December 19, 2014

Preventing the Second Big Deal | Peer to Peer Review

E-resources license negotiators, start your engines!

A group of content aggregators are approaching colleges and universities promising lower costs for vitally-important materials, as well as fast, convenient, patron-friendly digital access—but only if we risk content and platform lock-in, and sign contracts for massive amounts of content at once, including much we don’t need and only some of what we do.

Think I’m talking about another serials Big Deal? For once, I’m not. I’m talking about college textbooks. Some of the e-textbook startups I’m seeing bid fair to lead higher education down the same bad financial and collection-development path the Big Deal did. Academic librarians stand a good chance of preventing the worst excesses, but only if we speak up fast.

Our students have complained about textbook pricing for years, all the way up to state legislatures. Sensitive to the disapproving rumbling about cost escalation in higher education, colleges and universities are casting about for any way to save students money. Since textbook costs are highly visible to students, they’re a logical target. All this takes place, of course, in the shadow of the Wiley v. Kirtsaeng lawsuit, which may soon remove imported textbooks—a major source of lower-cost textbooks for US college students—from the scene.

Startups such as Courseload, CourseSmart, VitalSource, and CafeScribe have inked deals with (or spun off from) major textbook publishers for content they now seek to bundle for sale to universities. Crucially, none of these new companies has a booklist spanning every major textbook publisher, so an institution that signs an exclusive deal with one company will inevitably lock a great many e-textbooks out of consideration. This is unlikely to go down well with faculty, who are accustomed to complete control over which textbooks they assign. Consider, for example, the fury of a textbook author on campus who knows that her book has an e-version, but can’t assign it because her institution signed with a Big E-Textbook Deal provider that hasn’t licensed it.

Cost, both of the deal itself and the necessary integration into campus IT infrastructure and processes, is another serious question: will the price-points be low enough that signing deals with multiple providers is financially feasible? If they are at first, how long will they remain so, after pilot projects and their loss-leader prices pass into history? And what happens if campuses find themselves locked into particular platforms? Campus spokespeople for these deals hold a touching faith that the “negotiating muscle of the full university” will keep prices down. The history of the Big Deal in serials shouts otherwise.

Larger, decentralized universities, such as those that have already signed on for Internet2’s pilot e-textbook project with CourseLoad, appear especially at risk for signing a deal they’ll regret later. If not enough e-textbooks from the bundle achieve adoption, much of the contract money, in addition to the money spent integrating the textbook system with campus courseware, would be flushed down the toilet, rather than saving students any meaningful money. Imagine what state legislatures would make of that on flagship state-university campuses!

Why might the level of adoption be especially inadequate at large institutions? Because they use a lot of books from a lot of publishers, tracking instructor and student textbook preferences and purchasing behavior is no simple task. Merely asking the main bookstore cannot suffice any more, owing to the diversity of textbook-sales outlets—online and off-, new and used, domestic and foreign-printed. Estimating total per-student textbook costs is likewise difficult, and the variance is liable to be extreme, such that “average cost” figures do not adequately capture student realities. Given that, how can anyone estimate how many instructors might be able and willing to migrate to e-textbooks offered in a Big E-Textbook Deal, how many students those instructors represent, and what the ultimate student cost savings (if any) would work out to?

Complicating the issue further is instructors’ and students’ ambivalent-at-best response to e-textbooks generally. Even an instructor willing to migrate might not be willing to migrate to an electronic option. Students still vociferously prefer print, desiring better study affordances than current e-textbook platforms can muster. Finally, the “you lease your books, not own them” situation the Big E-Textbook Deals create, with its attendant demolishing of the used-book market, doesn’t appeal to many students and may even fail to save many of them money.

No sane librarian would sign an exclusive contract under these conditions. Any sane librarian would negotiate hard on any contract at all, with multiple competitors in play and lock-in looming dangerously. Ah, but on how many campuses are librarians actively involved in e-textbook negotiations? Nearly all the spokespeople and committee members I’ve seen in the press (the library trade press aside) about e-textbook pilot projects come from academic-affairs offices or campus IT, and that worries me.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. We can step forward to help.

