In defence of textbook publishing

Citation

Cox, D. (2009), "In defence of textbook publishing", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip.2009.02027caa.002

In defence of textbook publishing

Article Type: Viewpoint reply From: Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Volume 27, Issue 3

It has long been argued that publishing is dead – indeed a web site exists by that name, offering an opportunity for disgruntled authors to “debate the proposition that traditional publishing is in the process of being killed off by the Internet”. Many of the top postgraduate courses on publishing now spend weeks asking their students to consider how the industry will survive for much longer in the face of advances in technology and the way information is disseminated.

From a textbook publisher’s perspective, the advent of the internet has changed things dramatically, but our basic mission remains the same. Only five years ago we dealt almost solely in physical products; if books did come with companion web sites then they were basic and static; and one size was assumed to fit all. Now every book we commission has an e-book equivalent, most are supported by bespoke video, podcasts, interactive exercises, and multiple choice quizzes downloadable onto a student’s iPod. New initiatives such as custom publishing means an instructor can take chunks from any one of our books, and add their own notes plus third party materials such as extra case studies. The book is then bound and badged with their institution’s logo, the instructor’s name and the cover of their choice and is unique to that one course.

As a publisher I feel I must defend the industry on a couple of points raised by the article. First, the idea that Rick would spend “long hours online searching for an appropriate book to prescribe, as well as perusing the catalogs of all the major academic publishers, but was unable to find anything that met his requirements” is becoming increasingly unlikely, as publishers adapt to the new landscape (by pursuing innovations such as custom publishing, described above). Second, it is all too easy to depict publishers as parasites, feeding off the creative talents of their authors and taking a disproportionate cut of the takings. In the article there is the accusation that new editions are regularly launched just to “cut the feet out from under the used book market”. The primary aim of producing new editions is not to ensure planned obsolescence but to keep the book up-to-date in fast moving areas. Lastly, much of what we do does not command good margins at all – all publishing is speculative, and we do not start to recoup any of our (often considerable) investment in a project until the book is on the shelves, and even then the retailers stock on a sales or return basis. The stars in publishing fund a great deal of dogs.

The concept of a Wiki textbook is exciting primarily because of its novelty. However, the proposition (from a business perspective) starts to break down when you consider scalability and profitability.

On the issue of scalability first: it could be argued that computing students and instructors by their very nature are comfortable with working together to produce an online Wiki version of their course materials; and the “hard” nature of the body of knowledge arguably allows for right and wrong answers. The questions remain: to which other subject disciplines could this be applied? Could this work in the social sciences? What implications would there be, if you allowed students from around the world compile a history of the Origins of the World War II, for example, and use it as their core text? How could this possibly be more valuable than the book of the same name, written by eminent historian Richard Overy? The idea of the Global Text Project ultimately fails in my eyes because although it is a good approximation of what we do as publishers every day, it differs in three vital ways:

1. 1.

   there is no charge for the materials;

2. 2.

   the contributors are paid very little or nothing; and

3. 3.

   the publishing team is purely voluntary.

Basically this means that beyond the Jacobs Foundation money, there is no viable, sustainable business model. No concept is good enough to survive this one basic drawback: you cannot make any money out of it.

Some of the issues listed under “Future Developments” (for example incentives and motivation) were solved centuries ago by traditional publishing practices such as royalties. Looking ahead for the Global Text Project, I would argue that there is scope for the introduction of a gradated pricing model – whereby content is free in the developing world; a small charge at institutions that have got involved; and an increased charged at non-participating institutions. But one could argue that by introducing a pricing model to the Global Text Project you alter the ethos so fundamentally that it ceases to exist.

The conclusion I draw from the paper is a positive one: that there will always be a place for publishers in the academic market, and our position will always stay on the right side of precarious as long as we continue to listen to our customers and learn from the new ideas that come our way. Publishers do add considerable value to each project they produce: be it in advising authors and helping them shape their content so it is absolutely right for the market; investing in market research; clearing and paying for permissions; printing and stocking the book; selling the book personally and liaising with bookstores; securing reviews and endorsements; I could go on. To lose that from the academic textbook market, and to replace it with the very democratic but ultimately uncontrollable concept of the Wiki textbook, would be a great loss.

David CoxPearson plc, London, UKDavid.Cox@pearson.com