I agree completely with your comments on purported "amateurish research".  Long ago and far away, in an ARL library, we received Playboy and archived it on COLOR microfilm.  Why?  Requests from Theater and from Fashion Design (in Home Ec at the time, no idea what they call it now).  Both wanted to have historical/archival information on clothing, and Playboy was, at least then, one of the standards for current male fashion.  The only flaw was when we realized that we'd have to keep the reels of microfilm secure when guys (presumably) realized that the frames of attractive women could be cut out, put in 2x2 slide mounts, and used for entertainment at frat parties and such.  After replacing a few reels we realized what was happening.

Yes, SI should have warned customers, or given them an "opt out" choice if they chose not to receive it.  (Still seems to me that if "the college of sacred purity" didn't want to put it out for their students they could simply trash it as soon as it arrived)

Has anyone found out yet from SI or from any of your student assistants whether on-campus subscribers received their copies?  I wonder if the "trigger" for not sending it was the word "library" or a campus zip code, or something else.

At this point, I'm not sure the "why" matters, other than what they've already said to LJ Online, as previously cited.

But I will bet that they'll not do it again.

dan

----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas, Susan Elaine suethoma@IUSB.EDU
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Sent: 3/8/07 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Sports Illustrated policy

> I am not sure I understand what you mean by amateurish research.  As
> previously noted it has huge research potential in terms of fashion,
> fashion design, and definitely pop culture.  Other areas of research
> might be marketing, journalism, photography, art, gender and women's
> studies, history, psychology, etc.
>
> If Time Warner has elected to change their policy where was the
> notification?  I am constantly bombarded with letters and emails
> explaining changes in terms of subscriptions and do not recall seeing
> anything either from EBSCO or from Time Warner indicating this change.
>
> It seems wrong, definitely very wrong for them to have made this
> decision.  It also seems obvious that this was a decision made purely
> for profit.  Unfortunately for Time Warner, it appears to be a new form
> of publisher censorship.
>
> I think when we subscribed or renewed our subscriptions to this
> publication it was under the assumption that we would receive all the
> issues published.  Time Warner has noted that they did not send this
> particular issue to institutions/organizations that use a subscription
> management service and that this is a new policy for them, but have they
> provided a reason for the change?  I think we need to push them to state
> explicitly why they did this.  It should add fuel to the fire.
>
> Susan E. Thomas
> Head of Collection Development
> Schurz Library
> Indiana University South Bend
> (574) 520-5500
> suethoma@iusb.edu