[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

More Readin', wRitin', and Radio (yak)

Well Art,

Alas, I don't have the exact details of the sale, as I had left the
publishing house by that time. From what I gather from friends there, the
owners decided that scholarly publishing wasn't a lucrative enough
field.  I don't begrudge them their hard-earned knowledge; I just wish
they didn't use fairly well-running companies for their experiments.

BTW, the press was doing fine without assistance prior to its
sale.  It was sold by its previous master, another corporation,
precisely because it was doing so well.  I don't think the press is in
quite such a good position this time.

Again, my gripe is not that all big conglomerates are awful, but
that some are perhaps ill-informed in their management of companies they
know little about.  It's hard enough for specialized presses to make it in
the open market without this extra trouble.

Julie Seko

On Thu, 22 May 1997, Art Rubino wrote:

> Hi Julie:
> What were the financials on your deal?  Why was it sold? In many cases, a
> 'good' company is sold only if it can not make it on it's own any more.
> Management goes out, finds a buyer, tells a tale of woe, makes certain
> promises for future performance, gets out from under. Is it therefore really
> 'good' ? Most buyers are not foolish, but most buyers are not charities
> either. Big is not always bad. This is why things like the National Endowment
> for the Arts are so important, to finance 'good' projects that can not make it
> on their own. Even then, you have to build a case for a grant, and you have to
> deliver, and the judgement of what is 'good' is often not obvious.
> Art

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]