Ancestry.com Terminates Free Access in Family History Centers

The Generations Network, Inc, the owner of Ancestry.com, MyFamily.com, Rootsweb.com, Genealogy.com, and Family Tree Maker, has released a statement about recent negotiations with the Family History Centers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In short, the company is now halting the practice of giving free access to Ancestry.com to all Family History Centers. Thousands of genealogists have visited local Family History Centers in order to gain free access to services that normally cost $100 to $300 per year or more. Obviously, those people are going to be very disappointed with this news.

Here is the official announcement from The Generations Network, followed by my comments:

A STATEMENT FROM ANCESTRY.COM REGARDING THE RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE FAMILY HISTORY CENTERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

On March 16, 2007, a communication was sent to the Directors of Family History Centers from the Worldwide Support management of the Family History Department. Ancestry.com wishes to clarify a number of points not addressed by this communication.

-   For the past seven years, Ancestry.com has provided all Church family history centers free access to Ancestry.com without a formal licensing agreement in place or any compensation from the Church.

-    Over the past several months, Ancestry.com has been working actively to reach agreement with the Church on a formal licensing arrangement by which it could continue to make its service available to the public for free.  Unfortunately, the two parties were unable to reach an agreement on this matter.

-    Ancestry.com strongly desires to have a licensing arrangement with the Church that would allow it to continue to provide free access to the public in Family History Centers. The company said it still hopes to create an acceptable agreement with the Church.  The Ancestry Library Edition is available free to the public in over 1400 public libraries in the U.S. and U.K. via a similar licensing arrangement.

-    Ancestry.com and the Church have cooperated over the years on a number of projects to digitize and index some important online databases.  The Generations Network values its relationship with the Church and is committed to working closely with the Church and all players in the genealogy world to advance interest in family history across the world.

-    Because of existing contractual agreements, a select number of Ancestry.com databases will continue to be accessible inside LDS Church family history centers.  These include the 1880, 1900 and 1920 U.S. censuses, full name indices for the British 1841-1891 censuses (England and Wales), World War I draft cards, and a few additional smaller databases.

About Ancestry.com
With more 23,000 searchable databases and titles, Ancestry.com is the No. 1 online source for family history information. Since its launch in 1997, Ancestry.com has been the premier resource for family history, simplifying genealogical research for millions of people by providing them with many easy-to-use tools and resources to build their own unique family trees. Ancestry.com is part of The Generations Network, Inc, a leading network of family-focused interactive properties, including MyFamily.com, Rootsweb.com, Genealogy.com, and Family Tree Maker.  In total, The Generations Network properties receive 8.5 million unique visitors worldwide and over 400 million page views a month (© comScore Media Metrix, January, 2007).

Comments by Dick Eastman:

When I first heard this news, I was very disappointed. Any time an existing free service is canceled, the first feeling is one of disappointment. Even though I am saddened, I must also say that I am not surprised.

First, giving away a valuable service free of charge is probably not the best business plan I ever heard of. I am sure the company lost many thousands of dollars in revenue when people elected to use free access rather than paying for their own subscriptions. The Generations Network spends millions of dollars per year in scanning, OCR'ing, keying data, buying server farms, providing high-speed access to those servers, paying the salaries of the people who make all this happen, and so on. If the service they provide is valuable to genealogists, the company deserves a fair return on its investments. Giving away free access to a large number of your would-be paying customers is not a very good business plan.

Next, providing that free access for seven years without any sort of written agreement also is questionable. I doubt if any professor in any business school would approve. At a minimum, some sort of written agreement should have been in place years ago. If anything, the company is late at addressing this oversight.

I discussed the announcement briefly with two employees of The Generations Network. I do not know all the details, but I am told that company representatives have been negotiating with the Family History Centers to create a written agreement that was financially reasonable for both parties. The negotiators were unable to reach an agreement.

Finally, I know that The Generations Network sells online access to libraries and other non-profit and for-profit organizations. The pricing is more -or less the same as what other companies charge libraries for online access to other databases. I would assume that it is difficult to sell online access to any organization when it is already well known that your company gives away the same product free of charge to others. In short, The Generations Network has been undermining its own sales force.

I am also reminded of very elementary business "facts of life" that most of us learned in grammar school. I was always told that water was free. Nobody should ever have to pay for water. However, if we want the convenience of having clear, sanitary water delivered to us in the comfort of our own homes, day or night, it is reasonable and customary to pay the company that lays the water pipes under our streets, provides the pumping stations, and monitors the quality of the water delivered to our homes.

Providing online access to public domain government records is a similar business model. The documents are free. We can always view the records at any time without charge by traveling to the repository where the records are housed. We can obtain access to those records on site, usually during normal business hours. Those records remain as free as they ever were for those who visit in person.

However, if we want an added convenience of having images of those records delivered to us in our homes, on demand, any time of the day or night, we certainly should expect to pay for that added convenience. That is a value-added service above and beyond the ability to view a record in a distant repository.

In short, we should expect to pay for that added convenience.

Like the water department, Ancestry.com provides very big "pipes" that deliver lots of information to many genealogists. We all should expect to pay a reasonable charge for that added convenience. Any other plan not only puts the existence of this "pipeline" at risk, but also discourages other companies from entering the marketplace of providing valuable information to genealogists.

In the past, I have occasionally disagreed with business decisions made by managers at The Generations Network. However, this time I believe they made the right decision.

I suspect that lots of genealogists who never ran a business of their own will disagree with me. However, I bet those who ever had corporate financial responsibility and had to meet payrolls and pay creditors will agree.

- Dick Eastman

Comments

[Sheri Fenley]

Very well said. It is only fair to pay for services above and beyond the norm. For those whom this decision will affect there is still a way for them to get information. There are many wonderful volunteer lookup organizations that are out there.

[Paul K. Graham]

I wonder if Ancestry's change to charging some level of fee to FHCs for access has anything to do with the recent addition of Google-operated advertisements on search result pages, even for paying customers. Does a move to recover revenue from FHCs and a simultaneous move to make a few more dollars off paying customers through advertising say anything about their current financial situation?

[Regine Brindle]

This is a blow to FHCs but not the end of the world.
I was personally surprised to hear that no compensation had been provided for this wonderful service Ancestry.com offered the FHCs.
It makes me all the more grateful for the help Ancestry provided over these past years. It was the first place I took our patrons when they began their research.
I can't say I was surprised to see this happen however as a few months ago, when the Canadian Ancestry opened the FHCs didn't get access to these databases. It was due to the fact that these are available for free online. I sure can understand the reasoning not to pay for something already free but there are some great advantages to having the Ancestry subscription because of its advanced search capabilities.
Some people have mentioned the Family History Library catalog and how FHC patrons expect to just walk in a FHC and have the microfilms there, only to be disappointed and sometimes even angry because they have to order the microfilms. Even though NO profit is made when someone orders a microfilm from the FHL, the LDS church can not be expected to pay for the cost of getting it to the patrons. If the patron wants to go to Salt Lake then he/she will be able to have these microfilms for free, but even then there is the cost of travelling and lodging and...
Nothing in life is ever really free.
In this case of Ancestry to FHCs ... it sounds like we have been very lucky and maybe not grateful enough for what was truly free access.
The Church's indexing program is putting a lot of information online right now as are many governments and libraries. But even these government and libraries are not completely free all the time.
And in spite of the digitization there is still a lot of material out there that has not been microfilmed/digitized and requires trips to the local depositories.
I hope Ancestry and the church will try and return to the negotiating table and come to an agreement that will continue (it's not due to happen till Aprils 1st) the FHCs access to the Ancestry products.
It's a shame to see this partnership go sour.
There are still 13 days before this takes effect...
Maybe enough time to come to an agreement...
No matter... I for one (and I know I can speak for our FHC staff and patrons) thank Ancestry for having so graciously provided their wonderful product to FHCs for so long!

