The eTextbook Bust


eTextbooks and Professor EngagementThe final report on a major digital textbook pilot appeared recently and, because I wanted to study the document closely, mark it up with scribble unintelligible to anyone but its author, I immediately printed it out. And as I did that, I felt strangely self-conscious of the act, as if I were prejudicing the report’s conclusions before turning a page.

The pilot, which took place in the spring of this year and included Cornell, Indiana University at Bloomington, and the Universities of Minnesota, Virginia, and Wisconsin at Madison, was pretty close to a complete failure. Certainly there are nuggets of encouragement but these were far outnumbered by student criticisms. One could almost sense the report’s authors straining to put the best face on the results. It’s admirable that they did not flinch from conveying students’ frustrations and disappointments with the reading materials, but the results really were worse than their concluding comments suggest.

Nowhere, for example, do the authors tell us that the pilot was financially artificial. They tell us that in all but one case—Indiana—students were actually given free access to the eTextbooks, yet this subsidy doesn’t weigh in their conclusions. Instead, we learn that the number one reason why students had any interest at all in using the eTexts is because of they were “lower cost.” Really? Low costs implies some cost and the fact that they actually had no cost only serves to make the result look better than they are. For if price is the major motivation for students, as they conclude, moving from “free” to even “low cost” will only increase resistance to their use.

The finding that cost was the top motivator for students is itself deeply problematic, not only for those heralding digital textbooks as a learning advancement, but also for commercial publishers who are striving to preserve the legacy cost structures of physical books as they turn to digital. Price alone is rarely a sufficient condition for a technological change and I don’t expect it will be one here. Instead, a panoply of learning benefits will need to accompany the economic one if digital materials are to come into their own.

The student survey results make clear that this is still some way off. Did use of an eTextbook increase engagement with course content? 21% said either “quite a bit” or “a great deal.” 35% said “somewhat” and 45% said “a little” or “not at all.” What about allowing students “to better organize and structure [student] learning”? About 25% of students thought it did. The rest, not so much. In question after question—from whether eTextbooks inspired students to read more to whether they even valued their own digital highlighting and annotations—the results are almost uniformly negative. One wonders what students would have said if they actually had to pay for the privilege.

Interestingly, the lead research finding is that only a minority of students—12%–elected to purchase physical copies. This is, however, hardly a comforting statistic for the proponents of this digital model. First, the choice for students was not likely between a free digital and a low cost print alternative, but between a free version and an expensive one (as a standard commercial textbook). Second, the 12% figure is misleading since it implies that the universe of student purchasers is 100%; but, those in the industry know that 100% sell-through is never an option unless the materials are included in the course fees. Instead, most people believe that about 1/3 of students do not buy textbooks. They borrow, share, photocopy, or simply try to do without. Remove those students from the pool of possible student buyers and it turns out that more than 18% of students who buy textbooks would have purchased a print copy if they were part of this study. Given the huge price disparity between the two options, and that price is the primary motivator, this is not supporting evidence.

Do the results of the pilot leave me pessimistic about digital course materials? Not at all. What they underscore, instead, is that several developments need still to occur for digital materials to demonstrate their pedagogical superiority over print text (for if they don’t have this what’s really the purpose?).

First, as I noted in a blog post this May, digital interactivity needs to match or exceed the physical interactivity that students enjoy. That’s not simply a matter of offering the capability to make digital highlights and annotations—which invariably feel like inadequate imitations of the real thing—but instead offering interactivity that simply isn’t available in the print world. And central to accomplishing this is faculty involvement. One of the few bright spots in the study is that students’ appreciation for the digital version shot up considerably when faculty were offering their own annotations and highlights in the texts. The problem was that few faculty actually did this. A successful digital initiative will be one in which the faculty are strongly committed to active participation in working with the course materials–when the course materials act not as passive appendages to classroom teaching but rather as direct extensions of that teaching itself; when they are less interchangeable commodities and more directly reflective of the learning environment itself (the institution or the classroom).

Second, conventional thinking about digital rights management (DRM) has to change. As a general rule, the tighter the DRM restrictions, the less appealing the technology from the user’s standpoint. In the case of digital textbooks, it likely precludes mainstream adoption. Expiration dates, and strict limitations on printing, sharing, and remixing content, are all dissuasive to students and faculty.

