RE: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique of PRC

["Sally Morris" <info@publishingresearch.net>]

What this seems to amount to (sorry, David) is that there is no 
evidence whatsoever for David's claim (and my hunch) that 
nonprofits have lower costs or even lower profits.  Some have 
even suggested to me that it is the reverse (though that wasn't 
what I meant to say originally).  Don King has pointed out (see 
his article at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1087/174148507X183551) that, 
counter-intuitively, the percentage of overheads does not 
continue to fall as the size of the business increases - in his 
experience, beyond a certain point overheads actually rise as a 
percentage.

It has also been pointed out to me that some nonprofits do very 
well by themselves with high salaries, luxurious premises and 
lavish works of art (not that this sounds like all the societies 
I know, but there are certainly some - and some funders too, I 
might add!)

Sally
Publishing Research Consortium
Email:  info@publishingresearch.net
Website:  www.publishingresearch.net

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Goodman
Sent: 20 June 2007 22:38
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique of PRC

Yes, there's an obvious typo; their costs and profits are both 
higher. As Sally has pointed out to me privately also, there are 
few public figures for costs and profits.  What figures have been 
given are not of publishable quality, with the exception of 
Elsevier's annual report figures for their return on sales. But 
what there certainly is, however, are figures for the sum, the 
price to the purchaser.

So it is certainly true that the possibility is open to any 
publisher of maintaining profits and lowering prices by increased 
efficiency.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:45 pm
Subject: Re: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique of PRC
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> Is there a typo in this thread?  As I read it, the assertion is
> that commercial publishers have higher costs and lower profits
> than NFPs. My experience is precisely the opposite, though I
> can't say that I have peeked at the income statements of more
> than a small fraction of the 24,000 peer-reviewed journals.
> Obviously, a lot of this is accounting methodology, and NFP
> financial analysis is rarely on a par with the commercials, but
> even so, my limited experience shows higher productivity and
> lower costs for the commercials by most management metrics.
> NFPs tend to pay people less, but have lower productivity for
> many reasons (not least being that they pay people less).
>
> No doubt others have different experience, but I would really
> like to see the data before making any generalizations.
>
> Joe Esposito