3 ms·

Science Publisher Elsevier's reported profit margin is 38%, compared to Apple's 21% – there's lot of cash at stake for them and a big warchest to defend it For

Science Publisher Elsevier's reported profit margin is 38%, compared to Apple's 21% – there's lot of cash at stake for them and a big warchest to defend it For anyone looking to understand the background on the science publishing industry, how it ended up this way and why they will fight Sci-Hub so aggressively, I found this discussion really informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PriwCi6SzLo&t=8s&ab_channel=MedlifeCrisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PriwCi6SzLo&t=8s&ab_channel=...

ma2rten 5y ago
I'm wondering why it's only 38%. They charge a lot and mostly work with volunteers. It should not cost 62% of what they charge to run a website to host some pdfs.
- haxiomic 5y ago
  It's certainly more tax efficient to reduce your reported profits by finding ways to bury revenue This is the best breakdown I can find on their parent company RELX: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RELX/relx/cash-flow-statement https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RELX/relx/cash-flo...
- r_singh 5y ago
  They invest in making clinic decision support software to make research accessible to doctors, etc (it’s practically also making decisions for them at times). Source - have attended an Elsevier CDSS Sales presentation for HCPs
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  The rest might be laundered somehow.
- 8note 5y ago
  Likely some other company in the Cayman islands owns their intellectual property, and they they pay a good portion of their revenue to license it.
- cbkeller 5y ago
  Distribution costs are negligible when you just make the PDFs free to everyone, but publishers spend a bunch of money on access control, security, and web interfaces that make you jump through hoops to download the actual PDF while doing everything possible to convince you to read the papers through their (possibly "social"/"collaborative") online platform instead.
- dagw 5y ago
  Elsevier is a pretty big company offering lots of different products and services[1]. I suspect even Elsevier is smart enough to see that the current publishing business isn't sustainable and are trying to pivot into something else. The profits from their publishing arm (which is undoubtedly a lot more than 38%) is no doubt financing a lot of that pivoting [1] https://www.elsevier.com/solutions https://www.elsevier.com/solutions

ma2rten 5y ago

I'm wondering why it's only 38%. They charge a lot and mostly work with volunteers. It should not cost 62% of what they charge to run a website to host some pdfs.

haxiomic 5y ago
It's certainly more tax efficient to reduce your reported profits by finding ways to bury revenue This is the best breakdown I can find on their parent company RELX: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RELX/relx/cash-flow-statement https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RELX/relx/cash-flo...
r_singh 5y ago
They invest in making clinic decision support software to make research accessible to doctors, etc (it’s practically also making decisions for them at times). Source - have attended an Elsevier CDSS Sales presentation for HCPs
cblconfederate 5y ago
The rest might be laundered somehow.
8note 5y ago
Likely some other company in the Cayman islands owns their intellectual property, and they they pay a good portion of their revenue to license it.
cbkeller 5y ago
Distribution costs are negligible when you just make the PDFs free to everyone, but publishers spend a bunch of money on access control, security, and web interfaces that make you jump through hoops to download the actual PDF while doing everything possible to convince you to read the papers through their (possibly "social"/"collaborative") online platform instead.
dagw 5y ago
Elsevier is a pretty big company offering lots of different products and services[1]. I suspect even Elsevier is smart enough to see that the current publishing business isn't sustainable and are trying to pivot into something else. The profits from their publishing arm (which is undoubtedly a lot more than 38%) is no doubt financing a lot of that pivoting [1] https://www.elsevier.com/solutions https://www.elsevier.com/solutions