College students often assert retailers and publishers engage in disingenuous practices keeping textbook prices high. The distributors on the other hand insist they give a fair priced, quality product.

Both sides are convinced their position is just.

The federal Textbook Provision, ensuring price transparency and disclosure, seems to side with students. The law empowers professors with more information regarding textbook prices, copy right dates and descriptions of edition changes, in an attempt to alleviate some financial burdens of students.

After all, professors choose the textbooks for their courses.

But will the July 1 provision and its changes truly help diminish students’ financial woes? Students, professors and publishers weigh in. ASUN president, Justin Solomon, said the provision is good and necessary.

“Although, I would like to see the information regarding the new editions given to students as well. I think this is a step in the right direction, but more can be done to ensure students are getting a good deal on textbooks”, the senior family science major added.

Pat Steer, a University of Nebraska-Lincoln graduate student, recently shopped for textbooks and she’s not sure whether students are getting a good deal.

“The pricing’s kind of absurd,” she said, about a textbook she saw new for $100 and used for $70. “It shouldn’t have been more than $12.”

Student advocates such as Student Public Interest Research Groups or Student PIRGS said textbooks are overpriced and the provision is necessary.

“This law is a tremendous step forward in our fight for textbook affordability,” Nicole Allen, textbook advocate for Student PIRGS and director of the Make Textbooks Affordable campaign, said.

Some UNL professors are not so sure. Colleen Medill, a law professor said the provision appears to involve merely disclosure.

“…and weak disclosure at that,” the author of “Medill’s Introduction to EmployeeBenefits Law: Policy and Practice, Second Edition” said.

As an example, she addressed the requirement to have publishers release in writing the detailed descriptions of changes between the last two editions. She said publishers usually disclose that information already using it as a marketing technique.

“For example, the third edition of my employee benefits law book will be published in the fall, and the big “selling” point is that the book includes new material on the national health care reform laws enacted last March,” she said.

Medill also added that the new editions are necessary in the case of law school because there are always new developments in the law.

“Adopting a new edition means that the professor can avoid having to constantly [explain] that paragraphs in an old version of the textbook have been [superseded] by a new law,” she said in an email.

Medill said she can only speak in the opinion of law school and things could be different for undergraduate textbooks.

“Bottom line: This new federal law appears to be merely window dressing with no real economic benefit to students and more red tape for [publishers], who will, of course, pass on that additional administrative cost on in the form of higher prices for their books,” she said in an e-mail.

Allen responded to professors claiming the requirements unnecessary.

“If they’re already doing it then they shouldn’t have a problem complying,” she said.

Economics professor and pricing expert, David Rosenbaum, is not too sure about the provision, either.

“I don’t think it’s gonna have much impact,” he said about the provision.

He spoke about the disadvantage publishers have over students in a market where teachers decide what students buy for their course.

“So this means publishers have a captive audience,” he said. “The seller has a lot of power.”

Rosenbaum described textbooks as an inelastic demand, which means sellers (publishers and retailers) can raise prices without losing sales.
Three of the four publishing agencies responded to the Daily Nebraskan’s inquiries. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt did not respond. Cengage Learning, McGraw-Hill Education and Pearson said they’re in compliance with the new law.

Cengage and McGraw-Hill adjusted their websites to include the wholesale prices; Pearson has not done that, yet. The law does not require publishers to post the information online, it requires publishers to provide professors “in writing” information regarding textbooks or other course material.

Allen said the provision will ensure professors have the information needed to make informed choices and she is excited to see the effects of the law.

“We worked a long time to make this a reality,” she said about the new provision.

Student PIRGS have been working to make textbooks affordable for the past seven years. Their campaign started at the University of California-Irvine when California Student PIRGS chose to add making textbooks affordable to their agenda.

“Back then, students thought campus bookstores were to blame,” Allen said, “But our research showed it was the publishers.”

In 2004, Student PIRGS released a report exposing the many practices publishers use that drive up the cost of textbooks. Some of the practices include bundling or packaging textbooks with CD ROMs and workbooks along with issuing new editions more frequently.
Allen said their research also showed professors care about the costs of textbooks.

“But publishers make matters worse by withholding price information,” she said. “Seventy-seven percent rarely or never provide price information up front.”

And that’s why Allen and Student PIRGS said the new provision was necessary. She sees the provision helping the textbook market operate more normally, Allen said.

The provision also requires universities and colleges to provide students with the lists of textbooks required for a course during registration.

“This gives tech-savy students more an advanced noticed,” she said, adding that students will be able to use that information to search for better deals online.

No real enforcement of the law has been enacted, yet. The law requires the director of the Government Accountability Office report to the authorizing committees on the progress of this law no later than July 1, 2013.

But Allen said that’s not a problem.

“You better believe consumer groups like us are gonna be watching,” the advocate said. “If we catch them, they’ll be in huge trouble. They’re accountable to the public and their shareholders.”