Re: Business models for U. presses

["Michael Zeoli" <mzeoli@ybp.com>]

Hmmm...  'Festinare lente' perhaps, but despite the many PDA 
plans being set up, we have not yet had an approval plan shut 
down (and there are thousands).  For one thing the content for 
PDA simply isn't there compared with print.  Then there are all 
the issues batted about between 'instant gratification' and 
various libraries' missions...  We'll look forward to your debate 
with Rick (a former Contoockonian, by the way!). Mike

------Original Message------
From: Sandy Thatcher
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
ReplyTo: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Business models for U. presses
Sent: Mar 10, 2011 8:16 PM

Among comments I made on the report to the AAUP listserv was 
this:

6) The report makes no mention of what I think will develop into 
a major challenge for presses in the next few years, viz., PDA 
(patron-driven acquisitions), which is fast displacing the 
traditional approval plans in academic libraries and can have 
significant effects on cash flow and possibly overall sales of 
hardbacks for presses. Against the Grain will include a debate 
between PDA advocate Rick Anderson and me in an upcoming 
issue.

Sandy Thatcher


>In Contoocook, New Hampshire 
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contoocook,_New_Hampshire), a 
>small cadre of very passionate book people have been committed 
>to providing service to academic libraries since 1971 (the same 
>year in which Project Gutenberg was founded).  The spirit of 
>innovation has been pervasive and their work with libraries has 
>always been collaborative.  Many of the Contoockonians have read 
>the AAUP report (http://bit.ly/e89vfe) and have indeed been 
>following the UPeC initiative with great interest.  They are 
>greatly cheered to see the UPs rallying.  And yet they are 
>confused that in the 'Publishing e-books for Sale' discussion on 
>page 19, for example, no mention of ebook integration into print 
>approval plans or Patron-driven integration into print workflows 
>are mentioned, despite their on-going efforts over the past 5-6 
>years to support library needs for eContent.  In fact, 
>consideration of library

[SNIP]