Re: Libraries Urge Justice Department to Block Cinven and Candover

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

Of course I accept that G&B was a special case. They were an embarassment
to other publishers and did not belong to representative bodies in
publishing (as far as I know). The point I am making is that Taylor &
Francis did not finance their purchase by increasing prices. They
obviously could not increase prices. My objection is to the simplistic
idea that the cost of buying a publisher or list is inexorably paid for by
putting up the prices.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Libraries Urge Justice Department to Block Cinven and Candover

> Anthony Watkinson wrote:
>
> "However an example of a purchase that did not result in price rises has
> been pointed out to me: it is the purchase of Gordon & Breach by Taylor &
> Francis. I have not checked this and indeed (as an independent researcher)
> it is very difficult for me to do so, but perhaps someone on this list
> could see if I am correct in assuming that Gordon & Breach prices were not
> put up dramatically by their new owners.
>
> Phil Davis responds:
>
> The reason that Gordon & Breach journals did not rise after they were
> acquired is that simply they were by far the most expensive journals in
> their market.  Based on the analysis by Henry Barschall, G&B was the most
> expensive publisher when analyzed by cost per 1000 characters, as well as
> cost per impact.
>
> This is documented in:
>
> Henry Barschall.  The Cost-Effectiveness of Physics Journals.  Physics
> Today.  July, 1988 p.56-59
>
> Henry Barshall.  The Cost of Physics Journals.  Physics Today.  Dec 1986
> 34-36