RE: NFP publishing

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Peter

You made a blanket generalisation - 'OA would mean a loss of 
subscription, advertising, sponsorship, and reprint sales' - and 
I gave specific examples of cases where that is not true.  Of the 
four points you explain the first away as non-typical, for the 
second you make a convincing case, the third is not coherently 
addressed, and you agree with the forth.

Let's take the second point.  In a sense it is not really worth 
arguing about as only a tiny fraction of the 20,000 or so 
peer-review journals published world-wide make any significant 
advertising revenue.  (But for that tiny fraction it is, 
obviously, very important!)  Of those that do, some (the Natures 
and Sciences) would continue to attract advertising as a lot of 
their content is not the target of OA - news, commentary, etc. 
For the rest, well, first it is not true that advertisers only 
advertise along with subscription content.  The London Times 
online is free to readers and awash with advertising.  Secondly, 
versions of papers may exist in other repositories, but 
publishers add unique value do they not?  Surely, if that value 
is valuable readers will come to publishers' sites and if the 
readers match the profile demanded by potential advertisers then 
those advertisers will advertise.  (I guess - Peter, of course, 
knows much more about advertisers than I do.)

So, from your original statement we have teased out one area 
where open access may (but not certainly) have an adverse effect. 
How wonderful it would have been if that subtly had been in the 
original post rather than generalities that fail to stand to 
scrutiny.

David

PS I'm intrigued by 'OA content is as exclusive as tap water.' 
There are many people making good money supplying tap water!

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Banks [mailto:pbanks@diabetes.org]
Sent: 23 April 2006 01:22
To: david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: NFP publishing

If Exhibit A of the effect of OA on subscriptions is the 
publications program of the Indian Academy of Sciences, I don't 
think the jury will be convinced. The price of these journals is 
extremely low ($100-$150 institutional/$30 or so individual). At 
these prices (cheaper than the New Yorker) you can afford to get 
the journal as a convenience for subway reading. Unfortunately, 
no highly cited mainstream journal in the US or Europe could be 
produced for these prices, so I don't think you can draw any 
meaningful conclusion from this example.

As for advertising....advertising depends on exclusivity. You are 
not selling a journal, you are selling exlusive access to a 
unique readership. The advertiser can reach this market though 
only one channel, the journal. The premise of OA is that 
scientific content is NOT unique to a journal. It is in IRs, at 
NIH, on Dr. Jones's home page, on AOL, wherever. Anyone and 
everyone can ready it. Audit statements from ABC or BPA list the 
average amount a reader has paid for subscription; from an 
advertiser's perspective, the more paid, the better. The $0 under 
an OA scheme isn't exactly what advertisers are after. The 
editorially promiscuous aren't generally a prized audience.

Sponsorship poses the same problem. Selling anything demands 
exclusivity; OA content is as exclusive as tap water.

As for reprints, you are correct that there may still be a market 
for them, though a diminished one. Pharmaceutical companies are 
not stupid--they know that something with the imprint of a 
respected journal has more credibility than something they 
themselves produce, which is discounted from the start as 
self-serving. They will continue to support reprints, though will 
less vigor now that a reprint is as close as the nearest laser 
printer.

If you intend to prove me wrong on all four counts, you need to 
come up with better evidence.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk 04/21/06 10:56 PM >>>
Peter writes:

>'OA would mean a loss of subscription, advertising, sponsorship,
>and reprint sales'

Would it?  Some open access journals are seeing increased print 
subscriptions (e.g. those of the Indian Academy of Sciences). I'm 
not sure we have much evidence on the advertising front, but 
wouldn't an advertiser be as willing to advertise in a 
high-quality online open access journal as they would in a 
high-quality online subscription journal?

Sponsorship?  Well, a survey of the journals listed in the DOAJ 
noted that less than half relied on author payments, the rest had 
their costs met by sponsorship - either direct or indirect.  So 
it looks like sponsorship is alive and well in OA. 
(Interestingly, we are often being told that by relying on 
sponsorship OA is not a 'viable' business model.  Now we are 
being told there is no sponsorship in OA.  I'm afraid you can't 
have it both ways!)

As for reprint sales, I have heard anecdotal evidence of OA 
publishers being asked for reprints.  It may not be logical, but 
there are pharmaceutical companies out there who would rather get 
their 10,000 copies from the publisher than do it themselves. (If 
any OA publisher would be willing to firm-up my anecdote with 
firm evidence I would be grateful.)

So, in summary, I'm afraid I think you are wrong on all four of 
your points.

Best wishes

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe