RE: Payment at input and introducing competition (was: PLoS prici ng)

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

You have to give it to them, though. They have been extraordinarily
successful. See below. If I didn't know better I might be tempted to
perceive a 'bubble':-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hamaker, Chuck [mailto:cahamake@email.uncc.edu]
> Sent: 15 August 2003 16:03
> To: 'Jan Velterop'; 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
> Subject: RE: Payment at input and introducing competition (was: PLoS
> pricing)
> 
>[snip]
> 
> Libraries have been forced to cut serials,in my experience, primarily
> because price increases have been 2,3, even 4 times inflation rates. Even
> when expenditures are stable or even increasing for serials, the levels of
> cost increases driven primarily by large commercial publishers have been
> breathtaking for most of the last 20 years. 

Presumably explaining this (from The Independent newspaper (UK), August 8,
2003):

"Reed Elsevier is the internet star you never see feted as a leading light
of the internet revolution. It is not mentioned alongside the likes of
Amazon, eBay and AOL. Yet last year, Reed's internet revenues topped �1bn,
out of total revenues of �2.6bn. This year, online sales should grow
further, maybe by 10 or 20 per cent."

and 

"It's a pretty compelling business model."

and 

"Reed makes more profit from the net than anyone else"

and

"Reed is growing revenues faster than competitors and is delivering
double-digit earning increases." 

> I think this realization, as stated in UK documents on the Elsevier 
> 
> By conflating arguments, I think some publishers assume that means library
> budget cuts. 

----