You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
A historic shift is transforming the media and publishing landscape as major figures in journalism and publishing bypass traditional institutions.
Journalists like Taylor Lorenz and novelists like James Patterson, along with media veterans such as Tina Brown, are moving to self-publishing and subscription-based models, reflecting a broader trend of creators taking control of their work and revenue streams. Even high-profile figures like Taylor Swift are rejecting traditional publishing deals in favor of self-publishing, which offers higher profit margins and more direct access to fans.
According to some recent statistics, at least five Substack newsletters generate at least $1 million in revenue annually, while self-published books can produce a 60 percent return compared to 10 to 15 percent royalties offered by traditional publishing.
As the cultural critic Ted Gioia points out, this trend underscores the weakening of legacy media’s monopoly over content distribution and the rise of platforms that allow creators to engage directly with audiences. Substack, originally just a platform for writers, has evolved into a multimedia space where users can build their own media empires, integrating video, audio, social media and messaging tools.
The shift from traditional media to platforms like Substack and YouTube mirrors larger changes in the media ecosystem, where digital transformation, audience fragmentation and distrust in mainstream outlets are reshaping how content is produced and consumed. The exodus from legacy media suggests that institutions like major publishing houses and newspapers, once seen as gatekeepers, are increasingly vulnerable as creators and influencers take advantage of digital tools to bypass traditional models.
The significance of this shift lies in its implications for the future of media and publishing. As more creators move away from legacy institutions, the power dynamic between publishers and content creators is fundamentally changing. The ability to self-publish and engage directly with audiences on platforms like Substack allows for greater creative freedom and financial independence. This transformation signals a move toward a more decentralized media landscape, where microcultures, indie operators and freelancers can, in certain instances, thrive, while traditional institutions struggle to adapt to this new reality.
The shifts that Gioia describes are not confined to the media and publishing landscape. Other sectors of the economy are also undergoing far-reaching changes.
The cohesive package that once defined the delivery of news—the newspaper and the nightly television news program—has declined, replaced by on-demand content delivered by a host of platforms. At the same time, the record album has largely been supplanted by streaming of individual songs and playlists, often algorithmically generated.
Meanwhile, the concept of school choice has had a huge impact on K-12 education, with the rise of homeschooling, charter schools, classical education, vouchers, magnet and specialty schools, and other alternatives to traditional public schools.
Consumers now expect customizable, à la carte options, whether it’s choosing individual songs over albums, subscribing to independent newsletters instead of major publications or accessing news on social media instead of from a daily newspaper.
As this trend reshapes the broader economy, higher education faces a similar unbundling of its own. The rise of alternative credentialing, online education and specialized degree programs is challenging the traditional four-year degree model. What does this shift mean for universities and how can they navigate a future that increasingly favors flexibility, specialization and consumer choice?
The “great unbundling” is disrupting long-established business models and cultural norms. It has fractured traditional models of content delivery, democratizing access while simultaneously challenging the financial sustainability of these industries.
As students demand more accessible, cost-effective and targeted learning experiences, colleges and universities must confront the same forces that have upended these other industries—or risk being left behind.
As higher education faces its own pressures to evolve, this unbundling offers both a cautionary tale and a blueprint for how colleges and universities might reimagine their value propositions in a rapidly changing landscape.
Throughout the 20th century, American colleges and universities operated as tightly bundled institutions, offering far more than just classroom instruction. Students received a comprehensive package that combined academics with a wide array of extracurricular activities, social experiences, residential life, career services and access to campus resources such as libraries, athletic facilities and cultural events. This model created an immersive environment where education, personal development and social networking were intertwined.
Academically, universities bundled general education, major-specific coursework and electives, offering students both broad-based learning and specialized knowledge in their chosen fields. The traditional four-year degree was structured around a core curriculum aimed at cultivating well-rounded citizens with critical thinking, communication and problem-solving skills.
Beyond academics, student life played a critical role in the bundled experience. Dorm living, clubs, sports teams and campus traditions fostered community and school spirit. Career counseling, internships, study abroad and alumni networks were also part of the package, enhancing the institution’s value and contributing to students’ professional development.
This comprehensive model provided not just education but also social capital. Attending a university meant more than earning a degree; it was about building lifelong connections, growing intellectually and personally and joining an institutional legacy.
Financially, the bundled model was sustained by tuition payments that covered the full range of academic and campus services. Public universities were also heavily subsidized by state governments, making higher education accessible and reinforcing the idea that a college education was key to socioeconomic mobility.
However, the bundled model faces growing challenges. Rising costs—driven by the expansion of administrative and student support services, amenities, and research-focused priorities at selective institutions—helped make the traditional college experience increasingly expensive. As tuition surged and student debt climbed, questions arose about the value of the bundled product, particularly for students who did not fully engage with or benefit from all the services and activities included.
