Re: Reply to Fytton Rowland

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <chief-exec@alpsp.org>]

I certainly see journals as being uniquely 'author-driven' in the sense
that the primary beneficiary of publication is the author.  I couldn't say
if that was Fytton's intention...

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
E-mail:  chief-exec@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@worldnet.att.net>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: Reply to Fytton Rowland

> >Specifically, scholarly journal publsihing is different from the rest of
> >publishing in being author-driven,
>
> JE:  Hmmm.  I wouldn't have thought so.  I suppose it's a matter of
> balance and perspective, but I would have said that only trade (that is,
> consumer books sold in bookstores) publishing is preponderately
> author-driven. Academic journals are title- (that is, journal-) driven.
> There are author-driven publications in all publishing segments, of
> course, but the energy moves around a bit from segment to segment.  Trade
> is focused on authors, K-12 is a sales game, etc.
>
> Now, the response to this posting is bound to be that the way journals
> sopped up the energy is by having the best authors, and that is *partly*
> true.  But a journal is purchased generally in advance of anyone knowing
> what particular authors will appear in it.  In other words, the publishers
> have cleverly migrated the value from the authors (who are hard to
> control) to the publication itself, which can be owned outright.
>
> As a rule (and there are exceptions), publishers make the least money in
> author-driven segments and the most in segments where other things drive
> purchasing (sales and marketing, aggregation, etc.).
>
> Joe Esposito