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?
|