Third, lower pricing is not a sufficient condition for technological change–but it is a necessary one. By itself, an alternative price structure will not usher in a new era; but, there’s no doubt that it will be a critical ingredient to such change. Look at the success of the Kindle. Price discounts have been important, but if the Kindle didn’t also provide a satisfying experience for general readers, those discounts would have been irrelevant (and, in fact, the discounts were irrelevant in Amazon’s own failed pilot pairing the device with digital textbooks).

It’s uncertain whether commercial publishers have the will and the ability to change their business models sufficiently to meet these new needs. While they continue to experiment with institutionally-direct distribution models (and this digital textbook pilot is an example of that), there’s still little evidence to suggest that it represents the required fundamental change in thinking regarding DRM and costs. The lack of publisher movement in these areas has created an opening for alternative models, especially Open Educational Resources, to emerge that are now challenging the commercial model. But these alternatives have demonstrated no ability to address anything beyond cost. As such, open texts may be successfully adopted in classrooms, but they will not in their present state inspire mainstream use of digital learning materials.

What this e-textbook study and others like it tell us is that the technology of the textbook–with its physical interactivity, rich graphics, and tactile experience–raises the digital transition threshold for study materials well beyond what it is for general reading books. And that’s probably a good thing, for when the transition comes (and it will) it should be one that fundamentally changes not only course materials but the very relations of teacher, student, and text.

  • No Comments

Infographic: Students Want OER and eBooks


Check out this new infographic from Inside Higher Ed summarizing an EDUCAUSE student survey study about technology in coursework. Take aways for us here at Akademos and TextbookX? Students want more technology in their coursework, including Open Educational Resources and eBooks.


Students Want OER and eBooks


  • No Comments

The Battle for Higher Ed’s Future: Wall Streeters v. Academics (Point, Academics)


Torn down the middle. That’s how the NY Times Magazine’s September Education Issue portrayed UVA’s campus on its cover page, along with a dramatic title: Anatomy of a Campus Coup: The inside story of the failed ouster of the University of Virginia’s president–and what it means for the future of higher education.

By now, many of us know the story of UVA president Teresa Sullivan’s forced resignation and subsequent reinstatement. In fact, it took me a few days to read the Times Magazine cover story because, well, I thought I already knew what had happened. It turns out there was still more to the soap opera, and a little bit of journalistic digging has helped uncover some lessons learned and a conspiracy theory or two. Allow me to summarize the article for you…

At the heart of the drama seemed to be philosophical differences in how to run an elite institution between those that have more of a not-for-profit/higher ed/government background and those that have more of a business/corporate/Wall Street resume. Where these two groups see the future of education heading caused a rift at UVA’s campus that likely revealed schisms happening at institutions all across the country and the world. To the UVA Board of Visitors, an appointed body that oversees the university, Ms. Sullivan was not “CEO” enough in her actions or her image. The drama played out in the media as potential sexism, political jockeying, and fiscal philosophical differences.

But put succinctly, UVA’s board did not think Ms. Sullivan was building enough long term fiscal bets into the strategic plan, such as online programming, and was most certainly not acting fast enough in experimenting with trends like MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) along with the MITs of the world. The board had been influenced, in addition to their MBA-ness, by Clayton M. Christensen’s book “The Innovative University,” which focuses on “disruptive innovation” in higher education. Talk to any private equity wonk and he or she will animatedly tell you how education is poised for disruption–the kind of disruption that could make someone a lot money. So why wasn’t UVA taking advantage of its brand name and keeping up with the times?

Well, let’s set the scene. UVA is considered a top ranked university, right up there with the Ivy Leagues. What sets it apart from these schools though is that UVA is a public school. So already we are not comparing apples to apples. UVA also has a smaller enrollment than many of its peer institutions. And finally, UVA is committed to keeping a higher mix of in-state students than, say, a University of Michigan (state schools typically charge out-of-state students a much higher tuition, thus those schools that have a higher percentage of in-state students cannot depend on out-of-state students to line the coffers). UVA’s president, Teresa Sullivan, has been called a technocrat, an incrementalist, a consensus builder…all those terms that read slow-moving. Some questioned whether she had the inspired spirit needed to run an institution at the presidential level (president’s are well known for helping to raise funds/endowments and acting as the face of the university).

So what does a not-for-profit-type administrator with a background in sociology bring to the table at a place like UVA? Well, we know Ms. Sullivan previously worked as the University of Michigan’s provost, and before that, conducted sociology research at the University of Texas. Her post at Michigan is supposedly one of the reasons she was hired at UVA–she knew how to work in an environment where the state budget was consistently being cut; she knew how to do more with less. While at Texas, where she was “a demographer” and a “numbers cruncher,” she worked on middle class-debt research with Elizabeth Warren, a bankruptcy law  professor who has taught at several institutions, including Harvard, has been a Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under President Obama, and overall, is considered an expert on middle-class finance policy. Ms. Warren is something of a Wall Street-watchdog, advocating for the middle class in a system she feels is “rigged,” (according to her 2012 Democratic National Convention speech delivered just before former President Bill Clinton’s). Warren is also currently running for US Senate in Massachusetts against incumbent Senator Scott Brown. I mention all this because the NY Times article referred to Warren as a “liberal icon” and touches on conspiracy theories that Teresa Sullivan was singled out because of her associations with anti-Wall Street and/or pro-middle-class fiscal policies. The Times points out that, in hindsight, this seems unlikely, though at the time, it may have fueled some of the flames. But because the Governor of Virginia is responsible for appointing the board, and he happened to be Republican, and because members of the board also happened to be some of UVA’s biggest donors, political suspicions abounded.

Many people believe the UVA board used a faculty letter as a proxy to oust Sullivan. Faculty, tired of flat salaries they considered uncompetitive, wrote a letter asking for “urgent and immediate action.” Helen Dragas, rector/leader of the board, began lobbying for support to remove Sullivan. She wrote the following to a fellow board member: “I am growing increasingly nervous that others are thinking about big trends and long term prospects for higher education delivery and funding.” She reached out to board members one-by-one, some say to avoid attracting attention (in Virginia, university board member meetings of more than two persons are public record). She then advised Virginia’s Governor McDonnell of her plans. All systems seemed to be on go for Dragas. What is ultimately interesting about this faculty letter is that the faculty of UVA joined the reinstate-Sullivan-camp after the ouster. The Times summed it up by suggesting that faculty may voice gripes, but when it comes down to it, they prefer an academic in charge over a business person.

The faculty, the students, and a former (and influential) board member, all mounted a counterattack. The Times reported that vandals had spray-painted the six front columns of the school’s neoclassical Rotunda with the letters “G-R-E-E-E-D.” And the more the board tried to tell faculty this change was a good thing, the more faculty became “paranoid” that big money donors were controlling the strings at UVA. When Sullivan gave her goodbye speech to the board, people gathered on the lawn to protest her departure. The public relations mess that followed only further riled Sullivan’s supporters. “The national news media seized onto the story, which seemed to dramatize a broader conflict between big money and public education,” according to the Times; and further, “the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal accused the protesting faculty of trying to create ‘an academic Green Zone separated from economic reality,’ while liberal publications held up Sullivan as a symbol of a beleaguered egalitarian ideal.” Ms. Dragas, the leader of the board, lost many of her backers after the decision to remove Sullivan, and Governor McDonnell called on the board to figure this mess out or resign. Sullivan was reinstated as UVA’s president on June 26, 2012. And ironically, on July 17th, it was reported that UVA would participate in a MOOC initiative with Coursera via Stanford University.

So what really happened at UVA? Was it sexism in reaction to UVA’s first female president, was it a Republican conspiracy fueled by big donors and a Republican governor, was it MBA/Wall Street bravado? We may never really know. But I think it is an important lesson in public administration. As the public sector adopts the more useful fiscal practices of the private sector, we must remember that feeding the needs of a public entity is a balancing act, even more so than sustaining a corporation. While business courses try and teach leaders how to run a company that treats its employees as more than just human resources, as a part of the company as a whole, in the public sector,  the people are our shareholders. And in education, which is a Public Good, whether the school be private or public, we have an obligation to run institutions in a manner that helps our investments–the students who are our future and the faculty who are showing them the way–best flourish.

I will end on a final note that I think captures a major schism between public and private business management as related to the UVA story. A UVA board member who considers himself more an entrepreneur than a Wall Streeter provided this analysis: “This board comes predominantly from the corporate sector, and they were not used to dealing with people who have academic tenure and can say whatever they want. They are used to being able to fire people who do that.”

