From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:47:51 +0000
Joe Esposito said:

But commoditization through the author-pays model will lead
to pressure to lower quality.  Some may find this acceptable; many
will not.

On the other hand, competition for the toll-access model leads to
higher editorial quality.
________________________________________

I'd like to take issue with these statements. With the funding situation
for major publishers being driven by the big deal and its innumerable
permutations, in fact publisher's are finding ways to use the toll access
model to fund start ups and take overs without purchasing decisions
normal feedback loop. The norm for "Take overs" is the new publisher
gets to count that as pure revenue increase without any loss when a
take over moves to the new publisher. Another instance of market
feedback opportunity gone. (that's the dreaded reconciliaition task
libraries and publishers go through every year a new ritual to the annual
reviews. And there is, as far as I can tell no "norm" for new startups.

They can get folded into the regular titles, "free" for a year or some
other period, then folded into the new base, offered as an addon: the
permutations are endless, but the bottom line for new startups is
guaranteed income well in advance of any breakeven point traditionally.
If anything, the "big deal" for takeovers and startups reduces market
acceptance/non acceptance signals and uncertainty so the publisher
makes money more quickly than without the big deal. Risk is being
reduced in startups, not necessarily a good thing for quality control.
In the "normal" marketplace the publisher has to wait to see if a title
will reach crucial mass. That is much less an issue with the various
ways publishers are gaming the system today. The upshot is that quality
of "toll-access" models is not a given, in fact may be fading before our
eyes.

Chuck Hamaker
UNC Charlotte