Search News


Browse Archives

News

Textbook Battle's New Frontier

April 13, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Throughout their textbook affordability campaign, the State Public Interest Research Groups have rallied around the issue of transparency. Along with complaints that publishers unnecessarily release new textbook editions and bump up the price with "bundled" materials is the charge that these companies aren't forthcoming about textbook pricing.

Several states have pending legislation that would mandate more disclosure, fueling yet another round of warring between PIRG and the Association of American Publishers that is  following a pattern of recent disputes over the increasing cost of textbooks. 

In Washington State, a bill that would require publishing companies to disclose both the price of textbooks and change-of-edition information when presenting material to faculty passed the full Senate this week and is awaiting the governor's approval.

A bill before the California State Senate calls on publishers to give faculty a complete list of all the products they offer, a list of the wholesale price for each product and an estimate of the length of time the publisher plans to keep products on the market. And in Oregon, a similar bill before a Senate education committee would require publishers to disclose prices and plans for new editions, and also enable students to buy books separately from the bundled material (CD-ROMS and workbooks, for instance).

Pushing for textbook legislation is part of PIRG's broader effort to shed light on the practices of the publishing industry -- an effort that has involved myriad studies about the rising cost of textbooks and sparked controversy over inflated figures. Those lobbying for passage of the bills cite a range of PIRG surveys, including one from MASSPIRG showing that fewer than half of professors in that state said publishers' Web sites they used to research textbooks typically list price information. The majority of faculty also said sales representatives from publishing companies either rarely or never volunteer the price.

States involved in the textbook campaign have taken similar surveys demonstrating faculty support for legislation and showing that publishers' practices make it difficult for professors to discern how much students will end up paying for textbooks they order.

"Students are already burdened with a high cost of education, and considering the state budget is thin, this is a way to make it easier to lower the cost of textbooks without decreasing the quality of education and burdening the taxpayer," said Nicole Allen, campus organizer for the University of Washington's WashPIRG chapter.

Bruce Hildebrand, executive director for higher education at the Association of American Publishers, said much of the pricing information that these bills ask for is already easily accessible -- "two or three seconds away," he says -- on the publishers' Web sites.

Allen said that assertion flies in the face of PIRG's reports. "Is that how public universities want staff people spending their time? Searching on publisher Web sites and Amazon.com? Probably not. If a company is selling the product, make all the prices obvious."

Daron Williams, a Washington student and coordinator of WashPIRG's textbook campaign, said the bill is an attempt to "limit the control that publishers have over the market place."

Hildebrand said he supports disclosure but not legislation that regulates how private companies operate. "These are competing companies that design their own sites based on what's best to get the information to faculty," he said. "There's a point at which you can't dictate this unless you are ready to dictate any free enterprise that does business with a state or a college."

He said there are several problems with language in some of the bills, including the reality that promotional materials are often sent out before a product is priced.

Of particular concern to Hildebrand is the California bill, which he said would lead to students paying more for textbooks. His rationale: Forcing publishers -- especially the smaller ones -- to ship detailed information on all company products each time an instructor seeks any information would create overhead that would drive up the cost of the textbooks. Plus, he said, an English professor isn't concerned about the pricing of 500 philosophy or biology titles.

Hildebrand said that "mom and pop" publishing companies would find the California bill particularly cumbersome because some use hardly any printed promotional material. "What this collectively will do is force smaller publishers out of the market, which becomes an infringement of academic freedom," he said.

Darby Kernan, a spokeswoman for California State Sen. Ellen Corbett, who introduced the bill, said it is an attempt to simplify the process for professors and should not be overly burdensome to the publishers. 

Bryce McKibben, director of government relations for the Associated Students of the University of Washington, said the Washington bill isn't asking for a "flooding of the market" with information but rather a commitment by publishers to make pricing readily available.

"We see, in the long term, this bill helping to generate competition among companies, decreasing the price for students and making sure that there are more used books in the market," he said.

A smarter and more realistic  piece of legislation, Hildebrand said, is one that is before the New York State Assembly that would require publishers to, on request, make available to faculty members the price at which the publisher would make the products available to the bookstore that would offer the products.

Hildebrand again pointed to a report put out by the publishers’ organization earlier this fall showed that by a 17 to 1 ratio, professors weigh the academic merits of a textbook more strongly than they do its price. The PIRG report concludes that “faculty should give preference to the lowest cost option when the educational content is comparable.”

"We agree that faculty should consider quality first, but they need to have all the tools to even make price a secondary factor," McKibben said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Textbook Battle's New Frontier

  • The Problem is The College, not The Publishers
  • Posted by Concerned Citizen on April 13, 2007 at 10:07am EDT
  • As usual, this war against the publishers completely misses the true causes of high textbook prices. Textbook prices would come down dramatically if:

    1) Colleges made institution wide textbook decisions and bundled the cost of those books with the price of college, instead of letting each professor make their own textbook decisions.

    2) Colleges didn't look to their bookstores as revenue centers.

    It is no wonder that textbook prices soar when the professor makes the buying decision, but the student buys the book. If the cost of a new textbook mattered to an instituiton, like it would if it had to be factored into tuition, the school would have an incentive to make better decisions and to shop based on price. Right now, there is no incentive for professors to do this. In fact, many of the largest for-profit schools have done this and they have driven textbook prices way down for their students.

    Also, publishers would be thrilled to sell books directly from their websites and cut-out the middleman -- the book stores. However, most colleges look to their bookstores as revenue centers. The college gets a piece of the profit. Therefore, the college frequently is the middle-man, again, with no incentive to cut prices.

    What the PIRG's should really do is focus on the total cost of college at each school and organize a campaign for schools to make textbook adoption decisions based on price.

  • Textbooks
  • Posted by Lynn Fauth , Professor of English at Oxnard College on April 13, 2007 at 11:35am EDT
  • Missing from the discussion about textbook costs is the used book market developed through campus bookstores providing book buy back services. While buy backs serve the immediate need of removing books from students' shelves and giving them some of their money back, the downside of this practice is two sided. First, students are upset that they only get, at most 50 cents on the dollar, so they accuse the bookstore offering the buyback service of ripping them off. And second, because there is the used book market, publishers shorten the revision cycle and books become obsolete in two or three years, or at least when the market is so filled with used books that no new sales are possible, so to keep their revenue streams going, publishers issue revised editions, and the cycle starts again.

    All talk about extra materials, DVDs, website access codes, excess profits, et al is merely extra to this fundamental flaw in the system, a flaw developed in the commendable desire to save students money by buying their books back. No one really is served by the system: students resent discounted buy back prices for barely used books; bookstores lament having to buy them back and to ship them to warehouses; while publishers and authors see no profit, save from new editions. And faculty members continually have to adapt to new editions which are merely rearranged old ones.

  • re: The Problem is The College, not The Publishers
  • Posted by Rob Rittenhouse , CS Faculty at McMurry University on April 13, 2007 at 1:21pm EDT
  • Concerned citizen writes:

    1) Colleges made institution wide textbook decisions ...

    Are you suggesting that someone at my university is more qualified than me to select the book I'm going to use for say my senior level CS Operating Systems class?

    Within the department we choose common textbooks for courses with multiple sections. Textbooks for other courses are generally the responsibility of the faculty member teaching the course.

    It's not that difficult to find out the retail price of a book and factor it into our decisions.

    Other alternatives include:

    1) using freely available online material (e.g. MIT's Open Courseware) to replace a textbook

    2) Using an online version or e-book from the publisher (these tend to expire after a term -- good for some courses, not others)

  • We can't buy it if they don't print it.
  • Posted by CCPhysicist , Assoc. Prof of Physics on April 13, 2007 at 4:31pm EDT
  • Publishers control the presses. Concerned Citizen's suggestion will not change the core problem, a revision cycle that makes books age faster than cars.

    Consider the following example from my field. The first edition of Halliday and Resnick was published in 1960. A tweaked version, mostly fixing typos, was in wide use from 1965 to 1980. Lots of used books (at a fraction of the list price) were available throughout the 70s. Since 1980, the revision cycle has moved from 15 years to 3 or 4 years. The current trend puts out a new edition with just enough changes so students "must" buy it, new, while others are stuck with the obsolete, and unsellable, old edition.

    But the market is at work. One author has produced a new book that is significantly smaller and significantly cheaper, while the others get longer and less readable. We will see what happens, but even that new book will be replaced in a few years.

  • Publishers should be held accountable
  • Posted by RR , Associate Dean on April 14, 2007 at 3:16pm EDT
  • In the past year, I have received "complementary" copies of 18 general chemistry textbooks, 15 organic chemistry textbooks, and 7 books containing laboratory experiments. I received 5 (five!) copies of the SAME book! This is in addition to the incredibly slick publicity material that publishers send out for each edition. I work at a medium-sized university which enrolls about 500 students each term in the general chemistry sequence. Also, I have not taught freshman or organic chemistry in YEARS! I wonder how much unsolicited stuff my colleagues at larger universities get, especially if they are actually involved in teaching these courses. There is a reason textbook costs go up so much - the publishers have to recover the costs of giving so much away for free. If publishers decide NOT to send out complementary copies except by request, and use only electronic publicity material, I think they will realize substantial savings that can be passed along to students.

  • latest PIRG bills
  • Posted by Publishing person on April 15, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • I am a person who determines the revision cycle and pricing for textbooks and their ancillary materials. None of the bills currently being presented in state legislatures have any teeth. All of the items suggested on the bills (in each of the 4 states) are readily available now. I quote prices and revision cycles all the time to faculty. Our sales reps quote net pricing all the time. This just shows how disconnected the PIRG folks and lawmakers are from what is really going on.

    It should also be noted that revision cycles change. I can quote something to someone (even though most cycles are driven by the individual course market), but it could easily change. We change cycle for a variety of good reasons: schedule limitations--author can't meet deadlines, market variances--competitor publishes early, or list management--other books crowding our internal schedule. I never like to shorten a cycle and do care how students are affected, but my job is manage my list and grow revenue for my company. Student concerns are a priority but not the highest. Funny how nobody talks about revision cycles that are stretched and come out 5-7 years after their previous edition.

    Anyway, the publishing industry has created ALL of its own problems. We let used books get the upper hand, we let the PIRGS trash our image, and we let our competitors set lower and lower standards. Our model is changing (we know it). We just want to transition to the new model without having to lay off 50% of our staff! To those of you out there who are anti-corporate...so am I!! The publishing indsutry is like any other corporate venture: about 10% of upper management is evil and the rest of us are just like you. Most of the people I work with would actually like to lower prices. Try telling that to Wall St. though.