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

From Divided to United: Creating A Campus Partnership for Student Success

On campuses across the country there are two entities that are quite similar in services offered, but whose goals are often miles apart. Their names are interchangeable in the student vernacular, but their objectives regularly compete against each other. If you haven’t guessed by now, we’re referring to the campus Bookstore and the Library. When these two cornerstones of the campus community are divided and left to their own devices, the non-ideal status quo continues to prevail. The Library: championing Open Educational Resources (OER) and providing print & digital resources as well as course reserves for students. The Bookstore: one stop shop for all paid course materials; the intermediary between professor adoptions & student acquisition and the official retailer of the campus. Both entities are frequently distrustful of each other’s competing interests and students get stuck in the middle.

However, a campus does not have to remain divided. There is another way forward that uses a student-centric approach that is full of collaboration, shared goals, and a lasting partnership that will benefit all parties involved. A meaningful relationship between a campus Bookstore and Library can be a game changer for everyone. At San Diego State University, the SDSU Bookstore has an extremely strong relationship with the SDSU Library founded on the shared goals of removing barriers to student access to course materials and improving academic success.

Surfacing Library Materials

The Library is responsible for curating materials that will benefit campus stakeholders. Unfortunately, faculty and students are not always aware that needed resources are available through the Library. This is where the Bookstore can step in to assist. As the repository for all course materials related information, the Bookstore is in a unique position to help bring course materials available through the Library to the surface.

At San Diego State we accomplish this during the requisition process. After a professor informs the Bookstore what materials will be used for a course, the SDSU Bookstore Course Materials staff searches the SDSU Library’s catalog to see if there is an unlimited user license eBook available.

If an unlimited user license eBook is available, the book’s specific Library permalink is provided to the faculty member with instructions on how to embed the link within the campus Learning Management System course shell. The permalink is also added to the student’s personalized booklist. Obviously, the Library doesn’t always have what professors are looking for, but there is a way to improve the odds of finding material through the Library, which we will touch on later.

Campus Advocacy

The SDSU Bookstore and Library collaborate on campus advocacy programs, participate on advisory committees together, and cooperate on the State of California Affordable Learning Solutions initiative grants. Bookstore and Library information is often packaged together, even presenting in tandem on course materials to departmental leaders and in webinars directly to faculty. Another example of the Bookstore and Library collaboration is the Course Materials Canvas Homeroom, a convenient place for faculty to see all their options for providing course materials.

Financial Partnership/Collection Building

Prior to piloting Equitable Access for undergraduate course materials, the Bookstore and Library shared information and advocacy efforts, but not finances. As part of the Equitable Access pilot, the Bookstore signed an agreement with the Library to fulfill course materials via Library-hosted unlimited user license eBooks whenever possible. Within the agreement, the Bookstore committed to investing a lump sum of money into the Library ($10,000 in year one and $15,000 in year two) for the express purpose of purchasing unlimited user license eBooks for the curriculum. The initial $10,000 investment to the Library would have provided an additional $110,000 in delivery costs savings for the Equitable Access program in the first year. However, due to the delayed availability of the Library-provided eBooks in Fall 2022, we only realized an additional delivery cost savings of just over $50,000. At the conclusion of the first academic year, using existing and newly acquired materials, we were able to deliver over 14,500 Library-provided eBooks to students. This resulted in delivery cost savings to the Equitable Access program of over $1 million. The delivery cost savings helped us save students over $7 million in the first year. (Editor Note: Current Fall 2023 savings are around $3.9 million).

Common Goals/Leveraging Unique Skills

The Library and Bookstore are aligned under the common goals of student success, retention, and affordability. We can use our unique skillsets to advance these goals. The Bookstore develops and implements course materials solutions that provide access and cost savings to students as well as peace of mind for faculty knowing their students are day-one-ready. The Library uses their vast subject matter knowledge and wide range of materials to both foster the development of faculty courses and to provide support for students. We work in tandem to support our campus stakeholders, no matter if the materials are commercial publisher content, Open Educational Resources, or Library resources. A campus no longer divided, but united, can focus its time and energy towards collaboration and reaching its shared goals.

Wrap Up

The partnership between Kate and Ben was not developed overnight. I think anyone working in and around course materials can attest to the often contentious or distrustful ‘relationship” that exists between the Bookstore and the Library. We have seen others develop relationships like this before (see UC Davis). However, this relationship is not a standard practice; it is unique. In a world where our competing interests are not so easily set aside to unite under a common goal or objective, these types of partnerships are very important. They are important because what we are trying to accomplish in serving students is much, much greater than our individual or departmental wants. Thank you, Kate and Ben, for the incredible work you do serving the students of SDSU and for helping share how your important relationship can serve as an example for others.

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

-MM

*Kate Holvoet, MLIS, is an Associate Librarian with 25 years of academic library experience. She is the Scholarly Communication and Open Initiatives Librarian at San Diego State University, and liaison for Government Publications, Open Access, and Open Education Resources (OER).  She co-chairs the campus committee for Affordable Learning Solutions, part of a CSU-wide initiative to encourage faculty use of OER.

**Ben Compton is the General Manager, Course Materials with 22 years of collegiate retail experience.  For the last 17 years he has specialized in course materials and course materials management.  He is also a graduate of the National Association of College Stores Leadership Institute, sits on the CSU Bookstore Advisory committee, Campus eBookstore Board, Cengage Advisors Network and is co-chair of the Affordable Learning Solutions committee at SDSU.

The one constant in course materials over the last ten years: change. This is a refreshing thought given the stagnation of course materials over the first 140 years of the college bookstore/course materials landscape. Two of the most revolutionary changes have been the introduction of Inclusive and Equitable Access. At end of November 2022, I posted an article about the growth of Equitable Access from before AY19-20 through AY22-23. This was a great opportunity to understand how Equitable Access had quickly risen since 2020. The rapid adoption of Equitable Access has the potential to change course materials and higher education. In this blog, I am sharing my Equitable Access growth predictions.

Looking Back

In my last article on Equitable Access growth, I shared that I collaborated with stakeholders at, what I consider, the 5 of the top 6 bookstore management vendors to get their Equitable Access store counts. Originally, I had identified 245 Equitable Access accounts for AY22-23. Since then, I was able to get the 6^th bookstore management vendor to share their store counts and I got a better picture of the independently managed bookstore market. This new information changes my AY22-23 account number from 245 to 264. I feel that adding the 6^th bookstore vendor and the independent market gives us a better look at how Equitable Access might grow. Lastly, I have changed my reporting from Academic Year (AY) to Fiscal Year (FY). Given that most institutions have Fiscal Years running from July 1^st through the following June 30^th, it felt like this change is more in line with potential Equitable Access adoption reporting timelines.

Equitable Access Growth Predictions

As we head into the Fall 2023 semester, Equitable Access is continuing its rapid growth. In the graph below, the red line denotes where we are today and to the right of the red line is where I predict Equitable Access to grow over the next few years. By the end of Spring 2024 (FY24) there will be at least 355 Equitable Access programs. If vendor Equitable Access growth trends continue, I expect there to be at least 845 Equitable Access programs across higher education. That gives Equitable Access programs a growth rate of 1,124% since FY20. Based on my research, Equitable Access had a growth rate of 414% from FY20 to FY24 (current) and will continue at a growth rate of 138% from FY24 (current) to FY28. I believe my calculations and expected growth for FY27 and FY28 might be a little conservative. It is possible there could be more than my predicted 845 Equitable Access programs by FY28.

Equitable Access Market

Knowing and understanding how far Equitable Access has come in such a short time is valuable information. If your institution is considering or exploring Equitable Access, it’s reasonable for you to wonder how prevalent this course materials intervention model is across higher education. So, to do that, I want to put the adoption of Equitable Access across higher education into context. According to IPEDS data, there are roughly 3,620 postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States. So, if we take the 355 Equitable Access programs for FY24 and divide it by the 3,620 postsecondary degree-granting institutions, that means that roughly 10% of all postsecondary degree-granting institutions are using Equitable Access in FY24. Looking towards FY28, the 845 projected Equitable Access programs would represent over 23% of all postsecondary degree-granting institutions having adopted Equitable Access.

Wrap Up

There are a lot of numbers to digest here. There are plenty of interpretations to be made. What I love most about this work and being able to put this together is letting practitioners, stakeholders, and observers make their own assessments of the information. I think the biggest takeaway from this work is that Equitable Access is not a fad. It is not a trivial movement. Equitable Access has staying power. It will, over the next five, alter the course materials/college bookstore landscape unlike anything we have ever seen or experienced. As always, thanks for checking in and I’ll see you next time.

-MM

The growth of Inclusive and Equitable Access has played an important role in driving down course materials costs and increasing access to course materials. While I believe they are the leading intervention models that can make the most impact for the greatest number of students across an entire institution, they are not the only options when it comes to course materials interventions. Open educational resources and text rental programs help contribute to the overall decrease in cost of and increased access to course materials. However, one of the course materials debates I hear the most often is print vs. digital course materials. Is one more suitable to help students learn? Are there benefits to digital course materials that print can’t offer? Here are some thoughts:

Print Course Materials

The adoption and use of print course materials has been around as long as college itself. What we have learned over the last decade or so is that print course materials, in part, has led to rising course materials costs, students not purchasing their course materials, deferring classes, or abandoning their major of choice. My guy Brad Piazza said something interesting while we were preparing for a recent conference presentation. He said that print books are a one-way push of information. With print course materials, information is only transferred one way – from the printed words on the page to the reader’s eyes. When a student reads a page in their textbook, the information is pushed from the book to the student. There is no interaction, there is no pushback. If the student doesn’t grasp the concept, they may be able to flip to a glossary in the back of the book, but there isn’t much else to aid in their learning.

Digital

Rather than talk about what digital course materials were before, I want to talk about what digital course materials are today. Almost all digital course materials content delivery providers have their own e-reader or platform to engage with the digital content. Digital course materials today are dynamic, engaging, interactive, and easily navigated. Most platforms offer similar features to help students learn and engage with the material. These features include highlighting with multiple colors, note taking, table of contents, enhanced search features, flash card creation, student-to-student collaboration, and read aloud functionality.

Digital Features

One of the biggest concerns with a shift towards digital content is access to an internet connected device for students. Most, if not all, digital platforms offer offline capabilities. This allows students to download their books and access them when they are disconnected from the internet. One of my favorite features of digital course materials in 2023 is the ability for student-to-student collaboration. This functionality works very similar to working in groups in the classroom and can be activated by faculty or students themselves. This feature allows students to work together in the textbook to share things they have highlighted or flash cards they have created on certain topics. I believe this supports the research on peer-to-peer learning. Faculty can also create small groups for collaboration. This feature would seem practical in online or hybrid courses where in-person collaboration is not possible. I do not take a position on one product or service over the other, but there are several content delivery providers that would love the opportunity to give you a demo of their e-reader or platform. I would be happy to connect you if you are not sure where to start.

The Last Physical Frontier

Would you believe me if I told you that course materials are one of the last higher education services to go digital on campus? Students are required to have access to a device and the internet to sign up for courses, add/drop courses, turn in assignments, access grades, and log into/access courses and syllabi. Almost all campus services have migrated to digital – some of them a long time ago. If you walk onto a modern college campus, it is unlikely you will find physical course sign-up or add/drop forms or get handed a syllabus when you walk into class. Why should our students expect to access all their college services digitally, but not their course materials? It’s time digital course materials join the rest of the campus services our students interact with daily.

It’s Here

The digital course materials revolution we have been promised for the last 10 years has finally arrived.  If you are looking for more reasons to adopt a digital-first course materials strategy, please check out this blog from Jason Lorgan – a pioneer in course materials. Additionally, digital course materials, as part of an Inclusive Access program, have been shown to increase student outcomes. As you ponder the print vs. digital argument, I implore you to consider how digital can impact the largest number of students. If there are real challenges for a small number of students who cannot access digital content, all course materials stakeholders are committed to ensuring those students have access to what they need to be successful. It’s time. It’s here.

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

Learning from Other Forms of Intellectual Property Distribution

Music and movies are examples of intellectual property that have moved to a digital distribution model.  15 years ago, many of us rented or purchased our movies at Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video and other brick and mortar retailers.  We bought or rented physical copies of movies and when finished, we often returned them to the store.  Similarly, with music, we used to travel to a brick and mortar store, such as Tower Records, and we purchased physical copies of our music at individual retail prices.

Today, the vast majority of consumers have rejected that intellectual property distribution model and moved to digital distribution subscription models, often at a flat rate, regardless of how much they consume.  We use services like Spotify, Netflix and Hulu.  While brick and mortar music and video stores still exist, they are few and far between and digital distribution of music and movies is the overwhelming standard.

When thinking about how our campus sold textbooks, we wanted to look more like Spotify and Netflix, and less like Blockbuster and Tower.  This was the thinking that lead us to a digital-first Equitable Access program at UC Davis. It was our feeling that an Equitable Access program that was not digital-first was similar to the original Netflix model, where they mailed DVD’s to their customers and their customers mailed them back.  If we were going to evolve our business model, we wanted to emulate the flat rate model of digital delivery versus a flat rate model requiring students to pick up and return their books.

Increasing Access to Content

When our campus decided to disrupt our traditional method of selling, buying back, and renting print textbooks, our number one goal was to increase student access to faculty-chosen required content.  As we developed our Equitable Access program, we understood that we would need to clearly define the problem we were trying to solve and be able to measure our impact.  Before the launch of Equitable Access, a survey of UC Davis students found 78% self-reporting that they did not have access to all of their required content in the prior 12 months.  After the launch of Equitable Access, only 27% of UC Davis students self-reported not having access to all their required textbooks.  Moving to a digital-first flat-rate model dramatically increased our student access to content compared to where it was when we were a print centric campus.

Convenience of Digital Delivery

When faculty-chosen content is available digitally, it can be delivered to all students in a course through the Learning Management System (LMS).  When digital is not available, and our campus supplies print, a student needs to pick up the print copy or have it shipped to them.

Each term, thousands of students add and drop courses during the add/drop period, when their textbook is print, the student is inconvenienced and must return or ship back their print book for their dropped course and obtain a new print book for their added course.  With digital, no effort on the part of the student is needed. The student loses access to the dropped digital content in the Learning Management System and they gain access to the digital content of the course they added.  Lots of effort with print, almost no effort with digital.  How many of us would prefer to go back to a Blockbuster Video model versus just have the show we want available at any time digitally?  I suspect not many of us.

Student Acceptance of Digital First

Prior to moving to a digital-first Equitable Access textbook model, we often sold print textbooks to about 30% of the enrolled students in a course.  After the first two years of our digital first program, we are selling digital textbooks to nearly 80% of the enrolled students.  That dramatic increase in the percentage of students obtaining their textbooks through our campus store is the greatest measurement of student acceptance.  It relies on what students are doing versus what students are saying.  Many suggest that students prefer print, and perhaps that might be the case if everything were equal.  But the price and convenience that comes with digital is something students are seeing value in, and they are choosing the Equitable Access option, versus opting out and obtaining print textbooks on their own.

Over 80% of the units our program delivers are digital versions.  We expect this number to grow over time.  For the student that still has to visit the store to pick up a print copy, we have at least eliminated the need for a student to return their print copy when they are finished.  While many other Equitable Access programs require students to return their print copies for re-use, our program does not require students to return their physical copies.  So, for those students that still have a print book, we have at least eliminated the trip they need to make to return their book

Carbon Impact of Going Digital First

Recent reports have noted that the carbon footprint of producing a single printed paper back book is 3 kg CO2.  Hard copies of textbooks are reported to produce 9 kg CO2 per copy.  Our campus distributed 192,000 units of digital materials last year.  Using the conservative paper back estimate, using digital instead of producing print copies saved 576,000 kg of CO2 on the low end.  Converted to pounds, this equates to a savings of 1,269,862 pounds of carbon in a single year.  This number does not account for the environmental impacts of shipping and transportation of all those print books that would have been happened were we not digital-first.

The Student and Faculty Service Advantage

For decades, many college students and faculty faced stressful situations at the start of a term when their textbooks were not in stock.  This happened for a variety of reasons, such as the publisher being out of stock, the freight shipment got lost or delayed, the bookstore ordered too few, a section was added, among others.  These problems don’t exist with digital.  We can’t run out or under order and the shipment cannot get delayed or lost.  The lack of stress for students, faculty and college stores that exist with a digital-first program is transformative and a truly welcome change.

For more information on the UC Davis digital-first Equitable Access program, please visit equitableaccess.ucdavis.edu