Textbooks Are Fucking Expensive

With textbook prices soaring through the roof, students are now forced to find cheaper and more accessible alternatives to engage in their education. However, the digital book market has yet to fully disrupt the textbook industry. Are printed textbooks still going to remain the dominant players in the industry?

College Students Prefer Print Books to E-Books

Michael Schaub briefly explains the interesting lack of shift from printed books to e-books after a drop in e-book sales in 2015. According to a study, 92% of students actually would rather read and purchase printed books over the electronic alternative. Naomi S. Baron, a professor leading this study of 300 students, found that the reasons for choosing printed ranged anywhere from absence of distractions to less eye strain. Although students have noted that e-books are a highly cheaper outlet for accessing textbooks, the experience with traditional printed copies still remains irreplaceable.

As Textbook Prices Soar, Students Try To Cope

Martha C. White dives into the skyrocketing textbook costs that have occurred within the last several years. With an 812% increase in costs since 1978, students find themselves forking an average $1,200 a year on textbooks alone. The textbook industry has soared its prices as well as production speed to match that of the growing consumer market, but it comes at the cost of student education. Students try anything they can in order to circumvent purchasing overly-priced books, including buying older editions, buying them secondhand, renting them, or even skipping out on buying them altogether to save money. This limited access to completing their education has many students turning towards other alternatives, such as e-books, to compensate. This slowly growing market accounts for less than 10% of the students’ usage, despite it being the more cost-efficient trade-off.

5 Reasons Why Physical Books Might Be Better Than E-Books

Shaunacy Ferro lists 5 reasons, based on studies, why printed books are the better option in the end over e-books. Her first two reasons are based around the idea that the e-books that include interactive features are actually more distracting to the children, thus hindering their ability to comprehend the text and the practice of reading itself. Thirdly, a study showed that people are able to recall less about the timeline of the story if it is read on a digital version, therefore less absorption. Her fourth reason was simply that, at the end of the day, students generally prefer the printed versions, even though there is a higher convenience of the e-books. The fifth reason is related to the actual technological problem of eye strain, in which staring at an LED screen for long periods of time actually requires more workload for the brain over printed books. Overall, her position on books is that printed appear to be superior to digital.

Why Do Students Chose Printed Over Digital?

Despite the unnecessarily high rise in textbook prices over recent years, the majority of students remain loyal to printed textbooks over e-books. Although there are many benefits to e-books, including cheaper costs, lighter load to carry, and easier accessibility, many students maintain that the true education remains in the traditional printed textbook. Some turn to the printed version due to it authentic nature and tangibility, in which the smell and even the touch of the textbook provide higher engagement with the material. Others simply dislike reading e-books because the LED screens hurt their eyes and produce headaches, therefore thwarting their ability to learn. Moreover, they also argue that simply being on a digital device allows them to become easily distracted by the internet and other applications, making it harder to focus and study. Students also do not have the option to possibly gain some of the money back by reselling the printed textbook to another student if it were an e-book. All of these reasons are valid, yet come at a much higher price. Carrying around heavy textbooks can be tiring, and the outrageous prices take a large chunk out of many students’ budgets. However, many studies do in fact show that reading comprehension significantly decreases when using e-books, so their academic performance could be on the line. Another important thing to note is that printed books don’t need to worry about running out of battery or require wifi in order to function, so the convenience factor of having many books on one device only goes so far.

Textbook Disruption

Given the fact that textbook prices have increased dramatically in recent years shows that there will be an obvious turn towards digital textbooks in the long run. One major factor on the business side of the e-book market is the fact that the profit margin for publishing the digital books is significantly higher than for the printed books. The publishers can price the books for much cheaper than the printed books while also paying much less to produce the book, therefore having a much larger gap for profit. This is the main reason why many companies have been attracted to the idea of publishing and selling digital books, in hopes that the market will one day fully take off. For a while, consumer prices and textbook prices moved at the same rate, but since the 1980’s the two prices diverged and the costs of textbooks rose around three times the rate of other prices, making them hike well above the steady consumer rates. This demonstrates that because the costs of textbooks are so high, there will be a demand for better alternatives. While since 2015 there has been a decline in e-book sales, I believe that students will eventually become desperate enough to avoid paying insane prices that they will completely transfer towards e-books. In terms of profit, this benefits both the consumer and the company. Although studies have proven that students indeed prefer to have the traditional printed textbooks, there will come a point where the younger generations will become more adapted to having the majority of their university experience digitally. There is already a growing existing market where high schools operate solely through devices such as iPads, and it is only a matter of time before the market prices for printed textbooks get so high that students will have no choice but to turn towards the cheaper alternative. As a university student who is on a very limited budget, I have personally skipped out many times on buying certain textbooks simply because they were too expensive. Despite my personal preference for printed textbooks due to the fact that they are more tangible and easier to focus on and write in, the trade-off for the sake of saving money is worth it. The e-book market will eventually disrupt the textbook market in the long run if sales keep going at the rate they are going, especially because textbooks are so crucial for students. Yet, textbooks are also something that will only be used for one semester or so, which means that the investment does not need to be that high and the sacrifice is only made for a brief moment. The textbook market will change once newer generations begin to flood into universities, but I do not foresee the publishing and literature industry in general being disrupted in the future. After all, nothing can replace the authentic feel of reading a real physical book.

 

Disruption: Audio Streaming in the Music Industry

Will the music industry be entirely transformed by music streaming platforms, such as Spotify and Apple Music, just as the television was by Netflix?

Music Industry Soars Thanks to Spotify

Lucas Shaw analyzes the sales of the music business, which has been booming for the third year in a row since the 1990s. Following a 17% increase in sales in the US, the music industry has music streaming to thank. Streaming alone grew 48% in the first half of 2017, and Spotify, YouTube, and Apple Music accounts for 62% of the total industry sales. With over 30 million people paying for subscription on these platforms, it is obvious who the large players are, yet many industry executives have been wary of crediting everything to streaming alone. According to Josh Friedlander, “Primarily owing to growth in paid subscriptions, the industry continued to recover, though at levels still far below the peak of the late 1990s.” Although the streaming revenue is a only a fraction of the gain, millions have converted to streaming and these companies have great leverage in the business.

How the Music Industry Came Back to Life

With an increase in revenue of $3.9 billion in the US, audio streaming has eaten up sales from CDs and downloads in the music industry. Paid subscriptions appear to be the primary source of income, increasing to $2.5 billion in the US alone. As a result, the sales of physical copies and even digital downloads has declined, leading to a dramatic shift to Spotify and Apple Music. Following the consolidation of the largest companies in the industry (including Universal, Warner Music, and Sony Music), this shift puts the power in the hands of the streaming services. Companies like Universal are gearing up for negotiating with Spotify in order to match the level of power. As John Gapper argues, “Streaming services are not just collections of music, like pirated tracks on hard drives: they are more fluid and flexible, offering new ways to discover artists through friends.” It seems as though streaming is not only breaking even in the music industry, but aiding it to grow.

 

The Transformation of the Music Industry

It is no secret that the television and even film industry was affected by the emergence of video streaming sites such as Netflix. The digital market for media and entertainment has flourished, leaving many companies who remain in the traditional market in pieces. Within the past few years, this pattern has seem to have also been taken on by the music industry, in which popular streaming music platforms like Apple Music and Spotify have dominated in sales. Spotify and Apple Music’s power derives from the lack of conflicts with legal issues with music distributors combined with the wide accessibility among younger users. With over 60 million current paying subscribers on Spotify alone, it is evident that the digital shift has taken over the music industry, and does not appear to be slowing down anytime soon. As seen with Netflix, audio streaming services in the world of music has become the reigning power through amount of subscribers as well as revenues. As seen in the graph, streaming subscriptions in 2016 made up for about 51% of total revenue for music sales in the US. Of the $7.65 billion, streaming makes up around 32% of the revenue, clearly illustrating that music streaming is in fact transforming the music industry as a whole, in a big way. 

Who Will Come Out on Top?

The ultimate question: Apple Music or Spotify? Both offer endless music; both are $9.99 a month. Who wins? In regards to the ultimate winner in this industry disruption, it appears as if Spotify has taken the reins. While Apple Music and Spotify are essentially interchangeable in terms of service being offered, there are several key factors as to why Spotify is more powerful. Spotify offers more features when it comes to music discovery, making it great for keeping up with trends in music and radio. While Apple Music technically has more songs than Spotify, Spotify has managed to leverage its brand through the use of social media. The inter-connectivity and social features that allows friends to share music is what makes Spotify more consumer-interactive and social over Apple Music. Moreover, the primary factor that makes Spotify more accessible is that it can be used by those who pay and those who don’t. Apple Music is solely accessible by those who pay the $10 a month, providing a barrier for those hesitant to try it. Spotify allows people the opportunity to try it free (ads included) before making the decision to pay for their product. Therefore, Spotify has shown to be the stronger brand.

 

Cinema is Dead?: Hollywood’s Blockbuster Strategy

Hollywood is known for its ability to create incredible films in history, as well as the classic star icons, such as Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn, that derive from it. But lately, it seems as if they produce nothing but sequels and remakes and action films. Is cinema, as many directors may argue, dead? Hollywood may beg to differ.

Gloom in Hollywood

Catherine Shoard discusses the losses on blockbusters that Hollywood experienced in the summer of 2016. She explains that with a loss of around one billion dollars, Hollywood had one of the worst summers for films at the box office as a result of their blockbuster strategies that are continuously failing to attract enough audiences. With movies such as Ben-Hur and Star Trek and Beyond, Hollywood has been unable to produce successful films with the exception of a select few (such as Finding Dory). Shoard credits this to a variety of factors, like “sequel fatigue, the rise in popularity of streaming and small-screen programming, and bad reviews”.

Hollywood’s Obsession with Blockbusters

Kevin Evers explains Hollywood’s blockbuster strategy as “bigger is better and repeatability is king”. He argues that the only way that Hollywood has managed to stay afloat for this long – despite that fact that they are consistently creating flops – is owing to the compensation that is brought by the large profit of one or two extremely successful films. For instance, the 2012 film John Carter lost over $200 million at the box office, resulting in a huge failure. Yet, that same year, Hollywood made over $1.5 billion with The Avengers. While the rest of the world may seem to be producing better quality and better selling films in comparison, Hollywood is essentially the only studio that has the stardom and the money to produce as much as they’d like. Evers believes that although originality has faltered, Hollywood has the potential to innovate as they once did before. 

Why Hollywood is Caught in a Blockbuster Trap

Anita Elberse refers to Hollywood’s recent filmmaking strategy as the “blockbuster trap”, demonstrating that Hollywood is stuck in a world of remakes, sequels, and adaptations. This strategy, although expensive, has managed to keep the Hollywood film industry alive while the producers reap the benefits. The focus on blockbusters is contributed by a variety of factors, including the guarantee of an audience, pre-existing characters and plots, and absence of uncertainty on the consumer’s interest in the film. The majority of the films that were analyzed over a 10 year period stemmed from either a book, comics, a prior movie, or a video game. Elberse argues that while the films may not be original, they are in fact more successful in regards to sales. The bets for producing these blockbusters are in the favor of Hollywood, and it doesn’t appear as if they intend to deviate away from this state of inertia.

Hollywood Strategy: Failed or Successful?

The Hollywood blockbuster model is truly about how to make the most money from the most amount of people possible, regardless of quality or originality. From the perspective of the film industry as a whole, Hollywood’s blockbuster strategy is not only a failure but also more or less tainting the art of film. Kevin Evers mentions that there have indeed been a plethora of remakes and sequels done in the past, such as The Godfather series and almost any Stanley Kubrick film (the majority of his films are adaptations from novels). However, with the technological advancements of modern day film, there are no longer contributions of new styles and techniques that make films unique and original, despite the unoriginality of the plot or characters. Blockbusters have the luxury of new technology that relies heavily on CGI effects, thus making the film lacking in quality of plot and character development.

Nonetheless, it appears as if Hollywood no longer necessitates new styles and auteur. Hollywood’s strategy, as Evers pointed out, is essentially the equivalent of throwing as much as you can at a wall in the hopes that something will stick. While Hollywood loses resources and money choosing this method, the benefits of having a few successful films clearly outweighs the costs of making a multitude of flops. From the consumerism perspective, this method is more or less a smart strategy in the sense that it has clearly not failed them thus far. However, this strategy, as do all business strategies, is bound to eventually become a failure as the consumer world around them consistently shifts, given that they fail to innovate. The international film market has proven itself far superior in terms of sales, while the US remains stationary in their “blockbuster trap”. By 2015, the US had made an increase of only $.4 billion in 5 years, illustrating no sign of innovation or change. It appears that this strategy is too unstable and clearly very stagnant for it to be rendered an overall successful or smart model, as it goes on a year to year basis. It is only a matter of time before the strategy closes in on itself and sequels and remakes will become obsolete.