From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:33:12 +0000

Sandy

I have to repeat what I said what I said. I did not find OUP different from
Academic Press in their policies but that being said OUP did have category
in those days which called "red" from a colour scheme. This was essentially
for books which were thought to be worth publishing but which would not
provide a surplus. I did not publish mathematical monographs (my programme)
in the red category. In mathematics (speaking very generally) an important
book is likely to have a market. I saw no reason for publish books which
were not really very interesting. However I believe the category was used
for books in the humanities. This was back in the 1980s.

I do think it is a little unfair to choose the particular "European"
examples you mentioned. I think even in the humanities publishers or
imprints like Sage, Routledge or (Wiley-) Blackwell were and are undoubtedly
comparable in their pricing and policies where the comparison is with OUP
and CUP.

I see that you have written elsewhere on the list about the lack of
investment by universities in the US in their presses. This is indeed sad.
It is however a pity that so many of them dropped out of journals and
science so early. This was surely a decision by their publishers. Of course
also CUP and OUP in particular also had their problems and did not get much
support either but now (OUP certainly) contribute to their university funds
quite considerably while remaining highly respected - perhaps as respected
for their output as any other publisher.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
Sent: 16 December 2011 03:26
Subject: Re: Future of the subscription model
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:44:46 -0600

Anthony, I agree up to a point, but I do see a fundamental difference
between a company that ultimately answers to its shareholders, like
Academic Press, and non-profit publishers that answer to their own
stakeholders who are mission-oriented.

Just to give you one example of what difference this makes in
publishing decisions: European academic commercial publishers like
Brill, Kluwer, etc. have typically priced their monographs very high,
expecting to recover full costs from sales to libraries without caring
much whether individuals can afford to buy the books, where American
university presses have tended to price their monographs much lower
with the aim of making them available to individual purchasers as well
as institutions. This difference also explains why American presses
try to issue lower-priced paperbacks as soon as they can, rather than
milking the market for every last hardback sale. Their missions
encourage American presses to maximize the number of copies
distributed, instead of maximizing the amount of money to be made from
sales.  You can read the studies published by Fordham university
business professor Al Greco that document that price differences
between university press and commercially published books if you want
documentation. I'm giving you the explanation for that difference,
which is related to mission vs. profit.

Sandy Thatcher


At 10:07 PM -0500 12/13/11, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:25:02 +0000
>
> Publishers depend on their authors and editors and also on their
customers.
> It is in their interest not to antagonise either creators or users. In the
> end librarians can revolt and are doing so - not for the first time. It
> looks as if this has worked in the UK as it worked to some extent when
Chuck
> Hamaker and others mounted the price wars back in the 80s.
>
> Actually it does not matter whether they (the publishers concerned) are
> for-profit (main stakeholder = shareholders) or not-for-for profit (main
> stakeholder = members or in some cases universities).
>
> Sandy (I think) considers the sort of university presses he has worked in
> for years somehow pure and special because they make a loss. Am I wrong? I
> find this to be a common view in the US
>
> I do not think the books he has published are any better than the books I
> used to publish when I was mathematics editor at OUP. The calculations of
> profit (surplus) and loss were much the same as they were at Academic
Press
> where I was before I moved to OUP. OUP was better run on the whole or at
> least their systems were better. My mission was the same in both
companies:
> it was to produce good books which the market wanted and make money out of
> them.
>
> I agree with him that librarians have to realise that publishers all have
to
> make money or accept subsidies whereas librarians have to do their best
with
> the budget they receive
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
> Sent: 13 December 2011 02:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:25:01 -0600
>
> I'm not sure why making money for your stockholders--which is what
> commercial companies are supposed to do--should be called "avaricious"
> behavior.  These are not non-profit, mission-driven organizations;
> they are businesses out to make as much profit as the market will
> bear.  Lowering prices would be rational for them to do only if they
> could gain greater market share by doing so and hence enhance overall
> revenues.  Librarians need to stop thinking that commercial publishers
> are, like them, public servants; they do what they do to make more
> money for their investors, and they succeed or fail on that basis and
> that basis alone. If librarians want to change the game, they should
> stop giving in every time one of the commercial publishers offers a
> special discount, under the veil of an NDA, to induce continued
> subscription to a Big Deal. Commercial publishers know how to play
> this game well, and they seem to win out every time.
>
> Sandy Thatcher