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
>