Notes

More on the “Unrealized Promise” of digital textbooks

I’m appreciative of the attention I got last week for the piece I wrote about digital textbooks [Digital Textbooks: Publishers and the Unrealized Promise, Publishing Perspectives, 2/22/13]. I thought I’d do a follow-up, just to attach some specifics to my sometimes provocative claims.

First of all, I wrote the editorial as a response to a question raised by George Lossius [in 5 Academic Publishing Trends to Watch in 2013, Publishing Perspectives, 1/21/13]:

“[I]t is widely acknowledged that the e-textbook market is yet to fulfill its promise and potential…

Publishers are fully aware of the benefits of e-textbooks; the ability to easily refresh out-of-date content, functionality that allows books to be dissected, more interactive content, metrics that can measure the usefulness and popularity of resources, and of course pricing. All of this technology is available yet end user adoption levels are relatively low. Is it merely a question of students having the right technology at their fingertips and institutions buying into this method of working, which is surely just a matter of time? Or is there a wider issue preventing adoption?”

Yes, there is a wider issue. The digital product offered to date is generally not a good value. Nor does it solve the issues of affordability, access and control of content. With a few notable exceptions, you get some simple ebook functionality (search, take notes, highlight text), but it has not been re-imagined in any way. It meets baseline expectations, at best. 

If it were all in the name of cost savings, I could get behind it. But it’s a red herring. As an example, Organizational Behavior by Griffin/Moorhead rings in at $156.49 from CourseSmart, one of the leading distributors of digital textbook content (the publisher’s list price is $284.95). This book is for a one-semester course. You get access for 6 months, and then it expires. So you don’t own anything when you’re through with the course. 

If it were all in the name of student success, I could get behind it. You have to talk about student success. Are students really going to learn and succeed more with these products they can’t afford and can only use for a limited time? That is the question we should be answering. Interactive, flexible content, embedded with metrics that can measure its efficacy? That sounds like something that might help improve student outcomes. 

With all of the known benefits that Mr. Lossius lists above, why such limited progress, then? There are countless stories about how students aren’t ready for digital textbooks—just Google “students prefer print” to read 21M articles on the topic. Market endorsement of the slow pace of change? Could that be it? 

There’s a much simpler answer, using the above example. The Big 5 (Pearson, McGraw-Hill, Cengage, Macmillan and Wiley) have the market power and control the content and the channel, so I wouldn’t expect any innovation anytime soon. What’s the incentive to do anything but hold their position?  

Renting you a PDF equivalent for $100+ for 6 months’ access? No one’s going to label that innovative. This is an issue of control. They have the control, you don’t. It’s about which stakeholder you choose to serve: students, educators, institutions or shareholders. The legacy publishers have to serve their shareholders, but does it have to be at the expense of students and their chances of success? 

I don’t mean to lay this all at the feet of the Big 5, but they a have major influence on this issue. That should come with some responsibility, in my opinion. But of course, it is not the whole story, either. This is a complex, nuanced market that’s undergoing tremendous (exhilarating!) turbulence right now. There are a bunch of other new players trying to solve the problem, but the lesson is, you shouldn’t expect change from those who are rooting against it. 

Performance-based funding is in place in 12 states, with 4 more transitioning. There are formal discussions underway in 19 additional states. You are about to hear a lot more about student outcomes, as they are now tied directly to the institution’s bottom line. Now is not the time to circle the wagons and defend the current model. It’s time to help institutions and instructors offer the students they serve a quality learning experience at a price they can afford.