« GMU and Prizes | Main | IMF fact of the day »

Why are textbook prices so high?

...one of the major causes of higher priced new textbooks is the used textbook market.  For example, if the fixed cost of producing a textbook is $500,000 and 5,000 units of the book are sold each year for 4 years then each textbook would bear $25 of the fixed cost.

However, if, due to the used textbook market, only the first 5,000 units are sold and, in each of the remaining three years these same 5,000 units are sold as used textbooks, then the publisher still has the $500,000 in fixed costs spread out over only 5,000 books.  Thus each new textbook bears $100 of fixed costs, resulting in higher retail prices for all textbooks.  This example demonstrates what has been happening in the textbook market over the past several years: As the used textbook market has expanded so have the market prices of new and used textbooks.

Here is more, but is that correct?  To the extent this is a superstars market, where the leader becomes a focal choice and earns rents, the downward price pressure won't induce a proportionate supply reduction.  (There would be, however, less ex ante competition to obtain this spot, which may involve supply reductions.)  For less successful books, which inhabit a more competitive sector of the market where costs more likely bind, this analysis is more likely correct.

Paraphrasing Alex, I might note: "We know that textbook innovation saves lives and has a very high benefit to cost ratio.  Thus, price controls or other restrictions that reduce prices are almost certainly a bad idea."

Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 3, 2007 at 07:51 AM in Books | Permalink

Comments

It's interesting, because I work the other way around: when a textbook dosn't cost too much, I'll buy it new and keep it.
If it's too expensive, I'll buy it used and sell it when I'm done with the course.

Posted by: Juliette at Feb 3, 2007 8:01:03 AM

How much faster than the rate of inflation have textbook prices gone up in the last decade? Twice as fast? Three times as fast?

I took a calculus course at GMU in 2005 or so and the book cost about $140. Is calculus such a fast changing field that a publisher needs to release a new edition every year to stay current? Whatever the reason for the price levels I can say that few things induced more disgust as a student than a trip to the GMU bookstore.

Posted by: MjrMjr at Feb 3, 2007 9:03:03 AM

I agree with Juliette. Why does used textbooks market exists? Because the textbook prices are so ridiculously high. Look at Greene's Econometric analysis, one of the most sold books in econometrics. 129 USD after 18% discount at Amazon? Is it the fixed cost? Oh come on!

I don't blame them much for collecting the rents on the books. OK, I complain just a bit. But saying the used textbook market is responsible for high textbook prices is cheap. The only factor responsible for high textbook prices is the publishers who have chosen to set the prices so high.

It's like the chicken-egg dilemma but with a clear answer now. What was here first? The textbook, or the used textbook?

Posted by: pinus at Feb 3, 2007 9:31:17 AM

Tyler,

The fixed cost of textbooks has next to nothing to do with their high prices. A high fixed cost may prevent a given textbook from ever being published, but once published, it is a sunk and/or an indirect cost, and only marginal replacement costs and demand elasticity determine the profit-maximizing price.

Textbook prices are high because they effectively have only one use and that one use is as a factor in obtaining a college degree. The price of a textbook is imputed from the perceived value of the college degree, and it has relatively little value as a stand-alone good. Also, of course, it has the third-party buyer effect, where professors determine how to spend the money of students, often from scholarships or parents.


Regards, Don

Posted by: Don Lloyd at Feb 3, 2007 9:37:21 AM

Isn't this just the old "things still suck for a durable-goods monopoly" problem? The current textbook publisher is competing with itself last year, itself the year before that, and so forth. But then why don't we see textbook publishers using all the standard durable-goods monopoly tricks, like guaranteed buyback pre-commitments to starve the used market?

The answer, I think, is that textbook publishers have already solved the used-books problem through techniques like revision-cycling. A small revision -- just enough to renumber the pages -- is enough to substantially inconvenience used purchasers. As this trick is widely used already (how many texts, even in seldom-changing fields, are on their sixth or seventh editions?), it seems unlikely that the used book market is a big unsolved problem. More likely it's just an excuse.

Posted by: Grant Gould at Feb 3, 2007 9:38:53 AM

This argument also includes one of the sorts of bits that make economists look dumb, namely the assumption that all the books sold go back in to the used market. This can't even be called a reasonable approximation since a significant percentage of the books obviously don't go back in to the used market (people keep them, throw them away, the wear out, etc.) It looks much more like one of the too common "I need this assumption to make my model work" types of things. It's obviously false and quite stupid.

Posted by: Matt at Feb 3, 2007 9:45:24 AM

Is there a feedback loop of some kind with the production quality and perceived quality of the books? Are they finely made to justify a high price, or priced high because they are finely made?

'been a long time since I bought books, but I'd have been happy with a low grade paperback for a lot of my non-core classes.

Posted by: odograph at Feb 3, 2007 9:48:18 AM

Sorry to double ... but I have seen what I believe were Taiwan issue versions of computer science books ... smaller format paperbacks with exactly the same text per page as the larger and more polished US premium hardcovers. If I'd had a choice I'd much rather had the more convenient and inexpensive Taiwanese versions.

Maybe an economist can explain to me (the economic rube) the publishers' choices in Taiwan vs. US.

Posted by: odograph at Feb 3, 2007 9:52:12 AM

Matt, I don't know your background, but if I may help, any trained economist would read the assumption that used books go to the market as really meaning that if some books go back to the market then the fixed costs in each new book sold will be higher. Tyler gave an example rather than a model, anyway. And imagine if he said "suppose a proportion alpha of used books are sold back to other students".. THAT would be silly in this context, wouldn't it? Best regards.

Posted by: Avinash Goldfish at Feb 3, 2007 10:00:09 AM

I think one major factor is agency issues.

Most textbooks are *chosen* by the professor and bought (paid) by the student. Often any other book except the professor recommendation is of inferior quality *for that specific class* (even if it would be adequate in general) as exam questions are based on having read it.

