P = MC and the Implications for Textbook Publishing and Colleges

Since the advent of the Internet, many prognosticators (myself included) have predicted dramatic transformation in the education industry and the textbook publishing industry. Unfortunately, when I go to a conference today, I hear rehases of the same keynotes as I heard a decade ago. Fortunately, there is some evidence that these transformations are finally happening in both education and textbook publishing.

The decade long belief in transformational change stems from a central tenet of microeconomics. It is that, in a perfect market, the price of a good is equal to the marginal cost of production and distribution of that good. The Internet renders the marginal cost of production and distribution of educational content to almost zero. For example, it costs almost nothing to produce and distribute one more copy of a digital algebra textbook. In theory, a competitive market would push the price down to almost zero. This has dramatic implications for the textbook industry and for educational institutions.

However, neither education nor the textbook publishing are perfect markets. As I noted in another post, the market for higher education is rife with trade barriers. The market for textbooks suffers from a mismatch of the person who makes the buying decision (the professor) and the person who pays for the book (the student). This means that the professor has no incentive to search for low-cost options. Further, the school also frequently receives a portion of a book-store's revenue, further reducing the incentive to reduce costly middlemen. Here is a comment that I wrote about an article about high textbook prices in a higher education trade magazine:

"Textbook prices would come down dramatically if:

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

2) Colleges didn’t look to their bookstores as revenue centers.
It is no wonder that textbook prices soar when the professor makes the buying decision, but the student buys the book. If the cost of a new textbook mattered to an instituiton, like it would if it had to be factored into tuition, the school would have an incentive to make better decisions and to shop based on price. Right now, there is no incentive for professors to do this. In fact, many of the largest for-profit schools have done this and they have driven textbook prices way down for their students.

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

So what's the good news? Publishers are aware that their existing textbook economic model is not sustainable. The growth of for-profit schools and the extension of the practice making institution buying decisions, the growth of free-content initiatives, and the growth of ad-supported textbooks are all portents of a different economic model. Increasingly, publishers are trying to figure out how to become service providers instead of content providers. Recently, SMARTHINKING announced partnerships with 3 of the 4 largest higher ed textbook publishers. Tutoring services, combined with an increased reliance on instructional administrative systems, are the sorts of products publishers will be selling in the future. These will be sold as subscriptions rather than as things (like books). In short, today students pay for content and get a lot of ancillary materials and services. Tomorrow, students or schools will pay for the ancillary materials and services and the content will be free. Educational institutions are confronted with the same challenge. Does it really matter where someone learns college algebra? What is the value that an individual school brings to education? A question for another posting…

Colleges (and High Schools) Will Compete On Academic Service Levels

Recently, I have given several presentations to higher education administrators about how call center theory can be applied to educational services. An online, drop-in tutoring service, like SMARTHINKING, is essentially a call center, but without the "call" and without the "center." To create this presentation, we developed a fairly complex model to analyze the interaction between the following variables:

• The number of tutors staffed;
• The average number of students expected;
• The length of a tutoring session;
• The desired average wait time for a student (the service level);
• And the variance embedded within all of these variables.

With this model, we can predict the number of tutors that need to be staffed (ie. 15) to meet a desired service level (ie. average wait time less than 4 minutes) with a desired tutor efficiency (ie. 75% of the time a tutor is working with a student). The upshot of all of this was that, to run a cost-effective, drop-in tutoring service with reasonable service levels, you need to have A LOT of expected students. This is becaues the session length for tutoring is far longer than that of your typical call center. I found this model fascinating, and I was sure that others would as well.

Others didn't. Perhaps I need to polish my presentation skills, but when I was explaining the model and the results I saw a lot of vacant stares and more than a few nodding heads. However, rather than ascribe the lackluster response to my own performance, I'll use it as a pretext to draw some generalizations about education. At a minimum, this will rationalize away my disappointment. Perhaps it will even be insightful!

As I thought about my presentation, I think the real reason that listeners were unmoved is that the presentation correlated with almost nothing in their daily work lives. In fact, at the beginning of the presentation, I asked how many schools had defined service level goals for faculty members to meet. For instance, were faculty required to return a paper or an e-mail in X amount of time? Only 1 school out of 150 indicated they had such service levels. It occurred to me that these basic principles of service are simply not considered when schools deliver education. This, I think, will change dramatically in the next 10 years.

As more classes are taken online, higher education increasingly becomes a commodity. Online, geographic barriers to student choice are gone. The remaining differentiators -- price and quality -- remain. In my opinion, the traditional pricing structure of higher education will soon crumble as well. If students can take an english 101 course at a community college for 1/3 of the price of the 4 year college, and the credit is comparable AND the student can take it online, pricing will eventually become more rational. With these changes, the only element left that an institution controls is its academic quality. Within academic quality, the content of general education subjects rarely change. So, for those schools not competing on student selectivity or brand, all that's left is the level of service that they provide to the student.

This is a lesson that has already been learned by higher education administrators in admissions and technology. Colleges understand the impact of service levels when recruiting students and the impact of service levels as it relates to tech support. It is ironic that the real product of education, student learning from courses and services, hasn't incorporated any of these lessons. For most schools -- particularly public institutions -- this is a result of the traditional higher education governance structure. Traditionally, academic decisions and business decisions are made by the faculty and the administators respectively. For schools that want to compete successfully online, academic and administrators will need to work together to focus on the services that provide the greatest benefit to their customers -- the students.