There's an element from this discussion that I think has been missing, and that is the LACK of pressure from professors to bring prices down.
I can't say that I vilify publishers for doing everything they can make as much money as they can. They aren't non-profit organizations and in that sense don't differ from Ford or GM. The prices of cars don't spiral upwards because price is a factor in the buyer's decision. Professors are textbook buyers, not students, and I've never seen much evidence that price is a significant factor in professors' buying decisions. It would seem that textbook publishing would be ripe for a JetBlue-type competitor which would undercut other publishers prices (if the assumptions behind this discussion are accurate--namely that publishers are making fat profits.) Why doesn't such a competitor appear? One possibility is illegal price-fixing behind the scenes, but I'm usually suspicious of conspiracy theories. A more plausible theory is that professors don't consider price an important factor when they adopt textbooks. I've asked folks at Prentice Hall "what would happen if we cut the price of my book in half, or by a third?" Their response was that their polls indicate that professors consistently pick the book they think is best, and pay little attention to price. So I started asking sales reps from different companies about this issue, and what they told me is consistent with that: (1) price seldom comes up in discussions with professors as a factor in their decision (although professors grumble about high prices generally); (2) no professor ever indicates that they would switch from one book to another if it were cheaper. It seems unreasonable to expect publishers to behave unlike every other for-profit company in the US (and elsewhere). The question is why the market doesn't provide a niche for a low-cost competitor. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