Posted by: luispedro at Feb 3, 2007 10:38:40 AM

I'm a non-economist and I'm surprised it took 11 posts before luispedro pointed out the issue of who selects the textbook for the course. The student has a choice between buying a new or used textbook or going without (maybe by relying on friends or the library). Choosing a different title is not an option. The textbook salesforce does not aim its efforts at the students.

The professoriate as a class benefits from high prices. A few benefit directly from royalties and many benefit from the freebies from publishers. There is some similarity to physicians and drug prescriptions, but patients often have a say in the decision and 3rd-party payers have a lot of market clout. Neither applies to the textbook "market."

I'm tring to teach myself spanish. I went to the bookstore and looked at the text used in our local intro Spanish class: Claro Que Si, available on Amazon for a mere $94.36! Instead I did some browsing on Amazon and purchased Spanish for Gringos for $18.68 (which comes with two CDs). Of course it's not the same as the textbook, but I don't think the difference in price is due to the fact that the non-textbook is taking a less classy approach to teaching the subject. The textbook has lots of illustrations and gimmicks which are a cost for the publisher, but to the professor selecting the text those gimmicks come free. In general I think language instruction is a good model of the issue because there is instruction going on outside college classrooms and operating in an environment where the purchasing decision is quite different.

Posted by: John G at Feb 3, 2007 11:45:27 AM

_________

" Why are textbook prices so high? "

__________

...is this a trick-question on an economics blog ?

If the price is 'high', then demand is high relative to supply.


Actually, Don Lloyd (above)(& John G) correctly state the issue as one of '3rd-Party control' of the normal buyer/seller relationship.

Professors/Instructors control the textbook 'demand by mandating student use of specific textbooks, but bear no direct economic cost for such arbitrary (3rd-party) 'purchase' decisions. Thus, they have low economic-incentive to seek lower-priced textbooks or pursue normal consumer tradeoffs in the quality/quantity/substitutes of 'textbook' goods.

College professors are also routinely in the 'supply' side of things by authoring textbooks themselves, supporting those written by friends/colleagues/favored-publishing-companies --- and mandating their use to students. If students do poorly in class, that deficiency is never attributed to the quality/availability of the textbooks (.. and rarely blamed on any deficiency in the professor).

Textbook publishing companies thus lack general competition to their products based on normal quality/price factors. Their incentive is to establish comfortable, long term niche markets via direct marketing to specific professors, related professional
groups/associations, and colleges --- rather than the ultimate consumers (students).

High (.. often outrageous) textbook prices therefore reflect the quite limited consumer choices available to typical students. A similar situation exists in the overall American college-education-purchase options available to student-consumers.

Posted by: Burgess at Feb 3, 2007 11:54:45 AM

The used-market argument is theoretically valid, but I don't believe it is empirically large. The agency problem dominates. Suppose that we (successfully and costless) banned a used-book market. Publishers would keep each edition longer, which would be generally a good thing, since more student would buy each edition, saving the industry inefficient fixed costs. But prices would not fall --- in fact, they might rise! --- becasue (1) MC would not fall, and (2) demand would become less elastic in the absence of substitutes, due to the fact that instuctors do not bear any of the costs.

Posted by: o at Feb 3, 2007 12:11:26 PM

I took a calculus course at GMU in 2005 or so and the book cost about $140. Is calculus such a fast changing field that a publisher needs to release a new edition every year to stay current?

I agree MjrMjr. Many subjects, like most branches of mathematics and introductory physics, have changed so little that you could learn the same thing from a 1970s textbook that you learn from today's versions. I have a physics textbook from the 1950s. It isn't nearly as pretty as modern textbooks but I would say it is still greater than 90% current with what is taught in an introductory physics class today. The only weak areas are updates in electronics (the basic formulas of electronics haven't changed, but we don't use vacuum tubes any longer) and no elementary coverage of relativity theory (not that the single chapter devoted to this subject in a modern textbook provides the student with much of a background anyway).

We could be getting by on the same mathematics and physics textbooks for half a decade without any problem. In fact, we should be able to use a textbook for that long in many other subjects as well. Has English, writing, or art appreciation changed so much that we really need a new textbook in each of these fields every year or two? Do foreign languages change that often?

So that's part of the question: what exactly motivates this rapid turnover in textbooks?

Posted by: mike at Feb 3, 2007 12:58:51 PM

But Avinash, is the assumption is "some books go back on the market" why is the assumption in the model above _all_ books go back? And if the model is for all books going back, would it not be a mistake to assume it applies when _some_ do? Economics is a very useful tool. But, it's often a pretty crude one, and massively counter-to-fact assumptions are reasons why. Given that the assumption here is obviously quite different from reality I'm pretty dubious that it will tell us very much about reality.

Posted by: Matt at Feb 3, 2007 1:23:23 PM

Some of the previous comments imply, but don't really say explicitly, that the publisher/professor relation sometimes becomes outright collusive, with all sorts of kickbacks (cash or goodies) flowing from the former to the latter. I don't think anyone knows how widespread it is (except the sales reps). But teh Chronicle of Higher Ed had an article a couple of years ago that presented examples of some pretty seamy deals. According to the article, professors in some disciplines appear to be more susceptible to these arrangements than those in others....

Posted by: eweininger at Feb 3, 2007 1:26:31 PM

I think luispedro and John G have excellent points here. It often happens that when students complain to teachers that the books are too expensive, we realise the teachers really don't care. The price is absolutely not taken into account when choosing the textbook. When they do realise the price, they'll tell you "It's only $80, you can afford that for my amazing class" without realising that we getat least five or six teachers telling us this at the same time. It might not look like much when you have a salary, but on a student budget, it weighs A LOT.
Hence the used textbooks market.

I currently study in Italy, and there is a market much worse going on: photocopies. It's an entire industry, despite the many laws against it. Teachers here rely more on textbooks than in any other country I've been to, and even relying on used books becomes too expensive.
It's annoying, especially when you arrive at the exam and realise you didn't really need the textbook in the first place, despite the teacher telling you the world would come to an end if you didn't read it.

Posted by: Juliette at Feb 3, 2007 1:33:00 PM

Addendum: would we not have an interesting natural quasi-experiment if capable teachers in various fields were--for reasons altruistic or otherwise--to produce "no frills" intro texbooks and make them available for free or for nominal cost? Say, something like this: http://www.introecon.com/

Posted by: eweininger at Feb 3, 2007 1:39:46 PM

I'm in the camp of those - Don Lloyd, luispedro, JohnG - who consider this an agency issue. The profesor makes the selection and the student pays. I don't think it's necessary to ascribe nefarious motives to the professors, just a lack of price sensitivity.

Notice, in this regard, that textbooks, unlike almost all other books, usually do not carry cover prices. Even a teacher who wanted to take price into account would need to do a bit of work to get the information. This certainly suggests that publishers are aware of the agency issue.

And of course there will be a fair amount of inertia built into the selection process. The teacher's lecture notes and assignments may be organized around a given text. Changing involves evaluating new books and possibly reorganizing the class. That also works against price sensitivity.

Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 3, 2007 1:42:27 PM

Matt, you shouldn't use the word "stupid." No books will go to the used book market if the publisher changes the edition number(and usually nothing else.) The college bookstores are complicit is this--not satisfied with repurchasing perfectly good used books at 50%, reshelving and selling at 75%.) Since that is a 50% markup and the bookstore prefers(against student complaint) to sell the new textbook, what does that tell you about the markup on the next textbook.

Posted by: lee at Feb 3, 2007 2:06:24 PM

eweininger,

would we not have an interesting natural quasi-experiment if capable teachers in various fields were--for reasons altruistic or otherwise--to produce "no frills" intro texbooks and make them available for free or for nominal cost?

Yes, I've been thinking along the same lines for some time now. That would be a good idea in fields are not frequently updated. In fact, a downloadable textbook distributed under GPL or similar terms would be far easier to update, expand, and customize as needed. Unfortunately, it would probably be easier to find professors willing to write the textbooks than professors willing to adopt them.

Posted by: mike at Feb 3, 2007 2:33:20 PM

am I wrong or in the uk reselling is forbiden?Some books carry a notice saying but for the USA this book can not be resale....Professional books , (law books at least) and law classics that do not create royalties obligations are even costlier.European books printed in The Hague or the UK are 3 or 4 times more expensives than any american book.
Books by Duncan Black or Gordon Tullock are over 100 $, a paper( in the way of book) by Buchannan can cost more the 30 $

Posted by: jcm at Feb 3, 2007 2:43:34 PM

Matt, I insist that well applied economic reasoning helps understanding more than it hinders it. The point of the original quote is, merely, that the textbooks market is special in that there is a permanent supply of lower-quality, lower-priced imperfect substitutes to new books, and that some people are willing to buy those substitutes makes the fixed costs borne by each new book sold higher. That is, in principle, correct. Your point, that not all used textbooks are resold, to which my perpetually-about-to-fall pile of textbooks is the liveliest proof, would affect only the intensity of this effect. The price of new textbooks should go up with the proportion of used books resold.

I myself agree that the agency issue should be the most important factor there. First, if the publishers
did not believe they would be able to coerce enough students to buy the new textbooks they would never pay
the high signing fees we are seeing today, as Don Lloyd said above.

Posted by: Avinash Goldfish at Feb 3, 2007 2:48:01 PM

I took a calculus course at GMU in 2005 or so and the book cost about $140.

A lot of folks complain about the cost of intro Calc (and Chem and Bio) textbooks.

Yes the purchase cost is high.

But at my first university, the Calculus textbook was used for four quarters of calculus. At the time, it was $120. Your cost per quarter for the book went down the more Calculus courses you took. If you completed the series, the book only cost $30 a quarter ... not bad for a textbook if you ask me.

Same deal with intro to Chem and intro to Bio textbooks. You use the same book for multiple terms, and the cost isn't so outrageous.

Posted by: WWU_econ_grad at Feb 3, 2007 2:59:38 PM

While the 3rd party or agency effect is probably the dominant effect, as a student you have to ask yourself what factor of increase in textbook price would cause you to not take a given course.

Then, ask yourself what factor of increase would cause you to change universities.

Finally, what factor of increase would cause you to not pursue a college degree?

The value of textbooks is ultimately limited by the degree to which textbooks, or substitutes, are necessary to realize the value of a college degree.

Regards, Don


Posted by: Don Lloyd at Feb 3, 2007 3:12:34 PM

Avinash, we're getting closer together. But if the point of the remark was that there was a regular sourse of used books, why not say that and try to model it rather than something else, something that's obviously not true and that will give a clearly distored view of the picture? It will be harder, surely, but might have a chance of giving us some true information while, with the assumption above, we have no chance of getting any true information since it assumes something clearly false.

Posted by: Matt at Feb 3, 2007 3:23:40 PM

I think the high cost is almost entirely due to the monopoly effect that once an instructor has selected a textbook then students have little option but to buy. Of course the price to the instructor is zero since publishers will give them textbooks.

My university education was in the UK which had (at least then) no tradition that a course required a particular textbook, so no monopoly effect. Often any one of 4 or 5 textbooks were recommended, and it was always the case that the exam questions could be answered based simply on the lecture material. The textbooks were an just additional optional way to approach and learn the same material. The same (computer science) textbook (e.g. Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman's or Knuth's books on algorithms) would be available in paperback in the UK for about a quarter of the hardback (no paperback available) price in the US for the same book.
-- paul

Posted by: Paul McLellan at Feb 3, 2007 3:30:29 PM

I think the high cost is almost entirely due to the monopoly effect that once an instructor has selected a textbook then students have little option but to buy. Of course the price to the instructor is zero since publishers will give them textbooks.

My university education was in the UK which had (at least then) no tradition that a course required a particular textbook, so no monopoly effect. Often any one of 4 or 5 textbooks were recommended, and it was always the case that the exam questions could be answered based simply on the lecture material. The textbooks were an just additional optional way to approach and learn the same material. The same (computer science) textbook (e.g. Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman's or Knuth's books on algorithms) would be available in paperback in the UK for about a quarter of the hardback (no paperback available) price in the US for the same book.
-- paul

Posted by: Paul McLellan at Feb 3, 2007 3:31:25 PM

Michael W. Brandl is a total moron.

He writes (as Tyler quotes him):

one of the major causes of higher priced new textbooks is the used textbook market. For example, if the fixed cost of producing a textbook is $500,000 and 5,000 units of the book are sold each year... (bold added)


Is the author too lazy to even look up some actual numbers? If he is too lazy, can he at least qualify what he is writing. You know, instead of saying is a major cause, say might be a cause of unknown magnitude depending on how the actual numbers turn out?

Last time I checked, you don't establish actual major causes in the real world without reference to actual facts. Fake facts don't work to prove actual causes.

Here is Mr. Brandl's brilliant conclusion.


This example demonstrates what has been happening in the textbook market over the past several years: As the used textbook market has expanded so have the market prices of new and used textbooks. (bold added)

"This example demonstrates!" Wow. I really feel sorry for the students at UT Austin business school who end up with this guy as their instructor. You too can learn to "demonstrate" things using numbers that you make up... Fake facts don't demonstrate anything!

I can play this "I will make up my own numbers" game to demonstrate any point I want. If the fixed cost of publishing a textbook is $100,000 and 40,000 of them are sold new each year and 10,000 are sold used, we can conclude that but for the used book market, the fixed cost would be $2.00 per book, but because there is a used market it is $2.50 per book, or a $0.50 difference.

$0.50 is insignificant compared to textbook prices. So, the used text book market is an insignificant factor determining the prices of new books. "This example demonstrates" there must be some other explanation for the high price of textbooks.

It is amazing what you can demonstrate using made up numbers!

This post demonstrates that Michael W. Brandl is a moron who should not be teaching at a high school, much less at a business school. I hope he has tenure, because I don't think he is going to last long otherwise.

Posted by: Viscus at Feb 3, 2007 4:22:31 PM

Paul,

That is a very intersting point. You would then suggest that the price for smaller group work, which often goes hand in hand with one textbook to "streamline" the discussion, leads to higher book prices. I would like to add another point there namely that students in Europe now starting a bachelor degree usually have a very tight schedule and therefore do not have the time to develop the culture of finding their own study material. If studying under a tight schedule weighs positively against studying more liberally, I can't answer.

Concerning the monopoly effect, I have seen quite some positive examples. Some professors really do try to find the cheapest and best book. But they run into the problem that there isn't enough choice on the market. Why might this be? Well, some subjects are only well known to few people and they collect a scarcity rent for their knowledge which is not a bad thing. And I am sure that most of them don't want their books to cost a hell lot of money. I rather think that it is the market power of the publishers who truely exploit the scarcity to the fullest extent.

This might be a call for society to create funds that enable professors to write books if they feel current textbooks are not adequate, without the salesman inbetween reaping of most of the profits. This would eliminate management costs and books would surely be cheaper. A classical public good problem.

Should profit motives underline educational value? One should surely pay for the marginal cost of his education but not for the market power in a downstream market.

I also agree that it is not the secondary market that creates the high prices but that it is the high prices that create the secondary market and the copy market. If prices weren't so high people would surely love to build up a small libary, a positive externality on visitors with an incremental value to the owner.

David

Posted by: David at Feb 3, 2007 4:36:43 PM

Herr Cowen,

Students sell their books back at a price far lower than what other students pay for those used books. The price hike is higher than the transaction costs involved in re-selling the books. Some of that profit goes back to the distributors and produces of new textbooks.

Another reason for the reduction in sales of new textbooks is use of electronic sources. Publishers have actively tried to impede the development of this practice though it is more convenient for students and professors.

Finally, new editions that change three pages and force a new unnecessary product into the market do nothing more than increase the cost of, and reduce access to education. It is unethical.

Posted by: Chairman Mao at Feb 3, 2007 4:50:10 PM

Paul writes:


I think the high cost is almost entirely due to the monopoly effect that once an instructor has selected a textbook then students have little option but to buy.

This can't be right. Michael Brandl has already "demonstrated" that the existence of used textbooks explains the high prices of new textbooks.

Posted by: Viscus at Feb 3, 2007 4:52:36 PM

Why you should be nice to fools.

So, I was bored enough to look up Michael Brandl's web page. And I can't help but conclude that he is a nice guy. Bah!

If you want to see how much of a nice guy he is, just check out one of his philosophical statements here.

This guy is not only wrong in thinking that fake numbers demonstrate anything about the real world, but, even worse, he is excessively nice!

I can't think of anything worse.

Posted by: Viscus at Feb 3, 2007 5:12:08 PM

I guess we all agree, then, that the reason for the high prices is some market power abuse by the publishers. Moving on to the next question: how can those prices be brought down while at the same time keeping the right incentives to writers?

David's idea seems to boil down to government grants, am I right? I'm not familiar with the way these things go in the US, but here in Brazil this would lead to some committee being created that would be quickly occupied by marxists, who would give those grants to the worst possible people. And then suggest, to quick acceptance by the Congress, that since public money was spent creating those books, they should be made obligatory in universities receiving public money (that is, all of them). This second-best looks like a first-worst to me...

(If I were you, I'd go to the page quoted on the post and check the second comment, by someone called "Grover Furr". Says he: "[t]he whole argument to “incentives” is ideology, pure and simple.")

Posted by: Avinash Goldfish at Feb 3, 2007 6:35:53 PM

"Unfortunately, it would probably be easier to find professors willing to write the [free] textbooks than professors willing to adopt them."

Certainly possible, but...why? I don't think the pretty pictures and fancy graphics are that important to most professors when making book selections. The general inertia mentioned above?

Posted by: eweininger at Feb 3, 2007 6:40:44 PM


I have a very naive question economics question concerning fixed costs, etc, that I would like some input on from someone with a formal economics background. It applies to this textbook scenario, but it could equally apply to music CDs/mp3s, where it first came up for me. I was always under the "common sense"/naive impression that the cost of music CDs/textbooks was indeed determined by fixed costs (distribution, marketing, materials, labor etc) with some-- hopefully reasonable--profit margin added that would be protected from excesses by competition. With the advent of modern technologies (internet distribution) that fundamentally changed the cost of distribution, I suspected that the cost of music (per song, for example) would go down appreciably. This has obviously not happened. A relative, who is affiliated with the music industry, told me my ideas about what were going on were off-base. The price of a music CD, he suggested, is set at the level at which people are willing to pay, and has next to nothing to do with fixed costs, etc. My expertise is in the natural sciences, not economics; could someone please indicate which is a more accurate depiction of reality?

P.S.: I will within the next year be deciding on textbooks for my own students, and I would like to know if I indeed am contributing to the high prices I was reluctantly paying myself not so very long ago...


thanks, novice

Posted by: novice at Feb 3, 2007 7:06:28 PM

Novice,

Your relative is right. You are off base. The reason is that copyright and other IP protections gives the music industry some market power.

If company A signs artist X to an exclusive contract, company B cannot then sell you an identical product made from artist X. And further, obviously, there is no perfect substitute for artist X (artist Y singing a similar song) if you really like the work of that artist.

Posted by: Viscus at Feb 3, 2007 7:31:46 PM

...one of the major causes of higher priced new cars is the used car market. For example, if the fixed cost of producing a car is $500,000 and 5,000 units of the car are sold each year for 4 years then each car would bear $25 of the fixed cost.

Posted by: Ban Cheah at Feb 3, 2007 8:31:07 PM


thanks viscus, that makes much sense. For the sake of argument, though, suppose a label signed a reasonably popular artist (or one who became popular) and leveraged information technology to slash consumer prices... they could (theoretically) move a lot more music volume and potentially make more money than competing labels. The cost of replicating information is negligible so things should scale up favorably in the internet model. Although no artist could be a perfect substitute for artist X, I rarely--maybe I'm unusual in this regard--find myself in the situation where I "must have X." It is usually the case that I have reasonably similar affinities for X,Y,and Z. Even if I have a slight preference for buying X at the moment, if Y was on a label that sold at a mere fraction of the cost, I would by Y and be rather content. (Then again, I'm not much of a music buff.) No doubt if some corporate entity could increase profit by doing this, they would, but where exactly does this scenario break down? Unlike the case of textbooks, it would seem that music consumers have more individual power to choose satisfactory though non-identical alternatives.

Posted by: novice at Feb 3, 2007 8:41:05 PM

"Unfortunately, it would probably be easier to find professors willing to write the [free] textbooks than professors willing to adopt them."

Certainly possible, but...why? I don't think the pretty pictures and fancy graphics are that important to most professors when making book selections. The general inertia mentioned above?

Inertia is one way to put it. In my area, at least, adopting a new textbook can mean a lot more than just rearranging the ordering of my lecture material. I try to make sure that my classroom examples match the textbook examples, that the homework exercises have the right degree of difficulty, and so forth. For one of my classes that I rejiggered, I ended up thinking it would have been faster to come up with all the lecture material from scratch, instead of adapting what I already had.

Posted by: RSA at Feb 3, 2007 9:24:36 PM

There's an easy solution, but you may not like it. Pay the profs a bit extra and make them buy the textbooks.

Posted by: bhauth at Feb 3, 2007 10:30:15 PM

Two problems:
1.As has been repeated in many old postings by myself here or elsewhwere,information assymmetry on the side of the seller(reverse information assymmetry)will make prices of second hand books damn cheaper in many city-based markets for old books.I purchased an old copy of Oliver Blanchard's "Macro" text for just Rs.250/- (<$5)recently.
2.Regardless of the fixed cost, publishers like Edward Elgar and Springer charge too high a price for their books so that students are usually not able to purchase them.

Posted by: GVV at Feb 4, 2007 2:23:04 AM

There are no text book "super stars" in India.So there are no text book "leaders" and nobody earns rent.The universities allow enough freedom of choice to the students.For example,our university prescribes a number of standard books for the graduates.The students can choose between them or a combination of them.To illustrate, for macro, the syllabus prescribes texts by:
1.Greg Mankiw 2.Rosalind Levacic and Alexander Rebman 3.Richard Froyen 4.Brian Snowdown,Howard Vane and Peter Wynarczyk 5.Rudiger Dornbusch and Stanley Fisher 6.Eric Pentecost 7.Brian Hillier 8.Joseph Aschheim and Ching Yao Hseih 9.Robert Gordon 10.Thomas Michl etc.

Posted by: GVV at Feb 4, 2007 2:53:25 AM

** Disclaimer: I am a college instructor and regularly assign new books as my field is ever-changing. However, I have been known to cut books from my syllabus due to cost. Not often, though.

This is an old topic, that spins up predictably at the start of every semester...and rightfully so. Textbooks are disarmingly high across the country. There are several articles that purport to 'explain' this problem and as can be seen by the range of explanations in this comment file, we really don't know how to diagnose the problem - let alone solve it. Other issues have only slightly been mentioned above, including barely ethical kickbacks.

As for more details into the royalties business, see the following:
textbook writing can be financially rewarding. For example, there are approximately 250,000 books sold each year in the Intermediate Accounting market with each book selling for approximately $100. Author royalties begin at 15% of the selling price, and through negotiation may be higher than that after certain sales targets are met. So, an author who has a 10% share of the market will earn $375,000 in the first year of a new edition of a textbook. The royalties in the second and third years of a three-year edition book decline to about 60% of the previous year, or $225,000 and $135,000, respectively, because of buy-backs. That is a total of $735,000 for the edition. Yes, writing a textbook can be very financially rewarding.

Perhaps the most inclusive 'quick' article that I have seen is This one from a professor of accounting at the U of Texas "and chairman of the board of the University Cooperative Society, the university's bookstore." His article also proposes a licensing structure which would charge the university per student for each textbook assigned in a given class. I admit that I find his example somewhat unconvincing and the money trail specious, but the article itself has enough background on the publishing business to enable discussion.

Consider, for example, a textbook that retails for $100. The publisher's price to the bookstores under the current regime would be approximately $80. Assume that manufacturing and distribution costs were $39. The $41 difference between the two amounts cover marketing and administrative costs, author's royalties, and publisher's profit.

Think about these numbers. 39% are per unit physical costs, 20% goes to the bookstore (25% margin), and the remainder are 'fixed' costs - the latter are unrecoverable by publishers due to the used book market. Subtracting the 15% from the above reference, we see that $26 goes to marketing and administrative costs (which are indeed substantial - but is this where the kickbacks come from?) and publisher's profit (is this the $9 he discusses later?). None of these figures are unreasonable, but is this an unresolvable problem?

My solution would be some combination of the following: (1) print textbooks on cheaper material. Yes, the high-color glossy pages are beautiful, but are they necessary? I can read/learn just as much from the older two-color (i.e. black and white) pages from the 1980s; (2) Push much of the distribution to online e-books. I personally hate prolonged reading on the screen, but that seems not to be an issue for many college students today; (3) Introduce a feedback mechanism that somehow ties the university or the department together with the costs of textbook adoption. The licensing suggestion Dr. Granof promotes would be a great way to do that. Even if the department had to pay the bookstore a percentage of the cost per new book, that would get everyone's attention and perhaps slow down the trend toward frequent revisions.

However, I am not optimistic. I suspect students will be forced to endure higher prices for textbooks for years to come.

Posted by: Globadoc at Feb 4, 2007 6:43:30 AM

This problem will be solved in the following way. First, students are going to figure out they can scan text books with a digital camera, a tripod, a couple of desk lamps and some decent OCR software. The result is more useful than the original physical book because it is both searchable (a big win) and portable. And like MP3s it is freely copyable. Once this takes off, textbook sales will take a big hit.

The ultimate solution? Textbooks (including electronic copies or perhaps only in electronic form) will be bundled with courses. Students will have no choice but to buy the texts new, but the cost will be lower because universities will have a financial interest in bargaining down the price.

Posted by: Slocum at Feb 4, 2007 9:23:38 AM

As someone who TAs math courses I've noted that we change textbooks pretty frequently. The textbook makers release a new version, change nothing but a couple of the problems but in doing so *RENUMBER* all the problems. This forces the professor to choose the new version and since the problems have often been reorganized the students don't have much choice but to get the new version.

Also the net effect of this is to distribute any fixed cost across fewer students. As the lifetime of a calculus book could be effectively forever this does far more than the used textbook market to raise the price.

I have to agree with the theory that it's all about the fact that the professor chooses the book. For instance if the students choose the book any company that tried the trick of changing the edition every couple of years would soon lose all it's customers.

Posted by: logicnazi at Feb 4, 2007 9:45:37 AM

Other issues have only slightly been mentioned above, including barely ethical kickbacks.

Wow, thanks for the link. I thought kickbacks were limited to things like a free copy of an adopted book. Getting paid to adopt a book is outrageous, and in my humble opinion someone who takes money for doing it should be fired for unethical behavior.

That said, I've reviewed textbooks and been compensated for it, usually in the form of a couple of hundred dollars worth of books of my choice from the publisher. It's always been drafts of books that are under consideration for publication, though, nothing that's already in print.

Posted by: RSA at Feb 4, 2007 9:47:33 AM

If you think textbooks are expensive in the US, consider the case of a student in the developing world. Per capita income in the US is around USD41,000 and in Ethiopia it is USD170. Even textbooks sell for 50% of the US price, which they ofen do in Africa, the cost is still prohibitive.

I am co-founder of the Global Text Project (http://globaltext.org) with the goal of producing free, open content electronic texts for students in the developing world.

Posted by: Rick Watson at Feb 4, 2007 9:56:55 AM

I forgot to mention one other kickback that I find interesting: There are people who used to wander through my department offering to buy "old" textbooks from the faculty, especially any recent freebies from the publishers. They then resell them at a profit. Most of my colleagues treat these people as pariahs; they just drive up the price of used textbooks for students. (It must be a minimal effect, but still. . .) It strikes everyone I talk to as unethical to make a profit on something that someone has given you, in this situation, at least.

Posted by: RSA at Feb 4, 2007 9:58:43 AM

Thanks to all those who talked about "agency issues." That's what I enjoy, as a random web surfer: finding the proper name for something in the economic (and real) world.

Posted by: odograph at Feb 4, 2007 11:36:41 AM

They then resell them at a profit. Most of my colleagues treat these people as pariahs; they just drive up the price of used textbooks for students.

Huh? Adding the freebies collecting dust on professor's shelves to the supply of used books would tend to reduce the price rather than drive it up. Supply and demand you know.

Posted by: Slocum at Feb 4, 2007 12:49:26 PM

They then resell them at a profit. Most of my colleagues treat these people as pariahs; they just drive up the price of used textbooks for students.

Huh? Adding the freebies collecting dust on professor's shelves to the supply of used books would tend to reduce the price rather than drive it up. Supply and demand you know.

including barely barely ethical kickbacks

Barely ethical? No, accepting $4,000 to adopt a text for your class is not 'barely ethical', it is a taking a bribe, plain and simple. Such kickbacks should not just be against university policies, they should be prosecuted -- just as any public official taking bribes should be prosecuted.

Posted by: Slocum at Feb 4, 2007 1:00:06 PM

Adding the freebies collecting dust on professor's shelves to the supply of used books would tend to reduce the price rather than drive it up.

I forgot to include what we actually do: give the books away to our students.

Posted by: RSA at Feb 4, 2007 1:26:18 PM

Globadoc's link is to the article I mentioned earlier in this thread. Some of the examples are pretty foul, but it really is hard to know widespread this is.

I'll also take a moment to post R. Preston McAfee's rationale for writing an intro econ text and making available over the web gratis:

"Why open source? Academics do an enormous amount of work editing journals and writing articles and now publishers have broken an implicit contract with academics, in which we gave our time and they weren't too greedy. Sometimes articles cost $20 to download, and principles books regularly sell for over $100. They issue new editions frequently to kill off the used book market, and the rapidity of new editions contributes to errors and bloat. Moreover, textbooks have gotten dumb and dumber as publishers seek to satisfy the student who prefers to learn nothing. Many have gotten so dumb ("simplified") so as to be simply incorrect. And they want $100 for this schlock? Where is the attempt to show the students what economics is actually about, and how it actually works? Why aren't we trying to teach the students more, rather than less?"

See http://www.introecon.com/blurb.html

I really do think that the non-use of something like this--assuming that it is high quality text, which I'm not in a position to judge--cries out for explanation.

Posted by: eweininger at Feb 4, 2007 2:22:21 PM

I was always wary of courses where the prof assigned the "flavor of the week" textbook in the discipline. I suspected those textbooks were doing so well because the publisher had a good marketing and sales staff - not because the book was all that great.

I took Intermediate Micro in 2005 and the prof assigned a book by Katz and Rosen. It hadn't been updated since 1998. We had to have been the only class in the country still using it. But it was a damned good book. I felt confident she assigned because she believed it was the best book to help teach the course, not due to kickbacks or other pressure from publishers.

Posted by: WWU_econ_grad at Feb 4, 2007 3:39:12 PM

As both a professor who assigns textbooks and one who is an author of one,
I would note certain points. One is that one should not assume that all
textbook authors make big bucks. Most new textbooks fail, and the author(s)
end up with not very much for all their efforts (the greatest of which are
indeed for that first edition).

I am not sure what these "kickbacks" to professors are regarding adopting
books that people are referring to. I have been teaching for about 30 years,
and I have never been offered any kickbacks of any sort, certainly not money,
and certainly not $4,000. Just who is it who is giving and receiving such
kickbacks, please? I think this is some kind of urban myth.

I do have sympathy with students regarding what is going on. Part of the
problem from the standpoint of the professors is the desire to have the
students working out of some common textbook that all are supposed to have.
This means somehow assigning something (or things) that are readily available
on the market. One cannot count on used books being universally available,
although in some cases it may be possible to use older editions of existing
texts by getting them from Amazon or somewhere. Again, as some have noted,
while it is not the case in intro calc, there certainly are fields and sub-
fields where there are genuine new developments that need to be introduced
in newer editions. Not all of the churning of new editions is monopolisitic
froth, although a lot of it is.

Finally, there are non-trivial fixed costs in publishing. Not very many
publishers are making much money. It is a cut-throat business with a lot
of mergers going on. I note, without getting into specific cases in detail,
that I am aware of efforts in the area of journals to get cheap ones going,
only to discover the significance of the fixed costs in publishing. So,
while there are plenty of overpriced, half-baked new editions out there,
some of the prices are partially justified.

As for the main question about used books, I do not know the answer.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Feb 4, 2007 4:51:41 PM

I took an Organic Chemistry course. The textbook was $140. On the first day of class the professor said we could not buy a used textbook from the college bookstore. The publisher had changed the edition number-the bookstore would not buy the used books back due to the edition number change. The professor then passed out four sheets of paper--three contained the changes from old to new editions, the fourth was a list of the students from the previous year who wished to sell their books. I bought the book(perfect condition)for $40. The seller was pleased too--he recouped $40 that he could recoup in no other way.

Posted by: lee at Feb 4, 2007 8:28:38 PM

I seem to recall that Dixit and Nalebuff discussed this problem in Thinking Strategically and came up with a different observation.

For them, the problem was that a student would resent paying a large price for a text book, if the resale value was low.

A publisher, in the face of a used market for his text books, announces a new edition at small discount - which since everyone was expecting it further drives down the used book market.

Dixit and Nalebuff recommended that publishers rent books on short renewable terms instead of selling them.

As I recall, the idea was that if the publisher could credibly commit not to bringing out a new text, they could obtain high prices and the used market would also command reasonable prices. A sign of their credible commitment would be a lease rather than a sale as any rebate would have to be passed on to the existing customer base and not just new customers.

But I don't believe that they had empirical information, either.

Posted by: michael webster at Feb 5, 2007 3:03:29 PM

In the US, textbook publishing is an oligopoly. A few summers ago the principles of economics book I had my students using came out with a new edition and a substantially higher price. I looked around for a lower cost alternative and found all of the other texts had likewise gone up in price.

I also found that one could purchase the same book in the UK for about 60% of what it goes for in the US.

Another option is to essentially rent the text from the publisher. This can be done by purchasing access to the book's supplemental web site which contains the entire text online.

Relative prices are $125 new, $95 used, and $30 for the web site.

Posted by: scott at Feb 5, 2007 7:33:53 PM

Talking of Text book price, may be if you want to buy some text book at lowest price. I have a suggestion to make to look up Online Shopping for interesting offers on text books. They have an excellent colletion.

Posted by: mirror at Feb 6, 2007 3:05:45 PM

To whom may wish to know about textbooks in Greek universities
...and some questions for Alex and Tyler

All students having been admitted to a greek state faculty are entitled to a free textbook per semester course, usually written by the professor. Students obtain their copy by showing their student ID to the bookshop keeper and have their names filed on a list. Once the semester is over, the list is handed back to the faculty secretary to be checked and summed up. The number of distributed copies is then forwarded and the publisher receives an amount equal to the number of copies times the price per copy. Textbook prices are set by a special committee with the greek ministry of education on the basis of textbook size (characters per line times lines per page times total pages plus figures plus equations and so forth). The preponderence of a unique, although free, textbook per course, is blaimed upon this bureaucratic alternative.
Recently, the greek government announced its intention to replace the whole thing with a system of vouchers. Assuming the value of vouchers will be indexed to publication costs, how will this policy affect the welfare of students and professors ? How is it possible that both students and professors are against vouchers?

Posted by: greek correspondent at Feb 6, 2007 4:51:50 PM


Since no one has mentioned this, I assume it is totally wrong. Could textbook prices (and their increases) have to do with most students getting some form of financial aid, usually federally subsidized? Have textbook prices and tuition increased by proportional amounts over the years by chance?

Just curious...

howard

Posted by: Howard at Feb 7, 2007 11:54:39 PM

The increasing prices on textbooks is getting completely ridiculous. I am a college student, and luckily where I go to school, we rent our books. The cost is included in our tuition and we simply rent books at the beginning of each semester and return them at the end of the semester. I do hear from other college friends about the price they have to pay for textbooks. Some students have to pay between 300 and 500 dollars in textbooks for their classes. However, I do not think that the used-textbook market is causing prices to rise on new textbooks. I could not agree with "Globadoc" more when he said go back to cheaper printing material and/or use online books. That is a great idea. With professors choosing these new books and the price of them being so expensive, there has to be other alternatives rather than a poor college student having to buy brand new, expensive textbooks. I'm so thankful I can rent my books rather than having to buy them.

Posted by: dhill at Feb 8, 2007 4:46:39 PM

hey zubeyde

Posted by: zubeyde at Aug 2, 2007 1:40:38 PM

My name is Thomas Rebman and I am currently a student at Daytona Beach Community College. A highly decorated, retired, 23 year Naval Officer, I am obtaining my Elementary Education Degree so that I can teach Elementary School as my next career.

I have attached my formal complaint in MS Word format that will give you all the background information you need on my current situation. My reason for writing is I could use your advice on what resources are available within the Education community to assist me. I have tried to reach out to every government and private organization I can think of, to no avail. Although I have gotten support from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and the ACLU, the college does not seem to want to correct the problem. I am now trying to inform the public at large about my discovery that Follett Higher Education Group (a $200 Billion a year company with 700+ campus bookstores throughout the country) is willfully and intentionally defrauding students against the contracts in place to protect the students.

I also want the public to know that at least one college president, D. Kent Sharples, of Daytona Beach Community College, has chosen to ignore mounds of irrefutable evidence that this is, in fact, taking place. As a matter of fact, he has mistakenly gone one step further. He has chosen to personally attack me, kick me off campus with police (I am 6 credits short of my AA degree), and has stated to the local media that I "slapped" someone. I believe he has done this because pressure exerted by Follett, who incidentally paid the college approximately $500,000 dollars last year (we have an enrollment of around 11,000 students) as the college's share of their revenues.

I know this is a lot of information to take in. I can easily summarize it this way. I feel Follett is breaking FTC Monopoly laws, intentionally overcharging students, and making a lot of people at Follett rich instead of using education dollars to educate our children. They restrict book information so that students are forced to use their on-campus bookstore. They underpay for used textbooks (each college has a contract that states what they should pay as a buyback minimum), overcharge when they resell these textbooks (again, the contract states they SHALL NOT sell used textbooks for more than 75% of the current new text selling price), and at least here at DBCC, all financial instruments issued by the college are only good at the campus bookstore (Pell Grants, Book loans etc.) which prevents the student from competitively shopping (internet book prices are 40-70% cheaper).

If you have any ideas on how I can get the national media involved or if you know of a government or private agency that could help me I would greatly appreciate your assistance. If you have any personal feedback, I would greatly appreciate that as well. Their actions have financially devastated my family, ruined my civic reputation, and have dramatically decreased my employability as a teacher. I feel they are trying to "out money" me and frankly, right now, they are doing a good job of it. I can no longer even afford the maintenance fees on the two free bookswap websites I set up for students at DBCC and UCF.

Thanks so much in advance for your assistance, I genuinely look forward to your opinion of my situation. If you have any questions, feel free to call or email anytime.


Sincerely,

Thomas F. Rebman
LT, USN Retired
Daytona Beach Community College Student
Cell: (386) 689-8407
Hm: (386) 760-7484
Email: RebmanThomas@aol.com
Facebook | Thomas Francis Rebman

Posted by: Tom Rebman at Nov 11, 2007 6:47:53 AM

大家好,我是臺灣人,從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國,環境很陌生,感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過,我是一個優秀的徵信工作者,希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站,認識更多的朋友。

Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 1, 2008 10:05:01 PM

acer btp-650 battery

Posted by: at Oct 22, 2008 10:05:25 PM

Post a comment