No one else on campus has our depth of expertise, negotiating skill, and intelligent skepticism. We know from harsh experience the many and varied ways content and platform providers can put our campuses over a barrel. We’ve grilled the salesfolk, read the legalese, struck damaging clauses out of contracts, insisted on better, and said “no” when that was the only sensible option. While I can understand a certain reluctance to bring our experiences with serials to the table—we didn’t exactly cover ourselves with glory in that saga—perhaps we can redeem ourselves now by preventing a similar trainwreck with e-textbooks.

Librarians at smaller institutions might do well not to bring these e-textbook deals to the attention of their campuses or consortia, at least not until some of the bugs shake out and the shape of the deals after pilot projects end is clearer. Should Big E-Textbook Deals flame out at flagships, smaller institutions may sidestep a great deal of hassle and embarrassment merely by prudent delay. I surprise myself by saying this—I approve of experimentation!—but I can’t help fearing all the ways these deals are liable to blow up, as the Big Deal did before them.

Since the e-textbook market is still young, open access has a strong chance of getting in on the ground floor, avoiding the messy many-front battles it has been fighting in entrenched serials markets. It doesn’t hurt that some faculty arrive at an open-access solution spontaneously in response to student financial travails. To aid discovery for open-access e-textbooks, the University of Minnesota has developed an online catalog for them, including (among others) offerings from pioneer open-textbook publisher Flat World Knowledge. Minnesota is also paying faculty to review the books for accuracy and quality. Following Minnesota’s lead bids fair to create a pool of excellent books that are free to students willing to use them electronically-only, and low-cost to those who prefer print.

I was struck some time past by geneticist Rosemary Redfield’s plaint about obsolete instructional approaches in her field’s introductory textbooks. “Textbook publishers are very conservative,” says Redfield, “and even books with an ostensibly molecular focus usually leave the canon intact. Online resources may be able to fill the gap, but finding and modifying them will still be a lot of work.”

Won’t it be easier for Redfield to update genetics training if that work is subsidized up-front such that it becomes available, free or at low cost, for every introductory-genetics student at every college and university everywhere? Can’t libraries help make that happen? Can’t we at least ensure that Redfield isn’t locked into an obsolete canon by a textbook Big Deal?

Correction: Follett, which operates the CafeScribe service, has a network of more than 8,000 publishers and providers, and works with its university partners to identify, source and deliver the products and services that align with their goals.

This article was featured in Library Journal's Academic Newswire enewsletter. Subscribe today to have more articles like this delivered to your inbox for free.

Dorothea Salo About Dorothea Salo

Dorothea Salo is a Faculty Associate in the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she teaches digital curation, database design, XML and linked data, and organization of information.

Share

Comments

  1. Barbara Fister says:

    YES – watching campuses head for the cliff is painful. There is no need to solve cost of textbooks problem by signing big ugly deals. Also, I worry admins will limit choice. And the big pigs will win.

  2. Ms. Salo points to a very fair concern regarding the notable downsides of exclusive deals and lock-in. Fortunately, that’s not what is happening with the eTexts deals that I’ve seen.

    For example, IU started its eText work in Jan of 2009 (pre-iPad). We saw at the Consumer Electronics Show that a flurry of consumer tablet/slate devices were heading to campus soon, and knew that higher ed needed to help shape the economic terms of e-content from the buyer side or we might not be very happy with the terms offered from the seller side. We studied what our faculty were requiring and recommending, and we initiated meetings with a number of publishers to think about new models for digital that could include textbooks, faculty-authored/edited course packs, and online simulations, etc.

    We engaged with lots of faculty and student groups on all eight campuses. We have principles that no deals are exclusive, faculty can opt in for eTexts if they find the deals are good or choose any other content they wish. As a full professor of business myself, I can affirm that “faculty choice” has been a key principle of our approach. The four meetings where I presented to the Bloomington Faculty Council received insightful questions as we conducted five semesters of pilot trials, and each ended with much encouragement to proceed. Our goals, FAQ, and experiences are documented at http://etexts.iu.edu. We now have McGraw-Hill, Pearson, Elsevier Science & Technology, Wiley, WW Norton/MacMillion, Harvard Business Publishing, and more signed on including a means for Open Access content and innovative models like FlatWorldKnowledge.

    Our goals are to make the cost of eTexts no more than the net cost of buying a used book and selling a used paper book, to enable hardcopy or digital, to provide longevity of access beyond on semester, and to not have overly restrictive DRM that impedes use. We’ve been able to achieve those things with most of the leading publishers, and we continue to receive inquiries from “the long tail” of smaller publishers who wish to join. Some of this may make sense to do via a broader contract with CourseLoad or platform provider who can have standing agreements AT FAVORABLE TERMS with many small publishers. Time will tell more about that, but many of our campuses see 60-70% of required texts concentrated in 3-5 publishers, so establishing non-exclusive, opt in, price favorable deals with them is real progress today for the students.

    There are many eTexts pilots underway, and the one-semester trials that have been enabled by Internet2/EDUCAUSE build on the IU goals and experiences, and the spring pilots will offer more innovation as well. Institutions initiated those trials — not the publishers or platforms. For the first time in my memory, we have collections of higher ed institutions learning together and working to shape the market rather than just responding to it. The great thing is there is a win-win approach for students, authors, and publishers to remedy the well-documented problems of the textbook market. We have the financial models that prove that.

    Regarding potential software platform lock in, it is reasonable to expect a lot of feature advances and imitation for reader/annotation software over the next few years. There is value in having that software integrated with course information. In the absence of making an institutional platform choice (say 1 or 2) the very real likelihood is that a student might have to use 4-5 different pieces of software just to read or engage with eTexts from five publishers. That would be a support nightmare.

    Counter to Ms. Salo, I see no merit in making eTexts a territorial matter for the library or anyone else. We are seeing good eTexts work led by librarians, CIOs, Provosts Offices, campus bookstores, and others. The key point is that it gets done smartly and avoids bad deals. In fact, my colleague Shel Waggener, former CIO at Berkeley and now EVP for Net+ Services at Internet2, made those points back in March in an email to CIOs that matured into the short “Do’s and Donts of eContent” at http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/e-content-opportunity-and-risk.

    There is plenty of work for *all* of us in getting eTexts right, and fortunately, the “engines” on this important work were started a few years back and are already in drive in a fast changing industry. I encourage readers to assess directly for themselves what is really happening with eTexts trials and agreements.

    –Brad Wheeler

    P.S. For those with interest, I have written more extensively about that in the Chronicle’s “Rebooting the Academy” eBook with a chapter on “Fixing the High Prices of Textbooks” (http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/the-chronicle-releases-its-first-e-book-rebooting-the-academy/38015) and on the three year Indiana eText experience at http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/case-study-21-shaping-path-digital-indiana-university-etexts-initiative.

    • So, Brad, here’s what I don’t quite get.

      Not long ago, I saw you yourself talking about disrupting and disintermediating big-money STEM journal publishers via what you were calling the “Big Digital Machine.” Too much money in that system, you said (and you were right!), so let’s chuck out the current set of fat-cats and do better with less.

      Now you’re actively pushing a big-money deal with another set of demonstrably-overcharging fat-cats. I don’t get this. Explain it to me.

  3. Public Libraries offer the world of content and search ad free. They would pay out on a second by second privacy protected basis. The cost of a second of attention is (GDP/(national seconds of waking attention)). No agency or contracts involved. At most escrow accounts accruing money waiting to be collected.

    This approach if it caught on would eventually get rid of the problem of sponsored politicians and stop sponsorship in practice from amounting to a system of mass censorship that erodes even the modest representation our system can provide.