bmj.com has got to be worth much more than £20 per year…
Smith and Delamothe have indicated plainly that free access will
remain available for registered BMA Members and those in countries listed
as low and lower middle income countries. For others £10 to £20 per year
is amazingly good value for money, especially when considering how much
one has to pay for some websites. (See Adam Jacobs’ earlier comment about
"perspective")
Economist.com access charges are: Annual: $69.00, Monthly: $19.95, 5
-article Pay Per View: $9.95, Single-article Pay Per View: $2.95 [1]
And gaining access to full data content results on the 1901 Census
(www.census.pro.gov.uk) costs a minimum of £5, based on metered views at
50p and 75p per search result [2]. The key here is that searching is for
free, and only when one finds something of interest does a charge get
deducted from a user-defined maximum spend amount.
Perhaps an exception to paid-for quality sites is the 'fully free
content' www.bbc.co.uk. However the remit of the BMJ is not primarily
public service, although “the public” is a factor within the BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd’s mission statement [3]. The BMJ is not a charity.
Some sites however offer a choice: Pay or ‘Sponsored Free’, as is the
case with www.192.com where the user is invited to pay or to opt for a
suitable sponsor payer [4]. One is then free to choose to accumulate user
credits.
Perhaps then an option for those qualified health care professionals,
who might wish to continue to receive bmj.com for free, is to elect to be
sponsored by a particular commercial partner. This in itself provides
bmj.com -and its readers- with a route to satisfy all parties concerned:
readers who prefer a commercial free environment can pay for it, while
those who do not wish to pay at all can trade-off in an appropriate and
industry code of practice compliant way. Thus for bmj.com the funding
required to continue to provide and further improve its product is quite
possible.
Whether doctors would eventually prefer Sponsored Free to paying £20
one can only guess – an online poll in the meantime might provide a guide
to help BMJ find the best way forward. That apart, to have an option to be
able to select between ‘pay’ or ‘sponsored’ might be something that would
be welcomed by bmj.com users wishing to choose according to their
individual conscience.
bmj.com is a multi award winning product, well regarded even in the
non-medical sector having beaten FT.com to be Best Business Product or
Service web site in 2000 [5].
While it may be disappointing presently for those who would like to
see bmj.com stay free, the fact is that its existence is an amazing
achievement on the part of Delamothe and HighWire. bmj.com now simply
needs its readers to help pay for the product they use and value.
5. Periodical Publishers Association - PPAi Interactive Publishing Awards
2000
Competing interests:
Disclosure: respondent was once employed by BMJ Publishing Group and -having been made redundant- has no interest in bmj.com any different from that of any site user who will have to pay.
Rapid Response:
bmj.com has got to be worth much more than £20 per year…
Smith and Delamothe have indicated plainly that free access will
remain available for registered BMA Members and those in countries listed
as low and lower middle income countries. For others £10 to £20 per year
is amazingly good value for money, especially when considering how much
one has to pay for some websites. (See Adam Jacobs’ earlier comment about
"perspective")
Economist.com access charges are: Annual: $69.00, Monthly: $19.95, 5
-article Pay Per View: $9.95, Single-article Pay Per View: $2.95 [1]
And gaining access to full data content results on the 1901 Census
(www.census.pro.gov.uk) costs a minimum of £5, based on metered views at
50p and 75p per search result [2]. The key here is that searching is for
free, and only when one finds something of interest does a charge get
deducted from a user-defined maximum spend amount.
Perhaps an exception to paid-for quality sites is the 'fully free
content' www.bbc.co.uk. However the remit of the BMJ is not primarily
public service, although “the public” is a factor within the BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd’s mission statement [3]. The BMJ is not a charity.
Some sites however offer a choice: Pay or ‘Sponsored Free’, as is the
case with www.192.com where the user is invited to pay or to opt for a
suitable sponsor payer [4]. One is then free to choose to accumulate user
credits.
Perhaps then an option for those qualified health care professionals,
who might wish to continue to receive bmj.com for free, is to elect to be
sponsored by a particular commercial partner. This in itself provides
bmj.com -and its readers- with a route to satisfy all parties concerned:
readers who prefer a commercial free environment can pay for it, while
those who do not wish to pay at all can trade-off in an appropriate and
industry code of practice compliant way. Thus for bmj.com the funding
required to continue to provide and further improve its product is quite
possible.
Whether doctors would eventually prefer Sponsored Free to paying £20
one can only guess – an online poll in the meantime might provide a guide
to help BMJ find the best way forward. That apart, to have an option to be
able to select between ‘pay’ or ‘sponsored’ might be something that would
be welcomed by bmj.com users wishing to choose according to their
individual conscience.
bmj.com is a multi award winning product, well regarded even in the
non-medical sector having beaten FT.com to be Best Business Product or
Service web site in 2000 [5].
While it may be disappointing presently for those who would like to
see bmj.com stay free, the fact is that its existence is an amazing
achievement on the part of Delamothe and HighWire. bmj.com now simply
needs its readers to help pay for the product they use and value.
References:
1. https://www.economist.com/subscriptions/index.cfm accessed August 2,
2003
2. http://www.census.pro.gov.uk/help/chargesv1.html accessed August 2,
2003
3. http://www.bmjpg.com/template.cfm?name=bmjgroup_abt#Mission accessed
August 2, 2003
4. http://www.192.com/upgrade.cfm?icdaction=sponsored accessed August 2,
2003
5. Periodical Publishers Association - PPAi Interactive Publishing Awards
2000
Competing interests:
Disclosure: respondent was once employed by BMJ Publishing Group and -having been made redundant- has no interest in bmj.com any different from that of any site user who will have to pay.
Competing interests: No competing interests