  • No Comments

Free College Textbooks Infographic

Our friends at 20 Million Minds released a compelling new infographic today summarizing the benefits of California’s potential new law (needs to be signed by their governor) creating an open educational resource library of free e-textbooks. Who doesn’t love a good infographic?



  • No Comments

In Response to Debt Collector’s Cashing in on Student Loan Roundup

This September, the NY Times ran a front page article in their Sunday paper on college student loan defaults and the organizations that attempt to collect on defaulted loans. Look, if you take out a loan, my expectation is that it gets paid back. But what to do in the case of exigent circumstances? (And what exactly qualifies as exigent–that’s a whole other blog post.) My focal point today–how hard is it becoming to watch students fall deeper under water?

When credit card debt becomes beyond-overwhelming, bankruptcy offers a solution. But the majority of student loans cannot be erased by bankruptcy. And it has become increasingly difficult to watch our college educated fall behind in repayment of loan debt, plus interest. The college-bound go to school to help improve their lot in life, and watching them try and climb out of a sink hole of college debt doesn’t strike me as the best way to build our economy. Though for some companies, the more students that default, the better for that company’s bottom line. (Sound familiar mortgage lenders?)

The Times article shines a spotlight on those companies who are profiting from student loan default. With 5.9 million people in default, someone has to service the lenders. The Department of Education paid $1.4 billion to collection agencies last fiscal year alone. According to one founder of a debt collection agency, the DOE contract has become “THE most sought after contract” within the industry.

The same Times article notes the monetary amount of defaulted loans is believed to be “greater than the yearly tuition bill for all students at public two-year and four-year colleges and universities.”  This strikes me as obscene! (Though I would like to see some more data supporting the claim). But the idea that the amount of money in student loan defaults could pay for every student attending community college and state school is crazy. The for-profit institutions (who tend to serve an under-represented student population), seem over-represented in the list of schools with the highest default numbers. Granted they often have higher enrollment rates and more challenging struggles with retention and persistence (in part due to their online programs), but when our under-represented college population– who is already most at-risk–is in such high default, it does not bode well for our economic future.

The US government has noted that student borrowers need to be made more aware of their college loan options. The article notes that “the companies hired to administer federal student loans are not paid enough for lengthy conversations to walk borrowers through payment options,” according to critics. In fact, one program, called “income-based repayment,” where students pay a percentage of their income toward loan debt, seems underutilized. Further, because letting students go into default brings in so much revenue, third party collectors have little incentive to help the government with their programs to educate borrowers in this regard.

What can we do to help solve these problems? To start we can make a college education more affordable in this country. Additionally, we should do a better job at matching students to the right education for them. This also means keeping the standards high at our public institutions. We all know you get what you pay for, but in the case of higher education, much more is at stake. We can’t treat college as we would a flat screen TV. By keeping tuition at an affordable rate, one that does not egregiously outpace inflation, and by reducing the cost of course materials, such as textbooks, we can improve persistence rates and contribute to a better opportunity for students to graduate, find a good job and pay back their student loans.

  • No Comments

In Response to Luke Thomas’ The Textbook Industry & Greed

Recently, a student blogged a very serious post about his adventures in textbook purchasing. His name is Luke Thomas and he is four classes shy of getting his undergraduate degree from the University of Maine. Luke tried to fight the textbook industry, and by some accounts, Luke won. Here is what happened.

Most students do not dig as deep as Luke did about why textbooks cost what they do. But Luke’s case was a perfect storm. He and his now wife were taking a similar course and they wanted to share one of the required books. But alas, the book came with a code that was needed in order to complete the coursework. He was advised by the college bookstore that in order to get the access code from them, he needed to purchase two new books. I’ve got to give it to Luke, he did not give up–he called the publisher (Cengage) and after a bit of time on the phone, managed to buy a single access code.

According to Luke, the bookstore folks were “surprised” he was able to buy a single code without the new textbook and “shocked” that an access code was even required to view the syllabus and complete assignments. Luke decided to research this issue, and stumbled upon the Textbook Affordability Provision of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), which is in itself a fete if you have ever tried looking for it without knowledge that it exists. This is when he learned that there is a federal law requiring publishers to offer unbundled textbooks and supplemental materials, to price them for purchase separately. Finally, to round out this dog-chasing-its-tail-tornado, at end the end of the semester, the bookstore would not buy his book back because, as he was told, the professor makes changes to it. One more thing–I should mention that the author of the book was the professor himself.

So you might now imagine what possessed Luke to write a post titled The Textbook Industry & Greed: My Story. Luke’s story impressed me. He did not take the answers he was being given at face value, but rather did a little critical thinking of his own. He was persistent in searching for a way to purchase the materials that matched his needs. All of this is admirable. But what impressed me the most was his patience in documenting what occurred as well as his eloquent restatement of the story as it unfolded. This student was able to get to the bottom of what is happening in the textbook industry in one fairly short blog post–including the dynamics between the players. I would dare say that there are some administrators, faculty, policy makers, vendors, parents and so on, that haven’t been able to articulate some of the dirty secrets of how textbooks are adopted in higher education. So kudos to Luke. He figured it out and got what he wanted–he won.

And it seems he keeps winning on behalf of all students as this post continues to make the rounds–from one small blog, to one tech site that spawned a bevy of hacker-friendly comments, to coverage by The Chronicle of Higher Education–all the while in between being shared to and fro on social media sites. But this conversation sounds all too familiar, and while there is a law addressing textbook affordability, there is some question as to how or whether it is being enforced. Furthermore, it seems Luke spent some extra time trying to find a solution for his textbook problem–time he could have spent studying. In fact, it appears that all this fighting caused Luke to receive his access code after the start of classes, making it potentially challenging for him to complete assignments. Thus I have to chalk some points up in the loss column as well.

So considering the many discussions about this topic (in the media, in public policy, at colleges, between parents and students) over the last several years, have we come far enough in acting to improve textbook affordability? Are the right people engaging in these stories? I noticed Luke’s post within a few days of its published date because at Akademos, we follow these issues. While we have a consumer-direct website called that sells textbooks (mainly to college students), we are interested and invested in ways to make textbooks more affordable. From a business point of view, this may go against our bottom line. From an ethical point of view, helping students find affordable textbooks is right in line with our philosophy.

After reading the comments under Luke’s blog post, on the tech site where his post was uploaded, and under the Chronicle post, I feel as if I’ve gotten some good perspective from a variety of folks weighing in. Some common threads include outrage that the professor would require his own book for the course and questions about whether he was profiting unethically from his students. A solution that came up several times is open source or Open Educational Resources (OERs)–textbooks or course materials that are in effect free or very low cost. But the specific points of view on Luke Wilson’s textbook experience range. There are professors who say they try to keep costs down by using older editions or low cost course packs; those that give away author royalties received from their own students purchasing that professor’s book; those that are appalled at the real or perceived ethical violations of requiring students to purchase your book and/or keeping the royalties; those that believe it is OK to keep royalties for your work; those that think it is OK only from students you don’t teach; those that create texts and give them away free; and so on. There is a bookstore manager who suggests more affordable alternate texts to faculty but also squarely places the blame for choosing texts on faculty. And of course, students. The students that share their own horror stories about expensive books that were never opened (lots of those accounts); the ones who say professors actually helped them by choosing lower costs texts; students that get their books at the library; students that do not buy books at all; and of course, particularly on the tech site, students that “steal” their coursework from the web even though the text is copyrighted.

Students are frank about the fact that they can find ways around paying for textbooks–not buying them, buying international editions, and of course, pirating them. So unless those stakeholders involved in the textbook and course materials industry determine a way to keep customers happy–it won’t matter how captive they are–students will find a way to fight the good fight. The question is–who is really winning?

  • Comments (2)

The Changing Landscape for Bookstore Services

The bookstore services landscape for educational institutions, both public and private, has been radically transformed in the past five years. More and more operations have been outsourced or restructured to resemble businesses in the private sector while bookstore operations at the majority of colleges and universities still operate under a model from a time that has come and gone.

The primary reason for a bookstore’s existence—the textbook—has seen many changes, from the delivery of content (online and eBook) to the soaring rise of new textbook pricing (due in part to the increase of the used textbook market including textbook rentals) to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), which among other policy changes allows students to become informed consumers of textbooks with the right to have ISBNs identified prior to course enrollment.

HEOA empowered students to not only shop at their local bookstore but also shop via non-traditional sources (online, used and rental) to find their course content at the lowest possible cost. Many students abandoned their local bookstores finding lower pricing off campus while giving up the opportunity to apply financial aid to their textbook purchases. And this in turn eroded the campus bookstore’s operating margins at a time when all institutions were feeling the pressure of decreased funding and budget cuts.

Traditionally bookstores were the domain of the self-operated store or contracted to nationally known bookstore operators that were an extension of their commercial operations. From a business perspective there have been many changes in the bookstore industry. There have been consolidations, spin-offs, bankruptcies, liquidations, and start-ups that higher education administrators had to consider when reviewing bookstore provider options.

Yet, when it comes to the scoping, reviewing and awarding of bookstore services it seems that the landscape has not evolved as much as other educational services on campus. Most bookstore operating contracts are awarded similarly to the process 10 years ago. Administrators either negotiate and renew with their existing provider, maintaining the status quo, or prepare an RFP for release and then evaluate with a grading rubric based on a traditional on-ground bookstore services model.

Where does that leave the bookstore and student? The bookstore continues its downward spiral of decreased revenue by supporting an operating model with high textbook margins so that they can provide sufficient commission return to the institution. And the student will continue to flee to off-campus booksellers who don’t have the artificially high markups without any commission payments due to the institution.

So, how can this cycle be broken? If higher education administrators will consider the following factors when considering, specifying and evaluating bookstore operators, the institution will win by having students return to the institution-sanctioned bookstore (physical or virtual) to purchase their textbooks. This will in turn drive additional merchandise and other purchases thus stabilizing and in most cases increasing revenue. Students can purchase reasonably priced textbooks with a choice of delivery options (new, used, rental or eBook) and with the option of applying financial aid to any textbook purchase by buying at the institution’s bookstore.

Savvy administrators are recognizing that there is a paradigm shift for bookstore services criteria, evaluation and contract negotiations. Here are a few things for administrators to consider when specifying, evaluating and awarding bookstore contracts:

Things to Consider When Specifying and Contracting for Bookstore Services:

  1. Long Term Contracts: Can anyone predict what any bookstore will be selling five years from now? With the gradual increase of eBook and online content delivery, physical bookstore space requirements for textbook delivery will become less and less. Yet many institutions are signing 7 to 15 year bookstore operations agreements. Don’t sign bookstore contracts longer than 5 years and consider 2-3 year contracts so that you have options for repurposing physical space.
  2. Commissions: Don’t sign contracts with high commissions and long term periods to finance bookstore renovations or garner high commissions. High commissions mean students will continue to abandon the bookstore and purchase off campus. Find other means (student usage fees, etc.) to fund renovation and capital improvement projects, not via textbook commissions.  Consider commission fees between zero and five percent to retain and increase bookstore volume and lower textbook costs.
  3. Exclusivity & Online Programs: Why sign a contract with a bookstore provider to be the exclusive provider for bookstore services at all? Consider awarding multiple contracts to keep textbook prices competitive. Similarly, why have the same contract for both on-ground and online students? Most institutions see online as a way to grow student populations and revenue without the physical plant costs (including bookstore costs). An online student may rarely if at all go on campus. Doesn’t it make sense to have a bookstore operator with lower margins and commissions who pass on textbook savings for online students?
  4. Financial Aid: Does your bookstore operator allow a student to purchase content via any delivery method (new, used, rental or eBook) and apply financial aid and grants towards their purchase? If not, you are doing your students a disservice while also denying your institution revenue stream opportunities.
  5. Supply Chain: Are textbook purchases limited to the inventory of your local bookstore or the national chain operator’s inventory? Why not have a bookstore that can rapidly deliver content in a variety of formats from a national network of content providers in variety of formats. Buybacks can also be conducted anytime virtually beyond the traditional on-campus buyback periods.
  6. Innovative Technology: Are faculty dependent upon their publisher representatives and/or bookstore personnel to aid in the selection of course materials? Work with bookstore operators who provide self-service textbook adoption tools, open education resources and custom course packs to aid in the selection of appropriate, lower cost content.

These are a few of the points to consider the next time institutions are considering a bookstore operator and negotiating contracts. With some out-of-the-box thinking everyone involved in the process will prosper. Students will return to the institution-sanctioned bookstore for price, service and financial aid considerations. Institutions will benefit by having more satisfied customers while increasing volume and recapturing lost revenue.


Download the full white paper Changing Landscape of Bookstore Services for Higher Education –

  • No Comments