From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:17:36 -0400 Eric, Happy to run amok here. But the question is not about capitalism. It is what put an idea into your head BEFORE you typed something into a search bar. Google Scholar (or Summon or any database) is en media res. What you need (switching metaphors) is a Prime Mover. That's marketing. Joe Esposito On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:43:43 +0000 > > There are times when Joe makes sense, and times when his capitalist > tendencies run amok. This might be one of those times. > > Getting your resources into the discovery systems isn't a bad idea - but > you'd get more bang for your effort by making sure they are findable in > Google Scholar. GS tends to be most users first stop when doing research, > and their libraries' individual search tool coming in as a sad second > thought. The good news is GS is free to get your resources into. You have > to jump through some of their hoops, but they aren't insurmountable and can > be done in house. > > I'd say creating solid metadata would be another huge helper, but if your > budget is pretty limited that might not be a realistic option. Being a > librarian my first choice would always be quality metadata, but I > understand that it's not always going to happen. > > Joe is right about the marketing being an important option, only it > doesn't necessarily require a fiscal commitment. Libraries have learned to > do a lot of self-marketing without needing to hire outside consultants and > start attaching price tags to everything. > > You might want to consider getting your book content into one of the open > database/indexes like OAPEN. http://www.oapen.org/home We have the > content listed in that database added to our discovery system to make it > available to our users. Loads of good academic content in there that's > open access. > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Eric Elmore | > Electronic Resources Coordinator | > The University of Texas at San Antonio | > One UTSA Circle | > San Antonio, TX. 78249-0671 | > (O)210-458-4916/(F)210-458-4577 | > [log in to unmask] | > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > -----Original Message----- > From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 6:50 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Oxfam Publications Program and a Big Question > > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2017 23:24:33 -0400 > > In media industries in general, including publishing and including > scholarly publishing as well, marketing is typically half of all > expenditures in one form or another. Putting metadata into a discovery > service is a good thing, but it is not a very big thing. > > More people would know about the Oxfam publications (which, BTW, I had > never heard of until I saw this post, and I read about scholarly > communications all day long) if they had a price on them and were actively > marketed. Open access is not an innovation; it is a capitulation. If the > products were worthy of grasping even a small amount of the attention of > the potential readership, a paywall is no barrier at all. Many things > become open access (this is particularly true of monographs) because there > is no end-user demand for them. And so I ask the obvious question: If > these publications are so good, why won't anyone pay for them? > > I would love to put together a marketing plan for the Oxfam publications. > They would not be open, but more people would know about them and read > them. Marketing is everything in media. > > Joe Esposito >