From: Ilkay Holt <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:26:53 +0200

I guess we need to look at these companies’ strategic planning and dig
more in what they see as a threat in the next 5-10 years. I don’t want
to make a big claim but for instance open access is in their way as
something to deal with. It seems to me that they see content providing
on its own will not make the future. They strategically invest more
into service providing. You can see this in all M&A we hear recently,
Elsevier -Mendeley, Proquest-Exlibris, Ebsco-YBP, Thomson on the way
and I am sure we will hear more of it in the near future. Perhaps only
Springer-Nature makes the difference and they can now enjoy more
content for a while before they think about service providing. From
what I know, Wiley could be next on the line.

Best,

Ilkay Holt



> On 4 Dec 2015, at 03:34, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:31:47 -0500
>
> I too don't quite want to let this thread go.  Joe asks librarians to
> name some of the publisher M&A deals that they've found puzzling -
> dead silence.  This is either because we're shy, or else very able to
> understand publisher strategies (tho' I'm not).
>
> Also -- the M&A deals that have surprised me somewhat haven't been
> publisher + publisher, but rather publisher + a service of some kind.
> Of course, once the deal is made and announced, it's easier to
> retro-guess the underlying strategies.  But the reaction in the first
> seconds is … what makes these core?  So, just for a couple of
> examples: I wondered why Elsevier had acquired Mendeley; or ProQuest
> acquired Ex Libris.  Comments?  More surprises among my tribe?
>
> Ann Okerson
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:37:05 -0500Subject:
>>
>> I lost track of this thread, but wanted to ask a follow-up question.
>> Would the librarians on this list care to name some of the deals
>> (mergers & acquisitions) among publishers that they find puzzling? I
>> would be curious to know what deals make sense in a librarian's eyes.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:56 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:25:14 -0500
>>>
>>> Joe, I didn't mean to suggest either that "portfolio is dead" means
>>> the end of acquisitions, or that EBSCO, ProQuest, and numerous other
>>> companies are not strategic and smart -- they are, very.
>>>
>>> Perhaps what I'm saying, indirectly, is that to folks like me, who are
>>> not industry specialists, some of the purchases these smart and
>>> strategic companies make are puzzling.  We librarians (or this
>>> librarian) scratch our chins and say, "now why did they buy THAT one?"
>>> So, yes, I can think of some to designate as "non-core" but obviously
>>> I'd be wrong.  Or perhaps the meaning of "core" is not all that
>>> evident.  Cheers, Ann
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 7:37 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:57:06 -0800
>>>>
>>>> To say that "the portfolio is dead" doesn't mean the end of
>>>> acquisitions. Indeed it is likely that we will see heightened deal
>>>> activity in the coming year or two. David Worlock's excellent analysis
>>>> is about the shedding of noncore assets. When you look at the
>>>> properties controlled by EBSCO and ProQuest, which would you designate
>>>> as non-core? It seems to me that both of those companies are pretty
>>>> smart about their acquisitions.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Esposito
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:07:33 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thomsonreuters.com/en/press-releases/2015/november/explore-strategic-options-ip-science-business.html
>>>>>
>>>>> When this news hit the streets yesterday, David Worlock wrote a blog
>>>>> posting that's more enlightening than the opaque TR release could
>>>>> possibly be. David is one very smart puppy and business analyst; this
>>>>> posting is worth a read.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.davidworlock.com/2015/11/get-smaller-to-grow-bigger/
>>>>>
>>>>> I was particularly interested in his last paragraph speculation that
>>>>> portfolio may be dead.  If so, what are we to make of the other
>>>>> acquisitive companies in our business, such as ProQuest, Ebsco, etc?