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]