RE: Elsevier profit

["Davies, Glyn" <Glyn.Davies@sagepub.com>]

Agreed: the majority of the increase must have come from the acquisition
of Mosby, Saunders, Churchill Livingstone,and Academic Press journals
(previously owned by Harcourt), since Elsevier has been publicising an
average price increase in 2002 of under 10%. GD
 
> -----Original 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