In recent years, this model has faced significant disruption. As families become more cost-conscious and alternative education pathways emerge, the pressure to unbundle the traditional college experience has intensified. Online education, dual-degree programs and new credentialing options allow students to bypass elements of the traditional bundle, seeking more flexible and targeted approaches to learning.
As these trends continue, the 20th-century bundled model of higher education is increasingly being challenged, forcing universities to rethink their offerings to stay competitive and relevant in a rapidly evolving educational landscape.
Over the past dozen years, many self-described higher ed disrupters and innovators argued that the time was ripe for the radical reinvention of higher education, with the aim of creating cheaper, faster routes into the labor force. They envisioned a host of innovations, including:
- Alternate learning platforms: In the same way Substack and other independent platforms have disrupted traditional media, visionaries envisioned traditional universities facing competition not only from fully online universities like Southern New Hampshire and Western Governors, but from a host of nondegree providers, like coding academies, self-paced courses and credentialing programs offered by tech firms and MOOC platforms. These innovations, it was thought, would force higher education to reconsider its pricing models, expand online offerings and forge partnerships with industry to stay relevant in this evolving educational landscape.
- Disaggregated credentials: Just as consumers now choose individual songs over full albums, students, some mistakenly believed, would increasingly seek specific skills, certifications or knowledge without committing to a full degree program. Microcredentials, digital badges, certificates and short-term courses would allow learners to unbundle their education, acquiring only the components they found valuable or necessary for their career goals. To meet this demand for flexible learning pathways, institutions would be forced to offer modular, stackable credentials.
- Skills and competency-based learning: The shift away from broad-based degree programs to specific, skills-based learning would accelerate, as employers increasingly value demonstrable skills and experience over formal degrees. Universities would have to better align their offerings with labor market needs by providing more targeted programs and courses that deliver immediate, practical value to students. They’d also focus more on skills and competencies rather than knowledge, which, supposedly, was readily available online and quickly outdated.
- Personalized learning experiences: Just as unbundling has allowed consumers to customize their media consumption by curating playlists, news feeds and subscriptions, higher education would offer more flexible, student-centered learning experiences. Institutions would provide hybrid or fully online options, customizable curricula and support services tailored to individual needs and goals.
- Data-driven, AI-powered instruction: With fine-grained learning analytics, universities could diagnose gaps in students’ knowledge and skills, while AI could provide immediate feedback, personalized tutoring and remediation. AI-powered learning pathways could be tailored to students’ interests and needs, creating highly individualized educational experiences.
Spoiler alert: These ideas have largely failed to gain traction. Other developments have taken root more widely, such as the growing availability of college credits for high school students, the vast expansion of online learning opportunities, including asynchronous classes, and a significant increase in online graduate programs. While radical change has been envisioned, the practical reshaping of higher education has occurred through more incremental steps, such as expanded access to flexible learning and more career-focused educational models.
A key aspect of this unbundling is the increasing delivery of lower-division general education courses through early-college and dual-degree programs. These programs allow high school students to earn college credits before they set foot on campus, offering significant benefits such as reduced tuition costs, accelerated degree completion and the ability to bypass general education requirements traditionally completed in the first two years of college. For many families, these options make higher education more affordable and appealing.
However, for colleges and universities, this trend poses significant challenges. General education has long been seen as central to shaping students’ foundational knowledge, critical thinking skills and interdisciplinary understanding. When students complete these courses elsewhere, institutions lose control over the quality and educational philosophy of these courses. In addition, losing the opportunity to influence students’ early academic experiences weakens the institution’s brand identity and dilutes the sense of connection that typically develops during the first years of college.
Another major component of unbundling is the rise of asynchronous online courses, which allow students to learn at their own pace without being bound to specific times or locations. This flexibility makes education more accessible to a broader range of students who may have work, family or geographic constraints. Asynchronous courses dismantle the traditional model of live, in-person instruction, giving students more control over their learning schedules.
Yet this flexibility comes with trade-offs. Asynchronous learning lacks real-time interaction between students and instructors, making it more difficult for students to ask questions, engage in discussions and receive immediate feedback. It also hampers the development of a sense of community, which is vital for collaboration, motivation and emotional support.
Moreover, asynchronous learning demands a high level of self-discipline and time management, which some students may struggle with, leading to lower completion rates and poor academic outcomes. The lack of set class times and regular check-ins can exacerbate procrastination and passive learning, with students absorbing content without fully engaging with it. This can result in shallow learning and lower retention of material.
Another concern is that asynchronous courses delay or reduce feedback, hindering students’ ability to correct misunderstandings or improve their performance in real time. The absence of immediate feedback, which is a hallmark of traditional classroom settings, can slow students’ progress.
Finally, asynchronous learning poses challenges for maintaining academic integrity. With fewer opportunities for direct oversight during assessments, there is a greater risk of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism or cheating on exams.
