From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 21:13:57 -0500

Gosh, Ann, that's a tall order! You are asking me why publishers are
better strategic thinkers than librarians???

I don't know if I can answer that, but over Christmas if my family is
boring me as much as I am boring them, I will dust off my Collected
Freud and look for some answers.

Joe Esposito

[MOD NOTE:  Clarification -- not why publishers are better strategic
thinkers but why  each thinks differently than the other.]


On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 21:23:20 -0500
>
> These are fascinating replies -- thank you for them and any to come.
>
> But, lest there be a misunderstanding:  while I (and many others no
> doubt) can explain after the fact why XX acquired (or merged with) YY,
> what I mean to say is that the initial announcement more often than
> not comes as a surprise.  However, usually after giving it a little
> (and often not very much) thought, we can understand the underlying
> strategy.  After the fact.  So maybe my real question here is, why
> don't librarians see most of these acquisitions coming, for I doubt we
> do.  I mean, which of us pondered and figured out back at the time,
> that Elsevier's next acquisition would be Mendeley?  (sorry for
> picking on Elsevier, but I trust they don't mind).  Anyone?  Really?
> (Perhaps investment analysts and consultants do, though.)
>
> And who do we librarians think could be eyeing whom, next?  Ilkay Holt
> was brave enough to venture a shot at this question in her posting
> yesterday, but she may be the only one.
>
> Or maybe these questions just wrong.  Perhaps Joe Esposito will write
> up this discussion in Scholarly Kitchen and we will be enlightened!!
>
> Best regards, Ann Okerson
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:59 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ian Gibson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:32:46 +0000
> >
> > Agree with all of you vis. Elsevier/Mendeley and ProQuest Ex Libris
> > (in fact given that PQ have been promising an Alma competitor for
> > years and had yet to deliver this move made very good sense to me).
> >
> > The move that didn't make sense to me was ProQuest buying Coutts. I
> > understand the need to be in every space that Ebsco is in but to me
> > (as a former Coutts customer) the move didn’t make sense from a
> > momentum stand point. YBP is the clear market leader in that business
> > and everyone else are also-rans at best. Coutts' Oasis platform is old
> > and awkward to use, they were consistently behind in providing
> > services (e.g. offering ebooks other than MyiLibrary; managing DDA;
> > managing DDA across multiple vendors) and their customer base seemed
> > to me to be shrinking. The only possible way this makes sense to me is
> > if PQ uses Coutts as a way of getting better data on library ebook
> > preferences by monitoring what their customers are buying instead of
> > PQ ebooks and then uses that info to make PQ ebooks the dominant
> > player in that market.
> >
> > What I really want is for Elsevier to buy PLOS - yes, yes it's nigh on
> > impossible but just think of the comedy value... Failing that I would
> > settle for one of the big societies like IEEE or ACS handing over
> > their publishing ops to one of the big commercial publishers.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > Ian Gibson, MISt
> > Collections Librarian
> > Brock University | James A. Gibson Library
> > Niagara Region
> > St. Catharines, Ontario  L2S 3A1
> > E [log in to unmask]