Re: Elsevier profit

[Ann Okerson <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Am forwarding on behalf of Mr. Esposito, as we are having some addressing 
problems with his account.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:46:20 -0800
From: Joseph J. Esposito <espositoj@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Fw: Elsevier profit

The news story does not provide enough information to make any judgments.
A 43 percent gain cannot be a typical operating gain.  It just doesn't
happen except in young, fast-growing companies.  The real question is the
baseline:  what went wrong with last year's revenue?  Or I should say
operating income, as no mature company grows revenue by 43 percent in one
year except through acquistions.  (Reed, of course, recently acquired much
of Harcourt Brace.)  In other words, the notion that the 43 percent figure
is evidence of corporate greed is baseless.  Has anyone paid a 43 percent
price increase to Reed?  While there might be a few institutions that have
significantly increased their business with Reed, the academic library
segment absolutely did not spend 43 percent more with Reed's continuing
operations in the past year.

There is much that is wrong with academic publishing today, but it would
be a good idea for everyone who is interested in this area to throw all
the emotion out the window and look at the facts soberly.  One thing that
would emerge is that much, if not all, of Reed's growth is at the expense
of other publishers.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Okerson" <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject: Elsevier profit

> Reposted to liblicense-l at the request of several readers of other lists.
> Mr. Michaelson's posting originally appeared on "chminf-l", "slapam"  and
> "reedelscutomer".  Perhaps publishers on this list can explain to the
> non-publishers just how to interpret such percentages (see also earlier
> LJ NewsWire message re. Wiley).
k