Higher education’s great unbundling has had its most significant impact at the graduate level, where flexible and online programs are reshaping the landscape in response to market forces. Universities have increasingly adapted their graduate offerings to align with labor market demands, rapidly expanding programs in high-demand areas such as artificial intelligence, financial technology, health-care administration and environmental science. These fields are attractive to both universities and students because they promise strong job prospects and high salaries, making them a key selling point for institutions seeking to attract a broader, more diverse student base, including working professionals.
However, the reality often fails to live up to the promise. Many of these graduate programs are marketed heavily, with the expectation that they will lead to immediate career advancement or high-paying jobs. Yet, in all too many cases, students find that these programs do not deliver the expected outcomes, whether due to mismatches between the curriculum and real-world job demands or because of the oversaturation of graduates in particular fields.
Moreover, while these online graduate programs open new revenue streams for universities, they now face a market crowded with competitors offering similar degrees, certifications and credentials. The influx of new programs and institutions into the market, combined with the expansion of nontraditional education providers, has created a competitive environment where standing out is increasingly difficult. Many programs promise convenience and career advancement but fail to deliver the expected outcomes.
To succeed in this evolving marketplace, universities will need to differentiate their programs by building a reputation for delivering tangible outcomes, such as high job placement rates and career advancement for graduates. A key factor in this differentiation will be the perceived value that students receive—not only in terms of the prestige of the degree but also the quality of the learning experience, faculty expertise and networking opportunities provided. Institutions that fail to prioritize these aspects may struggle to maintain enrollment numbers or justify their tuition rates.
In addition, universities must consider how to offer programs that provide real, marketable skills and competencies rather than simply riding the wave of popular fields. Institutions that can create strong connections between their academic offerings and the needs of employers, providing students with practical, hands-on experience and mentorship, will likely have an advantage.
The great unbundling presents a double-edged sword for higher education, much like the transformation that has swept through industries such as music, media and publishing.
On the positive side, unbundling has the potential to offer students increased flexibility, lower costs and more flexible, customized learning pathways. For working professionals, online courses, certificates and modularized learning provide opportunities to upskill or pivot careers without the time and financial commitment of returning to a full-time degree program. In this sense, unbundling democratizes higher education, making it more accessible and affordable for a wider range of learners.
However, while unbundling offers flexibility, it often lacks the rigor and cohesion that a traditional college experience provides. As more students acquire college credits through high school programs or asynchronous online courses, they miss out on the essential college experience—engagement with peers, deep interaction with expert faculty and the kind of critical discourse that enriches learning. The focus on discrete skills and credentials risks overshadowing the value of a broad-based liberal education, which fosters critical thinking, creativity and a more profound understanding of the world.
This trend also poses significant risks to traditional campus business models, which rely heavily on cross-subsidies—where large lecture courses help fund smaller, specialized programs. If unbundling accelerates, universities’ financial strains will likely worsen, as fewer students enroll in traditional degree programs that support these specialized offerings.
So far, the unbundling of higher education has been limited. Most students still want a traditional college experience, valuing the sense of community, extracurricular activities and holistic development that campuses offer. The more radical proposals for innovation, like three-year degree pathways and stackable degrees, face resistance from faculty and accreditors and cultural barriers, as both students and parents continue to prize the traditional degree experience, which represents not just an accumulation of knowledge but also a rite of passage and a comprehensive educational journey.
Most students still desire the social and developmental benefits of attending college in person—networking opportunities, mentorship and the immersive campus environment remain strong draws. The traditional degree, therefore, continues to carry symbolic and practical weight, offering more than just credentials but also the personal growth and shared experiences that shape students’ futures.
The future of unbundling in higher education will depend on how institutions adapt to these evolving dynamics. Colleges and universities must rethink their value proposition, delivery models and financial structures if they are to thrive in an educational landscape that is rapidly evolving.
The institutions that succeed will be those that creatively integrate unbundled learning into their broader frameworks, ensuring that students still receive a high-quality, comprehensive education that prepares them for the complexities of a rapidly changing world.
While higher education has so far resisted a wholesale shift toward unbundling, it is unclear whether it can continue to do so, at least at the most demographically and financially threatened institutions. The financial stresses on institutions, coupled with changing student preferences, suggest that the traditional bundled model of college may become less sustainable over time. Institutions that fail to adapt could face the same disruptions seen in other sectors, as they confront increasing competition from alternative providers of education and credentials that offer cheaper, faster and more flexible options.
In this evolving landscape, colleges and universities will need to strike a delicate balance: maintaining the holistic value of a traditional education while offering more flexible, career-focused pathways. Those that can successfully integrate flexibility with their traditional strengths will be better positioned to thrive in the future, while those that resist change may find themselves struggling to compete in an increasingly unbundled world.