Thread regarding Cengage layoffs

Gale is Cooked

A library director posted this on LinkedIn:

On June 5, Cengage Group (CG), Gale’s parent company, had its Q4 and full fiscal year investor update (link in comments).

Gale, which accounts for $195M of CG’s $1.54B revenue, experienced a rough Q4. What stood out to me in this update was an indication that what is happening at the U.S. federal level may be starting to impact academic libraries and the vendors and publishers they work with.

On CG’s Q3 earnings call, they indicated they expected Gale to finish the year only slightly behind FY23, due to funding pressure on U.S. public and school libraries, which would be partially offset by a solid archive sales pipeline and solid subscription renewals. Instead, Gale’s Q4 revenue dropped 20% YoY and 10% for the full year.

CG attributed the decline to “uncertainty in the … market related to federal actions, including reduction in funding and downsizing of key agencies,” as well as some renewals being impacted by “trade tensions between China and the U.S.”

Gale did not indicate what percentage of its revenue comes from database subscriptions versus print standing orders versus transactional archive purchases, but print revenue rose from 14% to 17% of total revenue. This matched its highest level since FY18 and is likely due to a drop in database and archive sales rather than a surge in print. Given CG’s earlier optimism about archive sales closing in Q4, this shortfall points to sharp declines in one-time transactions.

Stepping back, the question I have is whether Gale’s Q4 is the canary in the coal mine, a temporary deviation, or something unique to the nature of archival collection sales. Publishers and vendors have pointed toward subscriptions as providing them stability during this time of uncertainty - especially those with multi-year agreements. Clarivate made waves by announcing a move away from the transactional sales model, and perhaps they are sitting back and seeing this kind of result as vindication of that decision. But the disruptions happening at the federal level are leading to significant cuts at some of the largest and wealthiest higher-education institutions. This will likely impact those libraries’ budgets, and eventually a library is going to look to renegotiate a subscription or walk away when it ends. It already appears we may be seeing wariness to spend significant dollars on one-time purchases, which in my experience will almost assuredly lead to even more wariness to add subscriptions - especially multi-year subscriptions.

Gale’s Q3 to Q4 swing shows the level of volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace. As the year progresses, we will learn whether this was simply a blip or the beginning of a broader shift.

by
| 1951 views | | 9 replies (last July 11) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jzjmysyt

9 replies (most recent on top)

2 AM idea? It sounds so much like MH when he explained the idea behind Cengage Unlimited. Think about Cengage Unlimited as Netflix.....and also at 2 AM. ISP, who are you?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vg+1jzjmysyt

"Well, let’s get this out of the way so we can finish with all the layoffs."

Well that's a lovely thought. Not nearly finished with the downsizing, I'm afraid.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g6+1jzjmysyt

Outside of some of the academic literature and archive databases, the actual demand for Gale product has always been wildly inflated. Purchase decisions are made by a small number of librarians who make budgetary decisions with large sums of taxpayer funded money. While they say the decisions are made based on user data, those user numbers were often infinitesmally small on an absolute basis - especially for public libraries. That has led to a slow decline in revenue and sales over the past two decades. I remember when Gale revenue was above $400m - now its not even half of that.

Additionally, a lot of recurring subscription sales were propped up by federal or state grants. Now that you are seeing all of that go away the decline is severe. I'm not sure how much longer they can hang on.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ek+1jzjmysyt

Back in the day the Gale leadership team thought they were Sergei Brinn and Larry Page. It would have been been hilarious if it wasn’t so disgusting.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ea+1jzjmysyt

Greetings,

Gale Unlimited will utilize fewer resources and enable us to become a more diverse organization by leveraging scalable resources overseas.

We remain steadfast in our mission to save students money, and the Leadership Team has decided that Gale Unlimited will revolutionize library services, allowing global learners to access media-rich content at a lower cost.

When I was contacted at 2:20 AM by a member of the Leadership Team, they explained that the idea, which is sure to disrupt and force change upon the members of Gale, had come to them in a dream. We immediately began analyzing headcount to ensure resources were not wasted.

Gale Unlimited will unleash a blitzkrieg on the industry and is sure to be an unmitigated success that will redefine the ed-tech space. While our "competitors" are trying to understand what we are doing, we will be creating market share in this new and exciting vertical.

Think of Gale Unlimited as Wine.com for Libraries.

Full Stop!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dx+1jzjmysyt

Don't worry, I'm not being deported!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ba+1jzjmysyt

Let's translate to the next CG earnings call. "Moderate headwinds due to the government uncertainty, underpinned by a strong archive sales pipeline."

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @av+1jzjmysyt

Well, let’s get this out of the way so we can finish with all the layoffs. This should be it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aq+1jzjmysyt

Layoff after layoff, and they still can't make their numbers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ae+1jzjmysyt

Post a reply

: