At first glance, this looks like a consolidation of power in a market that already lacks depth. My initial reaction – like several others – was that we were watching a monopoly form. It raised obvious concerns: fewer options, less competition and innovation, and limited paths forward for both independent campus stores and lease operators. But after taking a closer look, the story is more complicated. There’s actually more competition and model diversity than there has ever been. So, before rushing to conclusions, let’s take a look back at how we got here.

Retrospective Timeline 

October 2022 – Follett acquired Willo Labs. I remember thinking this was a pretty smart play. Willo had solid reach into the independent campus store space and Canadian markets. Operationally, Willo functioned like a digital transaction manager – similar to RedShelf and VitalSource. The twist was that a lease operator now owned a digital delivery platform instead of just partnering with one. At the time, I believed it had the potential to shift how lease operators would manage digital delivery and eBooks.

March 2023 – Nebraska Book Company closed its doors. This left a noticeable gap in the used book market, and I think it still persists today. I am not sure if we have any data confirming less availability in the used book market drove digital adoption, but it would be an interesting review.

March 2023 – VitalSource announced it had acquired Akademos. This was a big one. Akademos was one of the top-six lease operators, in my view. My concern at the time was whether competitors using VitalSource would be at a disadvantage. I was worried that the Akademos side of the business might get access to platform data and use it to gain pricing or RFP advantages. Two years later, that never seemed to happen. I’ve had conversations across the lease operator space and haven’t heard any real complaints. Still, it was a fair concern to raise at the time.

October 2023 – BibliU announced it had acquired Texas Book Company (TBC). This caught my attention. BibliU seemed like a small UK player trying to make inroads in the U.S. but without the logistics to compete. Acquiring TBC gave them physical infrastructure and the ability to run hybrid and brick-and-mortar operations. It moved them from being a RedShelf/VitalSource competitor to a real lease operator. Based on how they’ve held up over the last year and a half, it looks like they’re not just hanging on – they’re building something.

October 2024 – Follett announced they were shuttering Willo Labs for independent campus stores. In a letter to those campuses, they made it clear that continuing to support indie store integrations wasn’t financially viable. The shift made sense: Follett didn’t acquire Willo to keep running third-party integrations – they acquired it to build leverage for their own managed stores. Still, the timing caught many campuses off guard and forced a lot of them to regroup quickly.

March 2025 – Follett dropped another big one: they were leaving RedShelf and shifting their digital and eBook operations to UK-based Kortext. This likely meant that close to 1,000 campuses would transition away from RedShelf in only a few short months. It was a significant loss, and at the time, it felt like it might be a death blow. But I didn’t count RedShelf out. Their work on Cascading Access was forward-thinking – giving students the ability to move between Equitable Access and Inclusive Access or opt out entirely. It was one of the only models out there that gave students some middle ground instead of the usual all-or-nothing. This model will take deep root over the next 2-3 years as more providers bring their cascading models to market – as VitalSource did with their Flexible Access model in Fall 2024.

April 2025 – VitalSource and RedShelf both announced on LinkedIn that VitalSource had acquired RedShelf. I did not see this coming.

Commentary

Given all the jockeying between digital transactions manager and lease operator acquisitions, I expected that if RedShelf was to be acquired, it would be by a bookstore lease operator or possibly a private equity firm looking to stake a claim. I did not expect VitalSource to be the one making the move – but it makes sense.

The first thing to consider is the likely size of the deal. It might not be as big as it seems. After Follett pulled its accounts, RedShelf likely lost more than half its store count – maybe as much as 65-70%. With a drop that steep, their valuation likely followed, making the acquisition more attractive for VitalSource and more of a necessity for RedShelf

Second, while VitalSource is a global player with significant reach, broad scale doesn’t automatically translate to keeping pace with innovation. Staying competitive in this market requires constant tech upgrades and platform improvements. By acquiring RedShelf, VitalSource picks up some useful tools and personnel that could strengthen their offerings and help them respond faster to the evolving demands of students, campuses, and stores.

So yes, the market lost a major player – but it didn’t become empty. There are new (and existing) companies carving out space where VitalSource hasn’t or can’t. The main ones I am watching are Bibliu, Kortext, Perlego, and the publishers themselves. Don’t underestimate what the publishers are doing on their own, especially with the announcements of artificial intelligence integrations made by Cengage, McGraw Hill and Pearson.

Market Competition

I haven’t done a full deep dive into each of these companies – hopefully in a Part 2 (And if you work at one of them, we should chat). But here’s a snapshot of what they are doing that likely pressured VitalSource into this acquisition – and why competition in the market is more active than it looks on the surface.

Bibliu

At a fundamental level, Bibliu came to the US market as a competitor to RedShelf and VitalSource.  The acquisition of Texas Book Company expanded their role, but at their core, they still deliver digital materials and now have the infrastructure to support physical and hybrid models too.

There may be questions about the strength of their eReader or faculty adoption tool compared to other competitors, but where they’re clearly seeking to differentiate themselves is with their reporting and analytics. Bibliu is able to report data to faculty at a program, course, and book level that includes things like in-book actions, reading time, and chapter/feature usage. This level of reporting and analytics could be a major differentiator for campuses that care about tracking usage and engagement.

What originally made Bibliu feel like a company ready to disrupt the course materials space is still there.  To capture the independent market, they need to leverage their digital and physical capabilities in the same way VitalSource/Akademos has leveraged theirs. If they’re not actively exploring that, I think it is a missed opportunity for growth and revenue.

Perlego

As a UK-based course materials provider, Perlego is positioning itself in the U.S. as a kind of “Spotify for Textbooks” – offering a subscription-based, buffet-style model. One price gets you access to all of the content on their platform. They are doing an impressive job in Europe and they could do the same in the U.S., especially as they continue to advance the functionality of their eReader and text-to-speech capabilities.

Their standout feature is Smart Search, powered by AI. As artificial intelligence continues to mature and integrate into more learning technologies, the company that uses it most effective could have an edge. While Perlego doesn’t currently offer courseware or access to the Big Three (Cengage, McGraw Hill, Pearson) they’re still worth paying attention to – especially for independent campus stores looking for digital-first options and lease operators looking to expand their digital catalogue.

Kortext

I don’t have deep insights into Kortext yet, other than what’s publicly available. My guess is that their deal with Follett includes some form of exclusivity – at least for now. Once the Follett rollout is complete, Kortext could have a real opening in the independent store market, if their tools are advanced and supportive as they seem.

What I’m most interested in is their AI strategy. Perlego’s starting to push into that space – what is Kortext doing behind the scenes that could benefit the broader course materials ecosystem? Additionally, their AI study tools give off vibes of Barnes & Noble’s Bartleby product (since sold off) and Chegg Study. Will they continue to charge students in the Follett partnership for these products or will it be included as part of their agreement? That is something worth watching as Follett and Kortext roll out this fall.

Publishers

Long before the introduction of digital transactions managers, Publishers were doing their own campus integrations and digital content management. That hasn’t stopped. I’ve worked with several institutions that integrate directly with publishers and skip RedShelf or VitalSource entirely. Major publishers still support campus stores and can partner with lease operators directly. They never left; they’ve just been adapting to the environment.

Potential Concerns

While I see plenty of reasons to believe the market is still competitive, this acquisition doesn’t come without potential concerns. Anytime two major players merge – especially in a market with limited U.S.-based alternatives – it creates ripple effects. The RedShelf brand may live on in name or tech, but operationally, this is now a one-platform scenario for many institutions. That shift raises questions about pricing, choice, and the direction of future innovation. And while global players are stepping up/in, the immediate impact of this acquisition will be felt by most U.S. campuses navigating tight budgets, short timelines, and already-limited bandwidth to reevaluate vendor alternatives.

Pricing Pressure

The cost of this acquisition is unknown. However, RedShelf’s shrinking footprint and the timing suggest VitalSource got it at a discount. Still, even a “good deal” requires cash or capital, and those costs need to be recovered somehow. One potential concern is whether institutions and students will see increases in pricing as a result – outside of inflation. Will Inclusive or Equitable Access programs negotiated through VitalSource become more expensive? Even modest increases, spread across hundreds or even thousands of institutions, could add up quickly. This bears watching to see how it plays out, if at all.

US-Based Competition Just Got Thinner

Yes, there’s still competition – but it’s increasingly coming from outside the U.S. The competitors I mentioned previously are all UK-based. The only notable U.S.-based competition in the market just got absorbed. For independent stores that value domestic services, support, and data compliance infrastructure, that could be a concern. With fewer U.S.-based providers, there may be less incentive for VitalSource to prioritize localized service, price negotiations, or platform improvements.

Institutional Leverage Shrinks

Independent stores and lease operators have long used the presence of RedShelf and VitalSource to play one against the other when negotiating platform fees or service terms. That leverage is gone. While other competitors may be viable alternatives, they are not yet embedded in the U.S. market at scale. That might leave many institutions without a credible back up plan.

Technology Consolidation Risks

One of RedShelf’s strengths was its innovation. Now that RedShelf is under the VitalSource umbrella, the concern is whether those innovations will continue, get absorbed and rebranded, or worse, get deprioritized in favor of VitalSource’s roadmap. Consolidation often comes with efficiency, but it can also lead to stagnation if there’s no internal pressure to keep iterating.

Long-Term Data Implications

While there’s no evidence that VitalSource leveraged competitor or partner data post-Akademos, the growing stack of platform services under one company raises long-term concerns. With so many campuses and lease operators running through one-system, what guardrails are in place to ensure data is siloed, secured, and not used to shape pricing strategies or RFP responses?

All these concerns are real, and institutions should pay attention. But they run counter to what I think this acquisition is really about. This wasn’t just about eliminating a competitor – it was about staying ahead of the competition. VitalSource didn’t just acquire RedShelf because the market is collapsing. They did it because the market is evolving, and RedShelf had the tech, tools, and people that could help them move faster. Innovation is still happening, and this acquisition, while a consolidation, is also a bet on what’s next for the market.

Moving Forward

The challenge for VitalSource and its competitors is that the course materials distribution point has changed. A decade or more ago, it was the point-of-sale system. Now, it’s the digital transaction platform. These companies are expected to be enterprise-level distributors, manage and enhance content, address data privacy, deliver robust analytics, and now integrate artificial intelligence.

No single company can do all of that well. Not at scale. What’s more likely is that each provider will bring something different to the table and campuses will pick the one that aligns best with their priorities.

So, while Monday’s announcement may feel like contraction, I don’t think it’s the monopoly I initially worried it was. There’s still competition out there – maybe more than ever. What makes this moment feel uncertain is the effort involved in figuring out what’s next and who is left. But if you are an independent store or lease operator asking, “Where do we go from here?” – I hope this article gives you a place to start.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

If you have ever seen/heard me present, one of the most important parts of my presentation is my favorite quote from Lester Frank Ward, “The thing that is rare is opportunity, not ability”. Ward is credited with leading the efforts to make sociology an academic discipline in higher education in the United States. His work also furthered the concept of intellectual egalitarianism. He argued that providing equal access to education was critical to creating a more equitable society and addressing the inequalities of that society. He believed that educational opportunities should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their social or economic standing. It is my opinion and belief that ensuring access to course materials, regardless of acquisition or delivery model, for every student is a partial fulfillment of Ward’s quest for intellectual egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism

Before we can understand intellectual egalitarianism, we need to understand the concept of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a social, political, and philosophical tenet that advocates for equality among all people. The concept encompasses a wide variety of theories and movements that support the idea that all individuals should have equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources, regardless of their social, economic, and/or cultural background. Egalitarianism has had a significant influence on social and political movements like the feminist movement, civil rights movement, and LGBTQ rights movements. Essentially, it is the foundation for anyone advocating for social justice and equality.

Intellectual Egalitarianism (IE)

The Ward quote is so poignant for me is because intellectual egalitarianism is the belief that all individuals (read students) have equal potential for intellectual development and the capacity for knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, it suggests that human intelligence is not fixed and with the right opportunities and environment, people (read students) can develop their intellectual capacities. This is obviously in contrast to those who believe that specific individuals or groups are innately superior (discrimination, prejudice, racism) in terms of intelligence or cognitive abilities. Intellectual egalitarianism supports the idea that everyone should have equal access to educational opportunities and intellectual resources regardless of social background, economic status, race, or gender.

Course Materials and IE

As I said before, my belief is that increasing access to course materials for all students is a partial fulfilment of the intellectual egalitarianism Ward inspired with his work. Inclusive Access and other revolutionary course materials intervention models are the manifestation of modern-day intellectual egalitarianism in higher education. These revolutionary interventions aim to provide access to course materials to all students regardless of their social background, economic status, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristic . As these course materials intervention models remove barriers to course materials for students, they fulfill the notion that when equally resourced, all students have the potential for intellectual development and capacity for knowledge/understanding. To support this, I draw on my own research that indicates increased access to course materials can impact student outcomes.

Course Materials and IE in Practice

My conviction, regardless of strength, is insufficient. So, here are a few ways increased access to course materials promotes intellectual egalitarianism in higher education. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but provoke thought:

Reducing Financial Barriers

The historically high costs of course materials have disproportionately affected students from lower economic backgrounds. The impact of high costs has limited their access to necessary educational resources. Inclusive Access, and similar interventions, aim to reduce financial barriers by making course materials more affordable and accessible, thus promoting a more equitable learning environment.

Empowering Underrepresented Groups

Course materials interventions like Inclusive Access can support historically underrepresented student groups like first-generation students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students with disabilities by making course materials more accessible. Increased access to essential learning resources helps create a more level educational playing field. This allows underrepresented students groups to overcome some of the systemic higher education barriers that may otherwise limit their educational opportunities. This may be the mot important aspect of intellectual egalitarianism in higher education because the current “find and acquire” course materials models prevent certain student populations from choosing their preferred major or courses because of the course materials barrier.

Social Mobility

Traditionally, higher education has been seen as a key driver of social mobility. Increased access to course materials can contribute to this by providing all students with the resources necessary to succeed. When students have equal access to knowledge, resources, and course materials, they are better positioned to seek high-paying careers.

Wrap Up

Increased access to course materials creates a more equitable and just learning environment where all students can succeed and contribute to the collective intellectual growth of society. Intellectual egalitarianism is a concept. A goal. Something to strive for. While not everyone will agree with the adoption of an egalitarian model of society, we can all agree that having access to education should not be reserved for those with resources or born into a certain demographic. As course materials stakeholders, we can create a more equitable and level educational experience for all students by ensuring they have access to the requisite course materials and learning resources.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

Over the last five years, the growth of Inclusive Access (IA) and Open Educational Resources (OER) has sparked wild discourse within course materials and higher education. Rather than getting bogged down in the debate between the use of the Inclusive Access and OER, I want to discuss how these two course materials models can coexist and complement each other in providing students with affordable and accessible course materials. As a reminder, Inclusive Access focuses on providing, mostly digital, access to publisher driven content at reduced costs. Whereas, OER provides access to open access resources that can be used, adapted, and shared by anyone. Digital OER is generally free but print versions do cost students to obtain. So, let’s think about how IA and OER can work together to impact the most students across higher education with reduced costs and increased access to course materials.

Coexisting Course Materials

Supporters and opponents of IA and OER seem to be diametrically opposed to each other, but the reality is that both models can and need to coexist in higher education. Rather than a “one or the other” mentality, all course materials stakeholders need to embrace the other to support students on their academic journey. Here are a few ways that support the coexistence of IA and OER in higher education.

– Cost and Quality 

Inclusive Access provides students with more affordable access to publisher-driven materials, while OER offers generally free resources. Having both options available on campus can strike a balance between cost and quality. This ensures students have access to a range of materials that best fit their financial and educational needs. For students from low-income backgrounds or underrepresented student groups, this can help address issues of equity and access to higher education.

– Innovation in Teaching and Learning

Having both Inclusive Access and OER available on campus can foster a culture of innovation and creativity in teaching and learning. Faculty members can experiment with different types of resources, combining the strengths of publisher-driven content in Inclusive Access with the flexibility and adaptability of OER. This combination can lead to more engaging, effective, and student-centered learning experiences.

– Diverse Course Needs

Different courses may require different types of resources. Things like subject matter, course objectives, and learning outcomes may impact course materials choices for faculty. Inclusive Access can provide students with access to high-quality publisher-driven content that may be more suited to certain disciplines or topics. Simultaneously, OER can offer customizable and adaptable resources that can be tailored to the specific needs of other courses, particularly when faculty want to create unique learning experiences or address interdisciplinary topics.

– Faculty Choice

Offering Inclusive Access and OER options, empowers faculty members to choose the resources that best align with their pedagogical needs, course objectives, and personal beliefs about course materials and education. This can promote a sense of autonomy and ownership among faculty, as they can select the materials that best support their goals and the needs of their students. Academic freedom for faculty is paramount in higher education in the United States. Any course materials program that limits which course materials a faculty member can adopt is going to be met with resistance. Allowing faculty to choose their course materials will ensure buy-in and engagement with the materials.

– Resource Sharing and Collaboration

The availability of both Inclusive Access and OER on campus can encourage collaboration and resource sharing among faculty members. Those who have experience with either model can share their insights and experiences with colleagues. This will help build a supportive community of educators working together to improve teaching and learning.

My Position

I talk a lot about Inclusive and Equitable Access (EA), so it can appear as if I am opposed to OER. However, I have said on multiple occasions that I believe that OER has a rightful place in the course materials revolution. OER is an important element in the quest for affordability and access to course materials. Programs like the California State University Affordable Learning $olutions program is an example of how Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and OER can live under the same roof. This type of program ensures that faculty and students have access to a range of course materials options in terms of cost, quality, and adaptability.

Wrap Up

If you have spent any time as a course materials stakeholder or observer, you are aware of the seemingly opposing forces of IA and OER. Honestly, it’s absurd to think that it must be one or the other in terms of providing or adopting IA or OER options. There is a right fit for both models and the acceptance of this by ALL course materials stakeholders is critical to serving the one higher education stakeholder that matters the most: Students.

If you would like to receive updates as new articles are posted, please subscribe below. And, as always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

John Dewey, an American educational theorist, advanced the learning-by-doing principle in the early 1900s. Dewey’s theoretical perspective has been furthered as the adoption and use of digital course materials and courseware has taken rise over the decade. Learning-by-doing has also become known as the “doer-effect”. The doer-effect or learning-by-doing suggests that learners can develop a deeper understanding of concepts and retain information more effectively when they actively engage in problem-solving, experimentation, and hands-on activities rather than passively consuming information – like the one-way push of information of print. The principles of these theories align with the adoption of digital course materials and courseware in higher education. Digital course materials and courseware offer opportunities for active learning and engagement. Here are five examples of how the doer-effect/learning-by-doing theories are supported by the adoption of digital course materials and courseware:

Interactivity

Digital course materials and courseware platforms use interactive elements like simulations, virtual labs, and a variety of media which allows students to actively engage with the material, apply their knowledge, and use hands-on experience to test their understanding. The interactive features promote these learning theories by enabling students to learn more effectively through direct involvement and experimentation.

Immediate Feedback

Courseware includes instructor assessments, self-assessment, and quizzes to provide immediate feedback to students. This helps students identify areas needed for improvement which helps them adjust their learning strategies either on their own or with their instructor. This real-time feedback allows students to learn from their mistakes, reinforces their understanding of the material, and apply their knowledge more effectively.

Personalization and Adaptivity

Digital courseware can be tailored to an individual student’s needs, preferences, and learning styles. Adaptive learning algorithms adjust the content and assessments based on the student’s performance. This ensures that students receive specific support/reinforcement in areas where they are struggling.

Collaboration and Peer Learning

Many digital course materials and courseware platforms include tools for collaboration and communication like discussion boards, chat, and collaborative functions. Features like this can foster peer learning and enable students to engage in collaborative problem-solving, group projects, and knowledge sharing.

Real-world Applications

Courseware can incorporate real-world examples, case studies, and scenarios. These experiences help students see and feel the practical applications of the concepts they are learning in the classroom. Connecting course and subject content to real-world situations, courseware encourages students to apply their knowledge and skills in relevant contexts.

Wrap Up

Since John Dewey popularized the learning-by-doing theory, modern researchers have morphed the theory into what is known as the doer-effect. I believe these theoretical lenses support the adoption of digital in higher education. Digital course materials and courseware emphasize the importance of active learning, engagement, and hands-on experiences in promoting student understanding and retention. Courseware platforms can effectively facilitate these experiences and contribute to improved learning outcomes for students. I have routinely been asked if access to course materials or course materials type is more important. Based on my work, I believe that access to course materials should be the top priority. However, the growing use of digital requires us to look beyond affordability and preference to how technology can help students learn, retain information, and ultimately be more successful in their academic pursuits.

As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM