Disclaimer – I write a textbook.
Every time I encounter a piece on the cost of college textbooks I read it carefully. I am interested in the issue and agree that costs are too high. The most recent article comes from campustechnology.com and among other issues seems to be pushing ebooks.
I have nothing against ebooks. I wish our book was available as an ebook. Since this post is about cost containment, I think it is fair to claim that companies tend to invest in multiple versions of a book (a paper version, an ebook version) when the demand for a book is large (large course books) and when instructors encourage the adoption of all versions. Companies tell me the adoption rate of ebooks has yet to get to a level at which they are encouraged to go in this direction. I know there is an ebook version available for the Intro Psych book I use and it makes no difference to me as the prof which version students use. I have yet to find a student who has decided to purchase the ebook. Personally, I find it very difficult to read an ebook, but others can read for extended periods of time from a computer screen and that is great.
The part of the post that concerns me is the position of the State Public Interest Research Group (perhaps student chapter) that appears to identify book publishers as the culprit in the escalating cost of books.
Textbook publishers are the primary reason textbook prices are so high; they often add expensive “bells and whistles” such as CDROMs to their textbooks and frequently issue new but substantively similar editions that make older editions obsolete.
This or some version of this claim may be true. However, the appropriate question is why would they do this. Is it because the publishers and their authors are greedy and have found a way to rip off students? I don’t think so – in a competitive environment (trust me – the book business is competitive) a company would break ranks in an attempt to increase market share. If lowering the price would allow company to capture a high proportion of the Introduction to Psychology market, it would happen. Why are textbooks so expensive when a “trade book” with similar production requirements costs half as much? It is all about resale – companies only make money on the initial sale. Trade books are seldom resold – you may sell a few at a garage sale, but there is no industry built around the resale of such books.
Who do I think is at fault for the high cost of the books students buy? Everyone must share in the blame – publishing companies/authors, instructors, distributors, and anyone who resells a book. Who do I think takes the most inappropriate share of the inflated cost? I think it is the distributor. This may translate as your local college bookstore. This may translate as the guy in the funny van who parks on campus during finals week and buys back your books.
Here is a typical scenario. You buy an Intro Psych book for $100. At the end of the course, you sell it back to your bookstore for $50 (but only if a prof has committed to using that book the next semester). The bookstore then puts a new tag on the book ($75) and puts it back on the shelf. Very little risk (the book will be used again) or effort for $25.
In contrast, a publishing company has to look for “talent”. Encourage the talent to write a few sample chapters. Pay faculty members around the country to review the sample chapters in an attempt to deterimine if anyone will use the book for a course. Make a decision to move ahead. Provide the talent a few thousand dollars to spend the time necessary to generate the first draft of the book. Pay a reviewer (often now outsourced to cut costs) to go through the drafts. Iterate a few more times between the author and the paid reviewer. Hire a photographer for a few pictures. Send the raw material to an editor that makes the entire thing look nice. Pay someone to generate margin notes, develop an index, etc. Print the book. Pay marketing people to promote the book. Give hundreds of copies away at no expense to faculty hoping some may adopt the book, but realizing that many may also sell the book to that guy in the van I described above. Send book representatives into every nook and cranny of the country, etc. attempting to convince college faculty to buy books. etc., etc., etc.
Do students, who pay the cost, need all of these things done? Of course not. However, students don’t make the decision to adopt the book. This decision is made by the instructor and the companies must compete to get the instructor to select their products. If publishing companies don’t participate in the game, they have no opportunity to sell their product to students no matter what the cost of that product.
A few books sell. Many don’t. The book companies make money on the first sale of the successes. The same is true for the authors. I have had experience with both success and failures. I will tell you as fact that it is possible to write a book for what ends up being the personal satisfaction of writing a book. This opportunity is available to anyone. Develop a wiki if you are unable to interest a publisher.
In contrast to publishers and authors, the resellers have little risk and little overhead. The $25 they make on the buyback and resale of the $100 book comes for doing a short list of things at little risk – purchase the book from the student, store it on the shelf or in the back room until next semester, put a new price on the book, take the money from the student.
I think the campaign against the book companies is misdirected. What if students bought books directly from companies? What if students sold used books back to the campanies so the company could make the proft on the second or third sale? Competition between companies would then bring the cost of books down. Perhaps some new and creative use of the Internet will allow such selling and reselling to occur. I like my local college store (Barnes and Noble) – I purchase many books and lots of coffee there. However, I also understand what the markup is on original and also resold books.
Perhaps the world is a more complex place than you or I would like. I welcome your comment on this post (you must create an account).
