RE: Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Subscription and Licensing Options

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

I think Fred has misunderstood

It is true that part of the cost of a printed book (estimates 
range between 10 and 20%, I think) is attributable to the costs 
of paper, printing, binding, warehousing and physical dispatch

However, what I think Emily is saying and I have certainly heard 
from many other quarters is that the additional costs of 
electronic publication (some of which she listed in her posting) 
add at least as much to the 'first copy cost'.

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of "FrederickFriend"
Sent: 01 October 2008 23:27
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Wiley-Blackwell 2009 Subscription and Licensing Options

Emily,

I am grateful to you for providing this information. I could not
find the FAQs to which you referred; the page
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/librarians/faq.asp came up
with "Error: the page you have requested cannot be found", and
the closest I could find to a "Transition" site, viz.
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Brand/id-35.html does not have any
FAQs.

Of course I accept that the cost of producing the content will be
the same whether the delivery is print or electronic, because you
will be producing print copies from an electronic base. You
appear then to be saying that the cost of delivering the content
is the same whether it is electronic or print. This contradicts a
view I have heard from a number of distinguished publishers over
the years, that maintaining a print production line adds between
20% and 30% to the cost of a journal. The argument put to me has
always been that for customers to see the cost benefit from
cancelling print, the print production line would have to be
closed down completely, which is an argument I can understand.
What Wiley-Blackwell appear to be doing now is including part of
the cost for delivering print (i.e. the cost above the cost of
producing the content) into the price paid by online only
customers. This may make some customers think twice about moving
to e-only.

The justification you put forward for the pricing of the online
version is that the online version provides added value. I accept
that the online version does provide features not available in
the print version, but I am surprised that the cost of providing
these features is equivalent to the cost of providing a print
copy. And one of the added benefits included in the online
version, i.e. perpetual access rights, appears to customers not
to be an added benefit at all, because it is included
automatically in the print copy.

Thomas Krichel wrote in response to my earlier post to Liblicense
that "the issue for a publisher is to maximise profits, not align
prices to costs". He may well be right. However, when publishers
justify the prices they charge, they do so on the basis of costs.
So what I am calling for from publishers is honesty: either be
open about your costs, or else stop talking about costs and admit
that all that matters to you is the "bottom-line".

Fred Friend
JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL