I don’t have a problem with their product, just their support.
CAS recently conducted a survey, asking the “key contacts” from each library to rate the quality of the training materials they provide and their support for training chemists on SciFinder. While they have some high quality training materials, their support for teaching undergraduates how to use SciFinder is awful.
Because they limit user access to their product (we pay for 3 simultaneous users), we have to request special “training” logins for our information literacy sessions in the chemistry department. While this is a pain, this isn’t a big problem. The problem is that they limit the number of training seats they will grant us, and communication poorly about how many training seats might be accessible.
We have a well developed information literacy program at my library, and the limitations on training seats mean that we have to ration the instruction we give on this incredible database. If students aren’t exposed to this database in a hands-on session, they will turn to more easily available resources (such as Google) to find their information.
I think it would make good business sense for CAS to be more open with the number of training seats they grant. Here’s why: if chemistry students are thoroughly convinced at the undergraduate level that SciFinder is their best source for information, they will want access to it in graduate school and in the workplace, putting pressure on more institutions and corporations to purchase access.
My recommendation: don’t limit the number of training log-ins available to an institution and your product will see more use outside of the classroom.