[Venita Parry]

I have truly appreciated the access to census and other images available at the LDS FHCs through Ancestry's generosity. I'll miss that option greatly. Personally, I'm not inclined to pay their high subscription rate to continue my personal access, so I'm doubly grateful for all that I have found so far.

Perhaps this is the time for Generations Network to consider different user options similar to those used by other genealogy resource sites - ie either no fee or a basic minimum subscription fee which allows searching for documents but a charge for downloading the digital images, pay per image. That I could live with more comfortably.

It makes sense to me to pay for duplicates/printouts of documents. I do that at any library or government office. I'm annoyed at having to pay a fee for the privelege of searching.

[Jon]

Great point Paul Graham. I was wondering if I was the only person who noticed that Ancestry started putting Google ads on the search results page for paying members. I am extremely disappointed that my $156 a year doesnt include an ad-free experience. I wrote to Ancestry support but of course only got back a form letter from their knowledge base stating that banner ads subsidize the cost of the service. We obviously enter a LOT of personal information into Ancestry when we are doing our research, and I believe that its a violation of our privacy for Ancestry to share those services with Google (for instance all my ads seem to be for companies that are local to my residence). I would be willing to pay an extra $10-20 per year if thats what they are making off of their google partnership. Boo Ancestry :-(

[Lori Goodhue]

I just came to this sight, read the article and have questions in my own mind. I agree to the point that Ancestry has the right to charge but those who do researching do it because of the joy and love of it. As a document archivist over the last 30 years I also charge for my services BUT I make it affordable.I also donate time and money to archive records so they will be held forever.
I also know that Free access is given to the LDS missionaries to film public records in every statethat belong to the individual taxpayers of that state and never knew this was being done. They are given free access which takes away making a living for others in this field yet we as taxpayers pay in one way or other. We also give our family information at no charge. Shouldn't we also be charging for our time we gave in giving that information? No we donate to the cause. It brings joy when we find lost family members we did not know were there. People are so caught up seeing how much money can be made. As the saying goes "Money is the root of Evil" In many situations it has just hit the roots of family preservation. It is too bad because it causes selfishness on everyone's part and I do not believe the good Lord meant that to happpen. If Ancestry wants to charge that is fine but jumping their prices like they have in the last few years those folks with lower incomes cannot continue what was a relaxing hobby and there goes our early history.

[Sue Barnsley]

I wonder why the Church and Ancestry could not reach an agreement? There was a reason that the Church did not pay for access to this huge resource for the FHC's. We can only surmise what that may be. I do not believe that the Church would take advantage of this Corporation the way it is being portrayed here.

In the Family History Centers across this world, we offer our services free to both member and non member alike. We charge for minimal things like the films and copies. But we do not charge for our time nor other resources that we have. The use of Ancestry.com was huge for us, and gratefully received, but the reality is most of it is available online else where for free. Case in point, 1901, 1906, 1911, 1851 census for Canada. It is available via the archives.ca website. The British Columbia birth, marriage and death records, another one that is free. There are numerous websites out there that are free, that Ancestry has capitalized on using our laziness as a motivator and having us for pay for it. That was good business savy.

I do not believe that Ancestry did not get something out of this arrangement with the Church.

[Kate Redford]

Well said. It is not unusual to pay for services of this caliber. Especially, when we cannot possibly duplicate it for ourselves. Even our local libraries cannot compare to what we have accessed over the years.

Dick your article certainy added to and enhanced the information that has
been displayed all over the Internet in the last 48 hours. Thank you for your fairness in printing as much information as you could gather.

When I began researching over 10 years ago, I was living in Houston, Texas. I did not go out in the evenings to libraries (Clayton Genealogical Library or FHC's) by choice. I chose to subscribe to Ancestry.com as part of my expenses for my interests. Just like a fisherman who wants the most complete tackle box or the artists who wants the best brushes and oils, each according to their financial situations. I have added to my selections and reduced my selections over the years to best serve my needs. Here in Salem I have found it even more valuable to be a subscriber. I also have similar criteria and price ranges when I purchase a new computer or printer. The results must fulfill my needs and stil meet my price range.

I have not regretted my decision for I have discovered information that was not available to me when I was available to do my research. I am approximately 2500 miles west of the Fort Worth, Texas National Archives, the repository for Cherokee Records; also, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma; Clayton Genealogical Library, Houston, Texas. and Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah. I try to stretch my time and resources as far as I can and still have the discoveries I desire at the time.

As I am serving on the staff in the local FHC I know that our patrons appreciate and use the Ancestry products regularly. The results are especially encouraging and exciting when a new researchers can leave with that first printed image in their hand. They don't realized we can spend weeks, months, years looking for documents to prove or disprove one item. I also know we use these products as a teaching tool to show them how and why to include other resources in their research. The gift from Ancestry of their services is a treasured resource and I am grateful.

I think when the shock leaves us and we think about how computers were when Comodore first was introduced we will all be grateful for where we are today.

There is still a lot of research to be done by everyone.

Kate Redford

[Jerrod Green]

I for one stand behind Ancestry and will refuse to go to the Family History Centers anymore if the LDS church refuses to purchase library subscriptions for Ancestry.com. I agree with Dick completely in this manner, and feel that its completely unfair for the Family History Library to expect a service for free that the rest of us must pay hundreds of dollars per year for!!

[anonymous]

As for why Ancestry would provide free access to Family History Centers, I believe the original owners felt the exposure given them in the FHCs brought them a lot of new customers. My personal experience with patrons in an FHC is that those who could afford Ancestry went home and signed up with a personal account once we taught them the value of the subscription in the FHC. Those who are on limited incomes and couldn't afford it would return to the FHC for access. I think MyFamily.com received the anticipated benefits by getting thousands of subscribers because of an experience at the FHC. However, the new owners have a different outlook. In addition, Ancestry may have reached a point where nearly everyone knows about Ancestry (a combination of FHC exposure and aggressive marketing) and the free access at FHCs is no longer providing them with very many sales leads. By cutting off FHC access, those who could afford it but just chose to use it at the FHC may decide to subscribe at home, and The Generations Network may receive a sudden influx of new subscriptions. However, those who can't afford it will have to seek other alternatives, which may or may not be available to them. Looking at the situation from a business perspective, only time will tell whether TGN's decision was financially viable.

As to the breakdown in negotiations between TGN and the LDS, I have spoken to several individuals who were involved in the negotiations (from both parties). My understanding is the LDS thought the idea of paying for Ancestry access, while not as good as the present situation, was only fair. Where the negotiations broke down was on the what a fair charge was. TGN's letter claims they offered a fair deal. What isn't said is what TGN considers "fair." I don't know the details, and both parties declined to disclose specific prices. TGN says they offered a "fair" price similar to what they offer other libraries.

Let's just suppose, as an example, TGN was to say to the LDS something like "For a metropolitan library with 20 branches, we charge $50,000 per year for a subscription, which is $2500 per branch. You have 5000 branches, so your "fair" charge will be $2500 per branch times 5000 branches, or $12,500,000 per year. Of course, the LDS would not find this to be a fair price, and I don't think any of us would, either. We don't know exactly what did happen, so I don't think we should be pointing fingers or assigning blame on either side.

Let's just hope that all parties in the genealogical marketplace can find a way to cooperate for the good of us all.

[Kevin Landers]

Wouldnt it be nice if the LDS church just bought out Generations Network and merged all the content between the Family History Library and Ancestry.com into one all-encompassing megasite that was available for free to anyone with an internet connection. Isnt that what we, as concerned genealogists should be demanding? Seems a little cheap to me when the FHL has no original records readily available online to cut off the only access many people have to those exact records? I think the church needs to pay up or shut up.

Kevin Landers

[just a thought]

Hey maybe you are on to something Kevin. Perhaps the church could trade access to records for scanning in exchange for continued free access. This could be a win-win for everybody involved! (Which probably means its simply wishful thinking...)

[Harold Kelley]

I want to comment on Eastmans rationale of this change. Doesn't Ancestry.com pay Eastman for his services. How much does this account for his views on this change. And did anyone notice that the plus fee charged by Eastman is now yielding less than one article per week. This week none! Why should we keep paying for getting less and less.
Harold

[Beth Wilson]

I have been following this with interest. I have a personal subscription to Ancestry and have for years. On my annual trips to Salt Lake I have watched many people use Ancestry at the FHC free of charge and thought it was interesting that the Church apparently was getting it for free. I assumed Ancestry was getting something of benefit in return. I have a database of several thousand Missouri landowners and several thousand slaves that I have been pondering what to do with; give it away for free or enter into a business arrangement with someone like Ancestry who would sell the information and give me a tiny percentage of the profit. I am more inclined to give the information away to help others with their research except for the fact that as soon as I do, I am certain that someone will start charging to look up information in my research for others. Ancestry has suffered the same fate, I know people use it for free and charge others for the research. This is inevitable. Seems like there is no easy solution.

[Dick Eastman]

---> Doesn't Ancestry.com pay Eastman for his services.

No.

Ancestry used to sponsor this newsletter but that stopped more than three years ago.

---> And did anyone notice that the plus fee charged by Eastman is now yielding less than one article per week. This week none!

That's because I have been out of town all week and just got home about three hours ago.

I do average about 100 Plus Edition articles per year. Some weeks there are three Plus Edition articles, some other weeks there are zero articles. Most of the time it is one or two per week. It depends upon (1.) my travel schedule and (2.) what sort of news items arrive in a given week.

---> Why should we keep paying for getting less and less.

You absolutely should never pay for this newsletter if you do not believe you are receiving value for the money you spend. I don't want your money if you are unhappy with the newsletter. I try to write it for people who appreciate my efforts.

I know that I can never satisfy 100% of the people. I try to satisfy 99%. I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not I succeed.

Thank you.

- Dick Eastman

[Bond Wilson]

I personally believe that the value of the "free" articles is worth more than the subscription fee without even considering the plus editions! Keep up the good work Dick...

[Helen]

No one should be uttering an unkind word about that fabulous service offered by Family History Centers and the more than wonderful Family History Library.
If it is ever thought that Ancestry lost a penny, wake up and smell the roses - they can afford to be far more than "fair" in contract offers. I was a member was years and after all that money spent I could look back and see where I had only a couple of "good" census records for the bucks. If one has been doing research for many years, Ancestry has little to offer to expand what one already knows. Helen

[Regine Brindle]

The person who considered price quotes could not be too far from the facts.
We checked into getting an onsite license for our genealogy society last year and it would have cost about $1700/year.
We could have had as many pcs hooked up in one building for the same price.
The problem is... if this is what they're offering the FHCs... There are 3500+ FHCs across the world. Most of which only have one pc... Many of them don't have that many patrons and paying $1700 to just give it away (as FHCs do not charge for using the facilities)...
I suppose we might be able to round up the money by pooling resources or charging the patrons a nominal fee to recuperate the cost of the subscription but in most cases it just would not be a viable option for the FHCs.
Maybe they could agree on a fair price, maybe according to how many computers would use the service... But how much is fair? Even if each FHC paid $300 each... the church would look at spending over $1,000,000!!! That's crazy!!!
The money can be better spent on microfilming more records that are waiting to be microfilmed.
Countries often see an opportunity to save money on preserving their records by letting the LDS church pick up the tab. I assume it is the same with the states. And Ancestry can benefit from this microfilming too... Surely there is a way to reach a compromise.
The FamilySearch Indexing project is putting many names online for free, index and images...
It's just there are SO MANY records to index... Why is it necessary to duplicate efforts to make information available to those who can't afford a personal subscription to Ancestry.
In Europe they offer a point system... That could get expensive too it seems to me, but it does enable a researcher to just look at specific records.
And there are mailing lists where people share points and help each other.
I am extremely grateful for Ancestry but am also deeply grateful for the microfilmed records I can't find on Ancestry but thanks to the FHL Catalog.
We're in this together... Let's work together...

[David Larson]

Meanwhile, our local library, much more convenient than the nearest FHC, continues to offer free on-site access to their patrons.

[theKiwi]

>Meanwhile, our local library, much more convenient than the nearest FHC,
>continues to offer free on-site access to their patrons.

Next time you're there ask a Librarian how much the Library is paying for the "free" Ancestry.com.

Our Genealogical Society pays over $2000 a year for the Heritage Quest subscription for our local library. I don't remember if we also pay for their Ancestry subscription or not, but it's a similar amount I think.

Roger

[Connie]

We all agree that Ancestry.com provides a valuable service and that if it's no longer available at the FHC's it will be a shame. I would like to mention that I know of at least two FHC's, which are located within church buildings, pay for their subscription to Ancestry. So check out The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints closest to you to see if they have it available. They are usually open during specified days of the week.

I have subscribed to Ancestry.com for years and have found so much information that it's been well worth the cost, especially when you consider the cost of ordering copies of birth, marriage or death certificates from some repositories. I waited sixteen months for a copy of a death certificate from a state, and paid $48 for it! This same state has withdrawn permission for Ancestry to use databases it subscribed to. I'm sure Ancestry had a contract with them, but this was probably a case of greed on the state's part.

It will be a shame if the two parties can't come to an agreement; I hope they do. Even if the FHC's start charging their patrons for use of their facilities (a nominal fee, of course), I would be willing to pay it to access all that they have.

The current ditization program by Family Search Indexing will be a great benefit to us genealogists...so many people have volunteered that the digitizing will be done far sooner than expected...and this information will be available from FamilySearch.org. Of course it will be hard to be patient until it's ready!

[Allen Ackley]

This news letter just became spam

[Michele]

Please, remember two facts - Ancestry.com is a for profit company, while the LDS church is a not for profit agency.

I believe both are a valid reason for existance - I've been grateful many times for the subscription I am paying at Ancestry and have done so for around 3 years now - even though I am less than 10 minutes from the local LDS centre - I pay for a convenience, knowing that the databases that Ancestry have are in many cases from original records - do we see that for free at LDS church - not really - we still have to pay even a minimal rent to view films of original data (possible for only one record) - unless that local LDS centre, specializing in that area has the records already.

To be honest if the LDS centres and their patrons, have used Ancesty for free all this time - I'm surprised it's taken Ancesty so long to want to charge them.

Don't forget the LDS cburch has expected/received free access to records and have used those records for their own benefit - or as they like to say - the saving of people. Some of you out there will not know what I mean, but others will know. What ever case I bet they haven't paid for this - but have just passed a copy of the records filmed to the original "owners".

Yes, the LDS church have done alot of good in preserving records, but at what cost to some of the different religions out there.

Ancestry have done so too and I have to assume have paid for the privilige of filming/digitizing these records.

I think I'd better end here before I say anymore good things about Ancestry!

[Marie Trichka]

Dick, thanks for your "freebe". The initial shock of any change, especially fees, generally wears off and we go on satisfying this addiction of hunting for ancestors, always looking for an easier, softer way. The post above mentions an important point - Ancestry usually confirms what we have already found or know, providing the hard copy that we normally wrote for and paid to an institution or entity to research and copy for us. I recently sent for copies from LVA and spend $100.

That said, I believe the FHC could better spend their funds continuing to microfilm delicate records that are fast decaying and cannot continue to be handled by local researchers. They have the experience that many USGenWeb volunteers lack and then the information is indeed "free" for a nominal shipping charge.

I will continue to support my local library and hopefully be able to access both Ancestry and HeritageQuest via the property taxes I pay. I do hate to watch ads when I already pay for a service so I probably won't get a private subscription.

[Jolayne]

We have loved having Ancestry at our Family History Center but I wonder how many other data bases would like the church to pay for their availability in FH centers. How can the church pay for one and not others?

I agree that the church should use its resources to continue digitizing original records. Maybe local FHCs can pick up the Ancestry subscription cost if they are able.