the survey on the law library directors’ listserv (LAWLIBDIR) and the law collection development listserv (LAW-ACQ).

We received survey responses from fifty-nine law libraries. Of these, twenty-two libraries are currently subscribed as follows:

Several libraries subscribed to a la carte titles in addition to their packages. Sixteen of the libraries plan to continue their current subscriptions although five libraries indicated they will cut back their subscription in the coming year and a few more are considering doing so.

The remaining thirty-seven libraries are non-subscribers. Of these, four are considering becoming subscribers. Non-subscribers were asked to indicate their reasons for not subscribing. (A few subscribers also filled out this part of the survey and their numbers are included.)

When libraries were asked if they would be likely to subscribe to the BNA Law School Program if all the electronic products were priced together at a flat rate, thirty-eight libraries said yes. When asked about an affordable price for a flat rate plan, they responded as follows:

The survey captured input from approximately one third of all academic law libraries. Our results differ little from those gathered earlier by Dan Freehling. The majority of respondents subscribed only to the Core or Core Plus packages. High pricing and bundling of titles continued to be major concerns for the libraries. Most libraries expressed interest in a flat rate plan for all titles that would be priced under $10,000.

In addition to these survey results, we also received informal comments from a few law librarians who did not return the survey. They mirrored the concerns about the bundling and pricing of the BNA products.

While attending the AALS meetings in Washington, D.C., we were able to meet with top BNA executives on 3 January 2003 at BNA headquarters. For more than two hours, we exchanged information and perspectives with the following individuals:

Paul Wojcik, President and Chief Executive Officer
Gregory McCaffery, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief
Pat Swords, Vice President, Subscriber Relations
Richard Cornfield, Executive Director (Legal & Business Publishing Group)
Charlotte Keunen, Director of Marketing (Legal & Business Publishing Group)
Kammie Hedges, Director of Library Relations
Michael Bernier, Law School Relations Manager, Library Relations Division

We conveyed the high level of dissatisfaction expressed by our colleagues about the marketing, pricing, and bundling of titles in the Law School Campus-Wide Electronic Program from its inception through the present. We noted that the complexity of the program with its package plans, FTE based pricing, discounts for paper subscribers, and varying platform options made it difficult to understand. We described how students and faculty make use of BNA products in their study, research, and teaching, noting that they have high value, but that they are not as widely used as a number of other library resources, and that with shrinking budgets and buying power, many libraries are unable to purchase BNA electronic products for law school-wide use at current prices. We explained that for some academic libraries the cost of the BNA All package, exclusive of credits for existing paper subscriptions, is as expensive as subscribing to LexisNexis and Westlaw, for less content. In summary, we recommended that BNA discontinue its package plans and simplify and reduce its pricing to academic law libraries. We suggested that they charge a reasonable flat rate for all titles.

BNA explained why the Law School Campus-Wide Electronic Program was instituted. BNA’s business relationship with LexisNexis and Westlaw played a major role. In recent years, many academic law libraries have dropped their subscriptions to BNA’s paper products and relied on LexisNexis and Westlaw to access electronic versions. Since BNA received no royalties from academic subscribers for use of its products on either system, such users were gaining free access to BNA products. With law school subscription revenues declining and contracts with LexisNexis and Westlaw up for renewal, BNA decided to eliminate free access for the law school market to its titles on these two platforms. BNA developed its package plans because of technical limitations with LexisNexis and Westlaw. Under current arrangements, BNA has four menu slots on these platforms. BNA can authorize access to all the titles in a given menu slot, but cannot authorize access to individual titles. BNA developed its package plans to parallel LexisNexis and Westlaw access options. This is also the reason why libraries that subscribe to BNA titles on an a la carte basis are only given access to these titles on the BNA platform.

BNA representatives stated that as an employee-owned independent company, BNA has different profit margins than West and Lexis and cannot afford to treat law schools as loss leaders by further reducing prices. BNA priced its products in a way it felt was fair and equitable. BNA explained that it offers discounts to law schools compared to its commercial rates and has a general policy of not negotiating prices. In response to customer demands, BNA has unbundled the packages on its own platform and now offers email summaries to law school subscribers. BNA has established the Law School Relations Program to communicate better with law school subscribers. Mike Bernier heads this effort. Sean Kelly and Ivan Rahman also work exclusively with law school accounts.

Our task force thanks all of the law librarians who promptly provided us with information. We are pleased to have been able to meet with such knowledgeable, high-level BNA representatives to discuss the Law School Campus-Wide Electronic Program. The rationale for the program is now much clearer to us. BNA understands our inability to afford their products as currently priced, despite our high regard for them. We do not agree with BNA on all issues, but this was a constructive conversation. We strongly recommend a continuing dialog. Possibly an academic advisory board might prove useful. Other suggestions are welcome. Please share your ideas with Merle Slyholf, Kammie Hedges, Mike Bernier, or any of us.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Leiter
Suzanne Thorpe
Michael Whipple