From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:09:59 -0500

Chuck,

I don't agree with Sandy's Napster analogy, but I don't think you
characterize what Elsevier does properly.  What an author creates is
to published material what bauxite is to aluminum.  I mean this not
only in the sense that a publisher refines the raw material (they do,
but not always consistently) but also in the more important sense that
they create markets for their aluminum:  airplane wings, cans for
carbonated beverages, etc.  The value of Elsevier lies in its
management.

And that management is the best in STM publishing.  Indeed, it may be
the best in all of publishing.  (But keep your eye on Penguin Random
House.  Very interesting things going on there.)

The evidence for this perspective is that other STM publishers--almost
every other STM publisher--tries to do what Elsevier does, but with
considerably less success.  If publishers add so little to the
enterprise, why then are some publishers so much more successful than
others?  There is a case to be made for dumb luck, but consistent dumb
luck over 200 years or whatever the timeframe is is beyond my
imagination.

This is not to defend Elsevier's trading practices or to suggest that
they don't have big challenges ahead. Nor should Elsevier's customers
cease to find lower-priced (and higher-quality) alternatives, whether
they are to be found in Gold OA or anywhere else.  What I do want to
suggest is that the reason Elsevier sits atop the mountain is that
everyone consistently underestimates just how good they are.  If that
were better appreciated, Elsevier would indeed have a problem, as
their challengers would be in a position to forge a successful
strategy.

Joe Esposito


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:25 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:11:04 +0000
>
> Dear Sandy,
>
> Not very good analogies. I write it, I hand it to Elsevier, I put it
> up, they take it down-that's not Napster or your other examples. The
> people who create Elsevier's riches are their authors. If they
> alienate them  what do they have?
>
> Do you think I'm misreading the Chronicle piece?
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:25:33 -0600
>
> So, Chuck, you're in favor of companies like Academia.edu (and
> Napster, YouTube, Aimster, and Grokster before them) that build their
> businesses by stealing IP from others? Would you condemn any
> university presses that choose to issue take-down notices to
> Academia.edu and other such companies in similar language?
>
> Sandy Thatcher