From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:01:15 -0500 David Prosser said: "I don’t think that I know of any academic librarian who believes 'that they are the only customers for peer-reviewed research material’. We obviously talk to different people." I was responding to the comment on this very thread: "Can you point to purchasers of "big deal" packages other than academic/research libraries?" The ten-year-old data that Prosser cites may still be true today. I simply don't know. My own sample comes from organizations with which I have worked. A generalization: organizations with the most diversified revenue streams have the highest operating margins. I believe my point holds: OA gives a free pass to organizations, many of which are commercial entities (and some of which are among the very largest), that have little or no role in the financing of the underlying research. Joe Esposito On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:05 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:04:38 +0000 > > I don’t think that I know of any academic librarian who believes 'that > they are the only customers for peer-reviewed research material’. We > obviously talk to different people. > > The latest STM report on the state of publishing quotes estimates that: > > "Academic libraries have traditionally been the primary source of journal > revenues, estimated at 68-75% of the total. Other revenue sources include > corporate subscriptions (15-17%), advertising (4%), membership fees and > personal subscriptions (3%) and various author side payments (3%)" > But this is from a ten-year-old report and things may have changed. > > David > > On 12 Nov 2018, at 14:07, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:57:46 -0500 > > Adam, > > If I understand your question correctly, it should be pointed out that > many publishers sell large packages (aka "Big Deals") to corporate > accounts. Corporations do not purchase materials as widely as universities, > though in many cases they purchase materials with what one could call > greater intensity by working with business research firms that do not sell > their content to academic institutions. I have never seen a thoroughly > convincing analysis of what are known as "sales by channel," but only > humanities publishers find all of their customers at universities. For some > STM publishers the percentage of academic sales is as low as 30%. Most STM > publishers have about 40-60% of their revenue coming from academic > accounts. > > I am baffled why academic librarians seem to think that they are the only > customers for peer-reviewed research material. I am also perplexed by > librarians' interest in OA, since OA materials go to corporations for free. > Plan S, to take one of many examples, is a gift to the likes of Exxon > Mobil, Dupont, Google, and Aetna. > > Joe Esposito > > [log in to unmask] > @josephjesposito > +Joseph Esposito > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 5:13 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:41:53 +0000 >> >> Hi Rick, >> >> There's nothing intrinsically illegal about a cartel. >> >> Can you point to purchasers of "big deal" packages other than >> academic/research libraries? >> >> Adam >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] >> >> >> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 02:17:26 +0000 >> >> Adam, what cartel are you referring to? Are publishers colluding with >> each other to exert illegal control over a market? >> >> Also, what monopsony are you referring to? A monopsony is a situation in >> which there’s only one buyer for a product. I can’t think of any publisher >> that is in such a position. >> >> --- >> Rick Anderson >> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication >> Marriott Library, University of Utah >> Desk: (801) 587-9989 >> Cell: (801) 721-1687 >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >> From: Adam Siegel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:44:34 +0000 >> >> And rather than monopoly, we should be looking at a cartel's ability to >> exploit a monopsony. >> >> Adam Siegel >> Business, Economics, and Agricultural and Resource Economics Librarian >> University Library >> University of California, Davis >> Davis CA 95616 >> http://people.lib.ucdavis.edu/~apsiegel/ >> >> >> [SNIP] >> >