From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:20:52 +0100

I'm afraid that Joe has rather missed the point.  Of course all
businesses need to look at their revenues streams.  And of course,
although this point is sometimes ignored, most 'subscription' journals
have existed on a mixture of revenue streams for many, many decades
(albeit with subscriptions often being the major revenue component).

The question is not whether publishers need to look at granularity
when writing their business plans - of course they do.  It was whether
or not when talking about different types of OA we need a rainbow of
colours to describe the different business models.  I think no, others
disagree.

David



On 22 Apr 2013, at 01:04, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:44:57 -0400

I don't know what your business experience is, David, but the first
step in analyzing any publishing business, journals included,is to
parse all the revenue streams. No one publishes journals--no one has
ever published journals.  Publishers invest in IP and then find the
best way to exploit that IP.  Successful publishers find multiple ways
to exploit that IP.  A journal is a manifestation of that underlying
IP.

Concerning a taxonomy for OA, I have no dog in the hunt.  But if you
say that the granularity of the analysis for traditional materials is
unnecessary, you will be missing out on the nature of the enterprise,
and leaving money on the table to boot.

Joe Esposito