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?