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

A question I have been asked many times over the last few years is whether I have a list, or know if one exists, of all the institutions who have adopted course materials intervention models like Inclusive and Equitable Access. In my conversations with various stakeholders I’ve seen bits and pieces of lists. Many of them are incomplete or lack key details about the institutions. I have always wondered why one didn’t exist. Surely, there had to be someone who compiled a detailed list.

Let’s Build It

As many of you know, I transitioned out of working in and around course materials in a direct, day-to-day capacity almost a year ago. So, I haven’t had the time or resources to dedicate to making a list. However, after an intense conversation with some campus leaders a few months ago, I decided I needed this list, even if just for myself. So, I set out to do it. It took several months of nights and weekends, but here we are. I have a…partial list. I’ve scoped the top 1,000 institutions by headcount according to available IPEDS data to determine if they are using a course materials intervention model like Inclusive and Equitable Access.

Approach and Process

Creating a list of just names of institutions using  course materials intervention models wasn’t going to cut it.  I needed to understand which schools were using these models, where they were located, their size, whether or not they were a Minority Serving Institution, and some other data points about them I wasn’t sure I wanted or will even use. The usefulness of this list was going to be determined by how detailed I could make it.

I started with IPEDS. My institutional selection condition was Title IV (federal financial aid) participation status. If the institution wasn’t participating in or eligible for Title IV, they didn’t make the list. After I had my list of 5,918 institutions, I had to select my variables. Beyond the IPEDS ID and institutional name, I have 23 other potential IPEDS variables by which to segment. To round out the top 1,000 list with information not available in IPEDS, I used a combination of personal knowledge and comprehensive desk research. There are some limitations to this approach which I will address later.

By the Numbers

There are over 5,900 institutions of higher education who are participating in or eligible for Title IV federal financial aid funding, according to IPEDS. These range from schools with 10 students to over 200,000 students. Focusing on the Top 1,000 institutions (16.90% of the total available institutions), I found there are 524 (52.40%) institutions using some variation of a course materials intervention model like Inclusive and Equitable Access. Of those 524 institutions, 411 (78.44%) are using Inclusive Access and 113 (21.56%) are using Equitable Access.

As we review some of the data, remember this data is only from the Top 1,000 institutions by headcount per IPEDS. Chat 1 highlights inclusive access programs by state. California leads the way with 45 institutions using some sort of course by course access model and Texas is second with 30.

Chart 2 examines the number of institutions in the top 1,000 using a campus-wide model. Again, California leads the way with 12, but Texas with 11 and Florida with 9 are close behind.

Something I, and many others, have wondered over the last few years is whether or not there is a particular type of institution that is more likely to adopted these course materials intervention models. I think the next few charts give us a pretty good picture from the Top 1,000. Admittedly, it is very possible these graphs change as we expand the list from 1,000 to 2,000 and beyond. Chart 3 examines access program types by institutional size. For this chart, institutional size can be read as FTE or Full-Time Equivalent, which is a different metric than the headcount metric with which I started. I like this metric because it buckets institutions into groups more easily than using the widely varying headcount metric.

Chart 4 looks at access program types by sector. There are four sector types in this Top 1,000 segment: Private For-Profit (4Y+), Private Not-For-Profit (4Y+), Public (2Y), and Public (4Y+). In this sample, we can see that Public (4Y+) institutions have more widely adopted Inclusive and Equitable Access. This aligns with anecdotal evidence and things I have heard over the last few years . It is cool to see it validated in the Top 1,000 list.

Chart 5 is just for fun. Since I had the variable, and we had already looked at program types by state, I figured why not? IPEDS has a region variable where they bucket institutions based on their geographic region. The Southeast region leads the list with 139 access programs followed by Far West (79) and Great Lakes (74).

Limitations

There are a few important limitations to this work that we need to address:

• The list of institutions and variable data are from IPEDS, which means I have no control over the variable data or its accuracy. Institutions self-report data to IPEDS.
• I could have made an error in contributing or not contributing an IA/EA program to an institution from my desk research.
• Multi-campus institutions only count once – sometimes. There are at least two schools in the Top 1,000 that I personally know have multiple campuses and are using IA or EA. IPEDS data counts those institutions as one single institution, therefore they are only counted once in this research. They were most likely counted as individual campuses in previous attempts I have made to understand the scale and scope of IA/EA. I am sure this limitation will be an area of contention once the list is complete.
• This is not, and was never intended to be, scientific research,

Wrap Up

This is just the start. Over the next few weeks and months, I will continue to scope the IA/EA market in hopes of presenting  a more accurate and detailed picture of what the adoption of Inclusive and Equitable Access looks like across higher education. We hope that you found this first part of our work helpful or insightful.

If your campus is looking for support adopting a course materials intervention model like Inclusive or Equitable Access or evaluating your current program, we have limited space for 2025 to add new clients to our growing consulting portfolio. Contact us today to learn how we can help you drive unparalleled access to course materials and increased student success for your campus.

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

-MM

Below is an open letter that was sent to Dr. Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, regarding the proposed language changes to Cash Management rules that impact students being able to use Title IV funds for programs like Inclusive and Equitable Access. To date, there are 97 signatures representing 75 institutions. If you are interested in signaling your support to continue to allow for these programs to exist in a way that we know is supporting student equity to access in higher education and along their journey to degree attainment, you can still sign on to the open letter at the bottom of the page.

-Mike

Open Letter to the Department of Education

February 14, 2024

The Honorable Miguel Cardona Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Secretary Cardona,

As representatives of American universities and colleges, we are alarmed to learn that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is moving to curb access and affordability course materials programs such as Inclusive Access – which are highly effective offerings that provide low-cost, high-quality course materials to students at our nation’s institutions of higher education, dramatically increase faculty and student choice, and deliver particularly strong benefits to low income and at-risk populations.

We request that you move quickly and decisively to protect and preserve these critically important options for course materials by retaining the current rules. Given many of the concerns raised during the negotiation sessions, we encourage the Department to consider this feedback in its next draft of language during this process.

By way of background, access and affordability programs such as Inclusive Access were developed by colleges and universities during the Obama-Biden administration when the Department of Education issued federal guidance creating an important mechanism for institutions of higher learning to include course material expenses as part of tuition and fees, with the caveat that those materials had to be offered to students at a cost below the competitive market rate. This move enabled low-income students to pay for course materials through their federal grants and loans–rather than going out of pocket–providing significant relief to those struggling to afford their degree.

In the years that followed the introduction of these programs, the positive impact has been nothing less than extraordinary. More than 1,900 colleges and universities (nearly 50%) from across the country now offer access and affordability programs based on the rules created during the Obama-Biden era.

The response from students has been extremely positive as well. In just one example, 83% of students surveyed at Norfolk State University said that such programs had a positive impact on their academic success, and 89% said that they would be likely to recommend the program to other students.

In terms of affordability, these programs have contributed to a dramatic 57% decline in student spending on course materials over the past decade, according to independent research group Student Watch. As part of that ongoing trend, students now spend an average of just $310 a year in the category, according to the 2023 Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid Report from the College Board.

While the benefits in terms of affordability are clear, students also always have the choice of opting out of the program and acquiring the course materials they need elsewhere.

In short, these programs are an essential tool for making higher education affordable to a broader range of Americans than ever before.

Additionally, these affordability and access programs accelerate student access to high-quality course materials, providing them seamlessly on or before the first day of class, and dramatically improve student outcomes and retention rates.

Programs providing early access to course materials have been shown to have particularly strong benefits for the most underserved student populations. In fact, recent independent academic research has shown substantial increases in course completion rates for at-risk groups, including Black students (up 21%), students over the age of 25 (up 6%), and female students (up 13%) who participate in these programs

.While there is no one-size fits all solution when it comes to course materials, these programs provide faculty and students with the option to choose high-quality materials at an affordable rate, while at the same time providing critically important support to at-risk groups.

The proposed regulation updates would effectively gut these programs by making it much more difficult for students to apply their federal student aid to course materials, undermining the successful legacy of a key Obama-Biden era campaign promise to bolster quality and affordability in higher education.

Affordability and access programs will, of course, continue to improve and evolve over time. We are committed to enhanced transparency and disclosure for students. But there is simply no good reason to threaten the extraordinary progress that these programs have made in terms of affordability and improved student outcomes over the past eight years.

As college administrators we urge ED to modify your proposed cash management regulation updates and retain the current regulations that make possible an important, successful course material access model that has demonstrated real positive outcomes for students.

Respectfully,

97 Signatories, Representing 75 Institutions

(See full list of Signatories below)

Higher Education Professionals at Four Year Institutions:

Russell Weldon, Auburn University (Alabama)

Michal Jarolimek, Director of the Bronco Shop, Boise State University (Iowa)

Sandra Hope, Professor, Microbiology & Molecular Biology, Brigham Young University (Utah)

Marie C. Pizzorno Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Bucknell University (Pennsylvania)

Jared Ceja, CEO, Cal Poly Pomona Enterprises

Suzanne Donnelly, Associate Director, Bronco Bookstore, Cal Poly Pomona

Cyndi Farrington, Director Bookstore Services, California State University Long Beach

Miles Nevin, Associate Vice President, Auxiliary Enterprises, California State University Long Beach

MItali Jain, California State University, Long Beach

Rick Evans, The University Corporation, California State University (CSU) Northridge

Rico Ovalles, Associate Director of Academic Resources, California State University Long Beach

Kimberly Yates, Assistant Director – Course Materials, Central Michigan University

Barry Waters, Central Michigan University

John A. Marohn, Professor, Cornell University (New York)

Tigran Abrahamyan, PhD, Florida International University (FIU)

David R. Decker, Franklin University President, Franklin University (Ohio)

Kathleen Hutcheson, Lab Supervisor, Staff, Georgia Southern University

Derick Robertson Director of Retail, Georgia Southern University

Lana Veleva, Georgia Southern University (Georgia)

Carrie Rose, Bookstore Manager, Grove City College (Pennsylvania)

Jacklyn Downing, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Andrew Steele, Associate Professor, Chemistry, School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Lenoir Rhyne University (North Carolina)

Dr. Eric Terry, Associate Professor, Miami Dade College (Florida)

Thania Rios, Miami Dade College (Florida)

Tina Kuhn, Miami Dade College (Florida)

Shahrooz Moosavizadeh, Professor, Director of the Spartans All Inclusive Learning (SAIL) Program, Norfolk State University (Virginia)

Amy Barnsley, Professor, Mathematics, Northern Michigan University

Jennifer Kelly, Executive Director University Affairs, Northwestern State University (Louisiana)

Briana Salas, Associate Professor, Our Lady of the Lake University (Texas)

Daryoush Tahmassebi, Purdue University Fort Wayne (Indiana)

Jeff Laborda, Associate Professor, Natural Science Dept., State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota

Scott Chapman, Book Division Manager, UCLA Store, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)

James Rourke, Assistant Director, Academic Resources – KU Bookstore, University of Kansas

Melvin Beck, University of Memphis (Tennessee)

Eric Parsons, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Economics, University of Missouri

Dr. Mike Moore, Affiliate Research Assistant Professor, University of New Hampshire

Christina Green, University of North Georgia

Timothy Barnett, University of South Carolina

Jerry Carroll Director of Contract and Retail Services, University of South Carolina Upstate

Betty Phillips, Course Materials Manager, University of Tennessee

Lee Murphy, Distinguished Lecturer, Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee – Knoxville

Lindsay Mahony, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Dr. Matthew Pamental, Senior Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Michelle Childs, The University of Tennessee

Shirley Streeter, Assistant Director, Volbooks, University of Tennessee

Vaish, University of Virginia

Juno A. Farnsworth, Assistant Professor, Vincennes University (Indiana)

Alyson Froehlich; Assistant Professor, Higher Ed Instructional Consultant; University of Utah

Randy Simmons, Utah State University

Linne Marsh, Utah Tech University

Dr. Danny Walker, Assistant Professor, Chair of Philosophy & Arts, Wilmington University (Delaware)

Adrian Jarrell, Lecturer, Winston-Salem State University (North Carolina)

Carol L. Cain, PhD, Associate Professor of Accounting, Winston-Salem State University (North Carolina)

Dr. Philip J. Slater, Winston-Salem State University, (North Carolina)

Higher Education Professionals at Two-Year, Community College, and Technical Schools:

Christopher Walsh, Anne Arundel Community College (Maryland)

Gena Britt, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Brightpoint Community College (Virginia)

William Hoover, MD Science Coordinator for Allied Health Sciences, Bunker Hill Community College (Massachusetts)

Dr. David Ferreira, Provost, Charter Oak State College (Connecticut)

Noah Channell, Bookstore Manager, Coastal Alabama Community College

Dr. Lorelle Davies, Chief Financial Officer, Columbia Gorge Community College (Oregon)

Thomas Feather, Assistant Administrator Bookstore, Community College of Rhode Island

Greg Morris, Senior Vice Provost Academic Services, Dallas College (Texas)

Emily Fulgham-Clay, Professional Development Coordinator, Delgado Community College (Louisiana)

Herman Calzadillas, Dean of Prof Tech, Everett Community College (Washington)

Richard H. Turner, AVP Academic Operations, Florida State College at Jacksonville

Ray Lambert Director of Business and Auxiliary Services, Greenville Technical College (South Carolina)

Dr. William Easterwood, Hinds Community College (Mississippi)

Donald Parker, Inclusive Access Coordinator, Houston Community College (Texas)

Doug Sutton, Coordinator of Online Course Materials ICCOC, Iowa Community College Online Consortium

Shelley Black Digital Course Materials Specialist, Kirkwood Community College (Iowa)

Johnette McKown, President, McLennan Community College (Texas)

Jimilea Jansson, Bookstore Manager, NOC Bookstore, Northern Oklahoma College

Roger Yohe, Ph.D., Vice President of Academic Innovation and Strategy, Palm Beach State College (Florida)

Dr. Scott Zimmer, Paradise Valley Community College (Arizona)

Sara Bachenberg, Portland Community College (Oregon)

Michael Cioce, Rowan College at Burlington County (New Jersey)

Dr. Laurel Williamson, Deputy Chancellor & President, San Jacinto College (Texas)

Niki Whiteside, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Instructional Innovation & Support, San Jacinto College (Texas)

Louis Moritz – Manager of Administrative Services, Tri-County Technical College (South Carolina)

Josh Wrightson, Bookstore Manager, Tri-County Technical College (South Carolina)

Beth Dunn, Triton College (Illinois)

Glenn Jablonski, Mathematics Instructor, Triton College (Illinois)

BJ Watson, Senior Business Operations Mgr., Wake Tech Community College (North Carolina)

Dr. Carol Campbell, Instructor, Chemistry, Weber State University (Utah)

Michelle Paustenbaugh, Professor, Weber State University (Utah)

College and University Signatories:

Anoka Ramsey Community College (Minnesota)

Cornell University (New York)

Creighton University (Nebraska)

Eastern Iowa Community College

Florida International University

Kennebec Valley Community College (Maine)

North Carolina Central University

University of Virginia

Waukesha County Technical College (Wisconsin)

Bookstore Professionals:

Jon Bibo, Independent College Bookstore Association

Kevin Taylor, Bookstore Manager, SGA Bookstore (Serving Slippery Rock University) (Pennsylvania)

Education Advocates:

Arnold F Fege, President, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK)

The higher education course materials landscape has largely remained unchanged over the last several decades. However, there has been a seismic shift in the industry over the last five years. The pervasive adoption of Inclusive and Equitable Access programs has changed course materials acquisition and delivery forever. More recently though, structural changes at and to industry titans may prove just as impactful as the revolutionary course materials models themselves. Among other things, the recent VitalSource acquisition of Akademos will alter the landscape for vendor managed and independently managed college campus stores for quite some time.

Industry Changes

Over the last six months, the course materials industry has seen Follett Higher Education acquire Willo Labs and the shuttering of a century old industry staple in Nebraska Book Company. While these events are significant in their own right, the news out of VitalSource this past week could shake up the whole industry. Akademos and VitalSource have suggested patience as questions mount about the details and logistics of the acquisition. However, as someone who investigates course materials models, I thought it might be interesting to do some semi-responsible speculating on how this move may/might/can/will shake up the course materials market.

Why?

I think the first question is why? Why did this acquisition happen? VitalSource is seemingly the leading digital course materials provider in the industry. Akademos has seemingly found their stride in winning new and bigger accounts with their Equitable Access focused model. Both have strong, sophisticated technological pieces that make them leaders in their own areas. Why not continue forging their own paths to individual success? I think the answer to that question is knowledge.

Industry Knowledge

I think the answer to the question of why is industry or domain knowledge. Each company has knowledge of specific aspects of the course materials landscape. The VitalSource technology products have spread far and wide in higher education. They have vast knowledge and experience delivering digital content through their platform. Akademos has a vast knowledge of delivering physical content through decades of building vendor relationships and servicing all aspects of the campus store. Not only does Akademos have the physical delivery pipeline, but they also bring the experience of building relationships with campus faculty and administrators. This isn’t to say VitalSource doesn’t have the capacity and capability to do that, but Akademos has a different experience flexing that muscle. I also don’t think it was an industry secret that, with the launch of their VerbaOne product, VitalSource might have been looking to for ways to build out physical delivery into their offerings. So, this acquisition of Akademos seems to have accelerated that process or intention.

What’s Next?

So, now that they have merged industry technology with industry knowledge, what’s next? What can we expect to see over the next six months to two years? Are the big two now the big three? Does this put VitalSource in a new category of service provider? How does this change the competitive course materials management landscape? I think the impact we are going to see is more about a re-imagined independent campus store than it is about changing the game in the leased campus store space.

Offloading Course Materials

VitalSource has communicated their commitment to the independent campus bookstore segment and they say that this will only enhance independently managed stores. I am not exactly sure that is what is going to happen. I think what the VitalSource acquisition of Akademos does is give the independent campus store the ability to more easily and seamlessly offload or outsource one of the most challenging parts of their operation: Course Materials. With the physical delivery capabilities of Akademos under their umbrella, VitalSource can now manage all aspects of a campus store’s course materials, not just the digital component.

Re-Imagined Self-Op

I grew up in the vendor managed or leased campus bookstore space, so I will not pretend to completely understand how independent campus bookstores operate or think. However, I know course materials. I know the painstaking process of collecting and entering adoptions, ordering, receiving, stocking, and reordering, among other things course materials related. Course materials management is by far the hardest aspect of the campus store. *If you are a course materials manager reading this, I want you to stand up and pat yourself on the back for the work you do each and every day to support your students and your store.* Outsourcing course materials would change how independent stores operate and what they focus on in their day-to-day operations. Essentially, outsourcing course materials turns the independent campus store into a de facto spirit shop. We would need to re-imagine what the independent campus store looked, felt, and acted like.

I hate to use an ambiguous phrase like ‘a lot’, but I think ‘a lot’ of campus stores might welcome this relief. If the primary goal is to serve students and the campus community, offloading course materials to someone who may be able to deliver course materials more efficiently and effectively might not be a bad thing. Current independently managed campus stores who use VitalSource will need to continue monitoring new developments to determine the best course of action for their stores and their campus.

Take Back

I think the other major impact to course materials management and the campus store is that this acquisition may allow campuses to take back their bookstore operations from lease operators. From my perspective, a lease operator is a company who manages all aspects of the campus bookstore, under their name, from course materials to general merchandise to staffing to proprietary operational software. If a campus is not happy with their lease vendor, for whatever reason, but they want to continue serving their faculty and students with all course materials content types, the acquisition gives them that ability. A campus can retake local control over general merchandise while still providing faculty, staff, and the campus community with the course materials experience they expect. However, if I had to guess which is more likely, I think it is more likely we see more independent stores offloading their course materials management than taking back their campus bookstore from a lease operator.

Secondarily, now that VitalSource has acquired Akademos, if a lease operator decides to drop a campus, they have a fallback option. There is a push from lease operators for campuses to move to an Equitable Access course materials intervention model. If a campus is resistant to this shift, it is likely the campus and lease operator may decide to part ways. If that happens, VitalSource may be in a unique position to step in and support that campus – at least with their course materials management.

Current Vendor Partners

My first initial reaction to this news was that current lease operators (Akademos competitors) who use VitalSource will need to immediately drop them and find another digital content provider. I have softened on this a little over the last few days, but I still think it could be problematic from a competitive standpoint. If you are a competitor of Akademos and you are using VitalSource, what kind of information about your operations or technology do they have access to? Before the acquisition, that type of information might not have been as relevant to VitalSource, but now having that information might put you at a competitive disadvantage or potentially expose your confidential intellectual property. Am I being a little hyperbolic? Sure. But, the point remains the same, by adding a competitor to their capabilities, it’s reasonable to reassess the relationship with VitalSource to determine how it will impact your competitiveness in the marketplace.

Wrap Up

There truly does need to be a sense of patience as the details of this acquisition emerge. Today, there are more questions than answers. The VitalSource acquisition of Akademos has the potential to significantly change higher education course materials acquisition and delivery. There are implications for a variety of stakeholders and it will be important that everyone does their due diligence moving forward. Personally, I think this is a positive development because the combined technology and knowledge will benefit students and campuses. I want to see students succeed and getting course materials in their hands and on their devices is truly impactful to their success. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

I recently presented at the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) annual conference in New York City with my guy Brad Piazza. Brad is the Vice President of Academic Affairs at Waukesha County Technical College and a co-author on our recently accepted manuscript. I think our presentation went very well as there appeared to be standing room only. Brad dazzled with his humor and passion for student success and course materials. I had a few takeaways from our session.

Education

My biggest takeaway from our presentation and its response was the work still necessary to educate higher education stakeholders on current course materials interventions like Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, and Open Educational Resources. Despite the growth in adoption of these course materials interventions models, more work is needed to help administrators understand the details. My work is focused on understanding how these interventions impact student outcomes like success rate (Grade C or better) and course completion rate (Grade D or better). I don’t provide guidance on use of publisher or bookstore lease operator, but my experience in the bookstore industry allows me to provide administrators with a unique perspective. One of the biggest challenges ahead is not trying to convince higher education that anyone intervention is above the rest, but to educate them on how the intervention models can help their students succeed in the classroom.

Access or Content

What is the more important element of Inclusive and Equitable Access – access or content type? This was a great question asked during our session. As with most things in life, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Therefore, I think access is the more important of the two choices. Access means the reduction or elimination of all front-end barriers for students. Access means students not choosing between course materials and other basic needs like food or rent. I spent 13 years on the frontlines of course materials acquisitions. I understand the decisions students must make semester after semester. While there are segments of the higher education population that has no problem finding and acquiring their course materials, there are large segments of higher education’s underrepresented student population that are put in impossible situations.  However, that doesn’t mean content type is not as equally important.

Content Type

As Jason Lorgan wrote for my blog, a digital-first strategy has many benefits beyond just cost savings. The type of content used in the course materials revolution is still a very important consideration. Courseware and interactive digital textbooks provide students with a more intimate learning experience. The difference between courseware/digital textbooks and flat digital textbooks and print is how students are nudged into exploring topics further or the built-in support to help faculty support students who need it, among other things. So, the type of content can make a difference for all students.

Wrap Up

As I reflect on our ACCT presentation, those with a stake in course materials need to make more of a concerted effort to educate faculty and administrators. Less selling more educating. I look forward to seeing everyone at the Textbook Affordability Conference in Chicago November 9^th through the 11^th and at NACAS C3X in Las Vegas November 14^th through the 16^th. I will be providing course materials intervention education at both conferences, so please feel free to come say hello. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

There were some recent developments in course materials that I wanted to share some thoughts on. The first was the National Association of College Stores (NACS) released a new Student Watch Report and the second was Student Monitor announcing they were adding questions to their semi-annual trends report about Inclusive Access.

Student Watch News

NACS recently released their Student Watch™: Attitudes and Behaviors toward Course Materials: 2022 Report. The report included responses from 39 campuses and over 11,800 students. Interestingly, the report indicated that the average student spending for course materials in 2021-2022 was at its lowest point since NACS began tracking the data in 1998. I wanted to highlight some responses from the report that pertain to Inclusive Access:

• The report indicated that 39% of respondents received their course materials through Inclusive Access(IA), up from 15% in 2018-2019.
• Over 50% of responses indicated that Inclusive Access would be better than the traditional course materials acquisitions process.
• About 54% of those who obtained their course materials through Inclusive Access were at least somewhat satisfied with the program and another 30% were neither satisfied no dissatisfied.
• Of students who were satisfied with the Inclusive Access program, over 70% said they were satisfied with the program because they had the materials on the first day of class, didn’t have to shop around for course materials, and/or they knew they would have all of the materials and the correct editions.
• Over 40% of students who indicated they were satisfied with the program said they were satisfied because their materials cost less, and they had the ability to pay later or through tuition.
• Over 30% of respondents reported accessing free downloadable materials.

Student Monitor News

Student Monitor produces a national, syndicated market research study focused on trends at four-year institutions. In their reports they have found that student attitudes towards digital textbooks have shifted positively. As such, they want to explore how students feel about Inclusive Access. In their article they said, “IA is here to stay, and we are excited to introduce IA research as a new component in our Fall 2022 report…”. This is an interesting development to learn more about how Inclusive Access is perceived at four-year institutions. My research on Inclusive and Equitable Access has been more two-year focused, so I am interested to see Student Monitor’s Fall 2022 report.

Wrap Up

While Inclusive Access is just one program to reduce the cost of and increase access to course materials, it is gaining traction. I am interested to see how the results from Student Monitor match up to the responses NACS received from their report. Regardless of your personal opinion of programs like IA, the more we can learn about their effectiveness and student perceptions, the more we will be able to adjust them to meet the needs of students. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM