From: "Brian C. Gray" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:56:59 -0500

I have not seen any of the acquisitions as a surprise.  Even the 2 Ann
mentions seem to make strong business sense. With Mendeley, Elsevier
gets even more data on information users overall which includes data
of competitor titles and how they are used. It also provides another
tool libraries can justify purchases.  PQ is developing a new
integrated library system, so with Ex Libris they gain an immediate
customer base, intellectual property in this area, and a team of
software developers and other experts in this realm.

Brian

Brian C. Gray
Team Leader, Research Services
Librarian: Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering and Macromolecular
Science & Engineering
Email: [log in to unmask]
Kelvin Smith Library 201-K
Research Guides & Profile: http://researchguides.case.edu/briangray

Case Western Reserve University
Kelvin Smith Library
11055 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7151
Phone: (216) 368-8685
Fax: (216) 368-3669

2015-16 ALAO President: http://alaoweb.org/



On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:34 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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?