In the ‘normal’ world of retail and commerce you pay for an item and receive the item. In the world of academic journals you prepay for the item and you might receive the item and you might get some money back depending on what journals you did or didn’t receive. In the world of offset pricing you prepay, then you pay again, you sometimes use vouchers, you might get a discount (the following year) then you might get money back, or you might not. Are publishers knowingly placing barriers to off-set models, and not transparently offsetting the APCs to the subscription cost, in order to raise more income? Whether by design or accident it is a complex world which needs a time commitment, which not all librarians can give, to understand fully. The new model of scholarly communication, which leading universities (including KAUST) want to introduce, is based on shifting the subscription costs to publishing costs, not to double the payment channels to the publishers. Can we get to a mutually beneficial position where the author can deposit the accepted version of the article into the Institutional Repository without any embargo period as the institute is agreeing to pay the subscription fee on an ongoing basis? The required model does not adversely affect the vendors’ revenue. This presentation, based on KAUST’’s experience to date, will attempt to explain the different models of offset pricing while outlining KAUST’s dual approach, redirecting subscription money to publishing money and embedding open access terms in understandable language in our license agreements, to the problem. Why we have accepted IoP’s offset offer and not Springer’s, though we were considered among the first timers and important Institutions? Why is this important? Resolving the inherent complexities in offsetting models will save libraries money and also time wasted on tedious and unnecessary administration work. Researchers do not want to know about offsetting agreements nor should they need to know. It is difficult enough to do and write up valuable research without having to do further research on offset pricing models. The authors of the articles without whom, as academic librarians or publishers, we would be redundant are often the neglected link in the chain. Finally, the Institutional Repository needs to know what we are up to. The current answer to many queries is that “it depends on the publisher,” isn’t good enough. There has to be a standard model. What is needed overall is clarity and transparency. This will enable trust and, where mistakes are made, and there inevitable will be with untried models, we can learn from these mistakes and make better, more robust services with auto deposition of our articles to our repository fed by Publishers’ themselves . If libraries can organize as groups at regional or (with more difficulty) international level more favorable licensing agreements, including standardized offset pricing model language, can be leveraged which will be advantageous to all parties; publishers, libraries and, most importantly, authors. It is incumbent that we familiarize ourselves with the pricing models, in all their complexity, and strive through collective organization to have these models simplified and standardized. Let’s turn that subscription money into publishing money.