Consultation

Dear Miriam,

the Cambridge Report (2008) was a brilliant theoretical work but did not take into account that the proposed solution might conflict with the legislative framework in Europe, even in the UK. Eventually Australia has adopted a similar legislation which I am not aware off.

PRICING and FUNDING are two sides of a coin. As long as public data holders face a standstill or even decrease of public funding, it is waste of time to propose to a certain category of public data holders (!) the marginal cost model. – The adoption of the US-model failed in Europe since most European Governments fund public services in a different way. – Different funding model, different pricing (at least of re-users).

Furthermore, marginal costs or even free data show a wide range of price elasticity: under certain conditions (which we are better aware before 10 years of research) the demand of the PSI re-user may soar (A) and in other cases free public data heavily damaged the local publishing industry (B).

I met only one excellent British professor who understood the complexity of these PRICING issues. By the way his book is the only one I can recommend in that regard.

For details please refer to my comprehensive feedback sent to your Taskforce on August 26. After 12 years research on PSI re-use, FOI and eGovernment related issues I am still in the infancy to formulate the adequate questions for proper research. Its not the time for a quick fix. – But you could draw upon the bad lessons from Europe – in terms of methodology, market research, target marketing, benchmarks and forecasts which never became reality as some consultants believed to take place.

Dear Miriam,

the Cambridge Report (2008) was a brilliant theoretical work but did not take into account that their proposed solution might conflict with the legislative framework in Europe, maybe even in the UK. Eventually Australia has adopted a similar legal framework.

PRICING and FUNDING are two sides of a coin. As long as public data holders face a standstill or even decrease of public funding, it is waste of time to propose to a certain category of public dataholders (!) the marginal cost model. – The adoption of the US-model failed in Europe since most European Governments fund public services in a different way. – Different funding model, different pricing (at least of re-users).

Furthermore, marginal costs or even free data show a wide range of price elasticity: under certain conditions (which we are better aware before 10 years of research) the demand of the PSI re-user may soar (A) and in other cases free public data heavily damaged the local publishing industry (B).

I met only one excellent British professor who understood the complexity of these PRICING issues. By the way his book is the only one I can recommend in that regard.

For details please refer to my comprehensive feedback sent to your Taskforce on August 26. After 12 years research on PSI re-use, FOI and eGovernment related issues I am still in the infancy to formulate the adaequate questions for proper research. Its not the time for a quick fix. – But you could draw upon the bad lessons from Europe – in terms of methodology, market research, target marketing, benchmarks and forecasts which never became reality as some consultants believed to take place.