Video in question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibrxIP0H84M

#strategy #michaelporter

@erinnacland @MatteoCarandini

Looking at the structure of the academic publishing industry, the average profit in the entire industry should be very high. Looking at it using #MichaelPorter’s #FiveForces as a framework, you will struggle to find an industry as prone to profits:

The rivalry within the publishing industry seems low, but is the only one of the five forces that is likely to limit profits.

The buyers (the researchers as readers through their institutions) are generally weak - the need for access to these journals is high and it has to be specific journals, limiting the ability of buyers to believably threaten to take their business elsewhere.

The suppliers (the researchers as authors) are generally weak as well. Simply because the selection of where one can publish and advance their career is very limited.

The threat of new entrants to the market is exceedingly low. One due to the high costs of entry and two due to “brand loyalty” of the buyers and suppliers.

That leaves the fifth force: risk of substitution. Thus would mean a complete replacement of the current publishing system with a move to post hoc review, funding agency funded publication servers, etc. Again, given the academic incentive model, the risk of this is low.

When all of these five forces are low or weak, the average profit in that industry will be high.

What is really interesting, and ultimately promising that the reason they are weak in this case always comes down to a single factor: that success in academic careers is tied to publication in “high impact” journals. The instance that scientists are judged by a different metric, the whole structure of the publishing industry changes fundamentally.