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