Greed Takes Over Campus Book Mart - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Greed Takes Over Campus Book Mart

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Here are the solutions to your problem.

http://www.half.ebay.com/
http://www.amazon.com/
http://www.bn.com
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.alibris.com

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Yeah, online retail is the avenue I'll choose from now on. A problem is that USM has so many students that depend on financial aid to pay for books and they have been trained to use their ID card to charge the books to their USM account.

I think this type of SFT action would be a better focus for the AAUP to shine a light on because it has nothing to do with salaries, teaching load, or other "compensation" related issues. Outsourcing the bookstore has been accompanied by huge increases in prices, which affects our students. This is an altruistic way to shine a light on another bad decision by SFT.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Book Rep:
Good point about the financial aid students. This is a perfect issue for the students to raise themselves, too. Perhaps in the campus newspaper. Any PRINTZ editors reading this board?

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Making a profit is a dumb idea! The person that came up with that idea must be a real rocket scientist. What was he thinking.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Oh my wrote:

Making a profit is a dumb idea! The person that came up with that idea must be a real rocket scientist. What was he thinking.

Does anybody out there remember when students "rented" their books from the USM bookstore?

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Rent to Own wrote:

Does anybody out there remember when students "rented" their books from the USM bookstore?

I do. I think a full-time undergraduate student could rent books for something like $30 total for the semester. Keep in mind that when book rental was that rate, full-time tuition was about 25% of what it is now.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

and books had to be used for something like two years before you could change them.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

Googler wrote:

I do. I think a full-time undergraduate student could rent books for something like $30 total for the semester.

One downside of renting the books is that students were reluctant to underline or make margin notes in the book lest the bookstore not be happy about that.

Date: Mar 16, 2006

I'm not saying that there should be zero profit. I'm saying that a 35%-50% markup over wholesale is excessive when books are reused. Over the course of 2 semesters and a summer, it works out to a 100% gross profit, even when you factor in the cost of buying the book back. I'd feel better if I knew that the profits were being put back into USM's campus rather than into SFT's pockets.

Also, I don't like the holdup issue where USM has students by the shorts due to financial aid.

Oh my wrote:

Making a profit is a dumb idea! The person that came up with that idea must be a real rocket scientist. What was he thinking.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

It's amazing how little you know of the textbook business.

The margins that B&N are allowed to charge have been negotiated by the University and are audited every semester. That contract language has been posted her before and can be posted again if necessary.

The problem lies with the wholesale price from the publisher and their efforts to force professors/students to utilize new versions and "bundles." ALL bookstore would love to sell more used textbooks at lower prices.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Book Rep wrote:

Yeah, online retail is the avenue I'll choose from now on. A problem is that USM has so many students that depend on financial aid to pay for books and they have been trained to use their ID card to charge the books to their USM account.

I think this type of SFT action would be a better focus for the AAUP to shine a light on because it has nothing to do with salaries, teaching load, or other "compensation" related issues. Outsourcing the bookstore has been accompanied by huge increases in prices, which affects our students. This is an altruistic way to shine a light on another bad decision by SFT.

I've been wondering this myself. If the AAUP took Shelby Thames on by pressing these types of issues, there's no way that he could paint the faculty as whining or complaining. The faculty would simply be fighting for their students, and the public would be sympathetic.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

If you want to know ALL the details of the bookstore operations, contracts, market dynamics, etc. I will answer. But please, don't make assumptions that end up being completely off base.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

It's amazing how little you know of the textbook business.
The margins that B&N are allowed to charge have been negotiated by the University and are audited every semester. That contract language has been posted her before and can be posted again if necessary.
The problem lies with the wholesale price from the publisher and their efforts to force professors/students to utilize new versions and "bundles." ALL bookstore would love to sell more used textbooks at lower prices.

So, USM "negotiates" an $130 retail price (new) on a book with a $90 wholesale price (again, new)? Just who does the "negotiator" work for, anyway -- USM or B&N? It seems that the "negotiator" often secured a small 44% markup. This is simply another case of USM selling its students, faculty, and staff out to get a little kickback.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Book Rep wrote:

Amazed wrote: It's amazing how little you know of the textbook business. The margins that B&N are allowed to charge have been negotiated by the University and are audited every semester. That contract language has been posted her before and can be posted again if necessary. The problem lies with the wholesale price from the publisher and their efforts to force professors/students to utilize new versions and "bundles." ALL bookstore would love to sell more used textbooks at lower prices. So, USM "negotiates" an $130 retail price (new) on a book with a $90 wholesale price (again, new)? Just who does the "negotiator" work for, anyway -- USM or B&N? It seems that the "negotiator" often secured a small 44% markup. This is simply another case of USM selling its students, faculty, and staff out to get a little kickback.

OK, you want it, here it is AGAIN:

Article 17(a) - "New textbooks will be sold at no greater than (i) the publisher's list price or (ii) a 25% gross margin on net priced books, inclusive of restocking fees, return penalties and freight surcharges. Net priced books are defined as books purchased from publishers that do not have a publisher's suggested list price or when the publisher's discount to the bookstore is less than 20%"

(b) - "Used textbooks will be sold at 25% less than the new selling price."

(c) - Course packs and textbooks purchased from publishers with restrictive or non-returnable text policies will be priced at up to 30% gross margin.

(d) - School supplies will be priced at or below manufacturer's suggested retail prices.

Now, Rep, here is the seether for you - the negotiations were a snap since the is EXACTLY the same margin policy (both sales and buy-back) we had as an "in-plant" operation. The negotiators were of course from the University being that negotiations with one party wouldn't really be negotiations . . . now would they. The audit is performed every semester by Student Affairs.

For your information, inflation on textbooks nationwide is 4 times the amount of the CPI it resides within. B&N doesn't make money from inflated prices - they are going up everywhere with every type of business model (outsourced or in-house). Also, you wanted to know of how the funds from these partnerships are being used? Just look at the union - neither the bond payments or the furnishings would be possible without the increased revenue from these contracts.

I hope this helps.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:
OK, you want it, here it is AGAIN: Article 17(a) - "New textbooks will be sold at no greater than (i) the publisher's list price or (ii) a 25% gross margin on net priced books, inclusive of restocking fees, return penalties and freight surcharges. Net priced books are defined as books purchased from publishers that do not have a publisher's suggested list price or when the publisher's discount to the bookstore is less than 20%" (b) - "Used textbooks will be sold at 25% less than the new selling price." (c) - Course packs and textbooks purchased from publishers with restrictive or non-returnable text policies will be priced at up to 30% gross margin. (d) - School supplies will be priced at or below manufacturer's suggested retail prices. Now, Rep, here is the seether for you - the negotiations were a snap since the is EXACTLY the same margin policy (both sales and buy-back) we had as an "in-plant" operation. The negotiators were of course from the University being that negotiations with one party wouldn't really be negotiations . . . now would they. The audit is performed every semester by Student Affairs. For your information, inflation on textbooks nationwide is 4 times the amount of the CPI it resides within. B&N doesn't make money from inflated prices - they are going up everywhere with every type of business model (outsourced or in-house). Also, you wanted to know of how the funds from these partnerships are being used? Just look at the union - neither the bond payments or the furnishings would be possible without the increased revenue from these contracts. I hope this helps.

It seems to me that if B&N is charging a percentage and not a flat fee, then they would make additional revenue off of inflated prices. It would be in B&N's best interests for the wholesale bookseller to have higher prices because then their percentage would also be higher. That may have also been the case when USM ran the bookstore, but either way, the student suffers.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Oh my wrote:

Making a profit is a dumb idea! The person that came up with that idea must be a real rocket scientist. What was he thinking.

Nothing wrong with profits, but monopoly profits are another thing altogether. If it is the case that financial aid students have to go through the campus bookstore, then their prices should be regulated, as they have a captive market. Otherwise, buy from dealers on the internet and save alot of money.

I buy a lot of books, and I can't remember the last time I did so at a brick and motar store.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

qwerty wrote:

Oh my wrote: Making a profit is a dumb idea! The person that came up with that idea must be a real rocket scientist. What was he thinking. Nothing wrong with profits, but monopoly profits are another thing altogether. If it is the case that financial aid students have to go through the campus bookstore, then their prices should be regulated, as they have a captive market. Otherwise, buy from dealers on the internet and save alot of money. I buy a lot of books, and I can't remember the last time I did so at a brick and motar store.

Students who receive financial aid do not have to buy book from our bookstore. It is more convenient no doubt. We are one of only two public institutions in the South that allow students to utilize their account to make bookstore purchases.

It is done as a matter of service - nothing more.

And as far as the 'flat fee vs. margin' argument goes . . . come on, are you kidding? Tell me an industry that charges a flat fee. Imagine, you go into Paris Jewelry desiring to buy a nice diamond for your wife. It cost them $5000 but you feel that they should only make $_____ from the sale. You'll be shopping for that diamond for a while.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

Book Rep wrote: Amazed wrote: It's amazing how little you know of the textbook business. The margins that B&N are allowed to charge have been negotiated by the University and are audited every semester. That contract language has been posted her before and can be posted again if necessary. The problem lies with the wholesale price from the publisher and their efforts to force professors/students to utilize new versions and "bundles." ALL bookstore would love to sell more used textbooks at lower prices. So, USM "negotiates" an $130 retail price (new) on a book with a $90 wholesale price (again, new)? Just who does the "negotiator" work for, anyway -- USM or B&N? It seems that the "negotiator" often secured a small 44% markup. This is simply another case of USM selling its students, faculty, and staff out to get a little kickback. OK, you want it, here it is AGAIN: Article 17(a) - "New textbooks will be sold at no greater than (i) the publisher's list price or (ii) a 25% gross margin on net priced books, inclusive of restocking fees, return penalties and freight surcharges. Net priced books are defined as books purchased from publishers that do not have a publisher's suggested list price or when the publisher's discount to the bookstore is less than 20%" (b) - "Used textbooks will be sold at 25% less than the new selling price." (c) - Course packs and textbooks purchased from publishers with restrictive or non-returnable text policies will be priced at up to 30% gross margin. (d) - School supplies will be priced at or below manufacturer's suggested retail prices. Now, Rep, here is the seether for you - the negotiations were a snap since the is EXACTLY the same margin policy (both sales and buy-back) we had as an "in-plant" operation. The negotiators were of course from the University being that negotiations with one party wouldn't really be negotiations . . . now would they. The audit is performed every semester by Student Affairs. For your information, inflation on textbooks nationwide is 4 times the amount of the CPI it resides within. B&N doesn't make money from inflated prices - they are going up everywhere with every type of business model (outsourced or in-house). Also, you wanted to know of how the funds from these partnerships are being used? Just look at the union - neither the bond payments or the furnishings would be possible without the increased revenue from these contracts. I hope this helps.

How often does Barnes & Noble shelve "course packets." My students come to class with "packets" when I don't require the workbook, only the textbook. They often tell me that purchasing the TB separately is not an option. Is this a tying arrangement where you get the 30% markup?

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

And as far as the 'flat fee vs. margin' argument goes . . . come on, are you kidding? Tell me an industry that charges a flat fee. Imagine, you go into Paris Jewelry desiring to buy a nice diamond for your wife. It cost them $5000 but you feel that they should only make $_____ from the sale. You'll be shopping for that diamond for a while.

All I'm saying is that B&N DOES make more profit off of inflated prices.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

Article 17(a) - "New textbooks will be sold at no greater than (i) the publisher's list price or (ii) a 25% gross margin on net priced books, inclusive of restocking fees, return penalties and freight surcharges. Net priced books are defined as books purchased from publishers that do not have a publisher's suggested list price or when the publisher's discount to the bookstore is less than 20%"
(b) - "Used textbooks will be sold at 25% less than the new selling price."
(c) - Course packs and textbooks purchased from publishers with restrictive or non-returnable text policies will be priced at up to 30% gross margin.
(d) - School supplies will be priced at or below manufacturer's suggested retail prices.

Before B&N took over, a brand spanking new course pack for my class cost $100 to the student. Immediately after the B&N takeover, the same course pack (exactly the same materials, brand new, same edition as before) cost $130 to the student. Your argument that the cost structure has not changed simply doesn't hold up.

Second, I go back to my textbook for the current year. The wholesale price is $55. B&N was going to charge the student $75, which is a 36.36% markup. Last I checked, this was higher than a 30% gross margin.

I also agree with "quik question" in that B&N has snuck some "course packets" in on some of my coleagues who only wanted the textbook.

You can defend B&N and Shelby Thames all you want. Whether or not the old bookstore did it this way is irrelevant. This is a travesty, and continuing to allow this to happen is also a travesty.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Quik, good question.

No, there is no tying arrangement. Typically, in this situation the adpoted text is a new book or new version and only comes as a bundle. Bookstores hate this. See, bookstores desperately desire to buy and sell used books. Buying and reselling, even at much lower margins, is a much better business model than selling new books.

To combat this the publishers change versions constantly and try to motivate professors to use the new version. If they can't, they bundle the textbook with a CD or workbook or some other worthless piece of crap rendering it useless during buy back.

Without being able to purchase the textbook (no value on the wholesale market) they are forced to restock the shelves with new bundle.

It's a war between publishers and merchants. I can honestly say that the bookstore wants to sell students used textbooks (see above) but of course the publishers don't.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Rep,

What you don't understand is that SFT wouldn't have a damn clue of what we are talking about. You accusation is against me; a person who knows EXACTLY what is going on. I have the data, backup, knowledge, contracts, and do the audits myself.

Of that wholesale price what was the freight? publisher return penalties? restocking fees?

Did you receive the invoice from the publisher? Are you sure you work for the bookstore?

Booksellers HATE bundles - those are the tool of the publisher.

You (the professor I assume) is the person with the power here. You make the adoption. You influence the publisher. You can eliminate the bundle mess. Tell them you want a book, without a bundle, that can be repurchased on the wholesale market. They only listen to you.

It's YOU that can end the travesty!

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

Rep,
What you don't understand is that SFT wouldn't have a damn clue of what we are talking about. You accusation is against me; a person who knows EXACTLY what is going on. I have the data, backup, knowledge, contracts, and do the audits myself.
Of that wholesale price what was the freight? publisher return penalties? restocking fees?
Did you receive the invoice from the publisher? Are you sure you work for the bookstore?
Booksellers HATE bundles - those are the tool of the publisher.
You (the professor I assume) is the person with the power here. You make the adoption. You influence the publisher. You can eliminate the bundle mess. Tell them you want a book, without a bundle, that can be repurchased on the wholesale market. They only listen to you.
It's YOU that can end the travesty!

So you work for Barnes and Noble?

Date: Mar 17, 2006

No, I work for the University.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

Rep,
What you don't understand is that SFT wouldn't have a damn clue of what we are talking about. You accusation is against me; a person who knows EXACTLY what is going on. I have the data, backup, knowledge, contracts, and do the audits myself.
Of that wholesale price what was the freight? publisher return penalties? restocking fees?
Did you receive the invoice from the publisher? Are you sure you work for the bookstore?
Booksellers HATE bundles - those are the tool of the publisher.
You (the professor I assume) is the person with the power here. You make the adoption. You influence the publisher. You can eliminate the bundle mess. Tell them you want a book, without a bundle, that can be repurchased on the wholesale market. They only listen to you.
It's YOU that can end the travesty!

Since you have answers, let me ask a few questions:

When B&N took over the USM bookstore, did USM get any money from the deal?

If USM did get money, how was it spent?

I have colleagues who have requested a textbook only via an ISBN. When a packet appeared on the bookshelf with a different ISBN, was it the professor's faulty? The departmental secretary's fault? It seems that the ISBN the professor requests is not always the ISBN that lands on the shelf.

Also, the USM Textbook Center deals in MILLIONS of dollars worth of textbooks every year. There are relatively few textbook publishers. Why can't the USM Textbook Center "negotiate" for lower delivery/zero restocking fees with some of these publishers? Why are you leaving it up to the professor?

Tell McGraw-Hill that we're not going to use their books if they charge anything more than basic shipping. I'm sure the Faculty Senate would like to consider this. Your responses seem a lot like "passing the buck." YOU are the centralized office for textbooks. I don't have a clue what goes on over in business, education, or science, but YOU do! Your office has a master list of book orders. Your office knows exactly how many dollars of USM student money goes to each publisher.

This seems a whole lot like another "put the onus on the prof" discussion to me.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Rep,

I would be more than happy to handle any situation any faculty member had with difficulties arising even though I do not work for the bookstore. There have been a few issues with adoptions that have been brought to my attention and in each instance there was a simple miscommunication somewhere. One that comes to mind was an adoption that couldn't be filled and the communication of such didn't make it back to the professor. In each, the matter was easily resolved for the better of everyone. This happens at every institution - come on.

Yes, B&N pays the university a commission. It is a flat amount depentant upon sales then becomes a graduated commission. The money is budgeted within Student Affairs just like any money that is generated by any auxiliary of Student Affairs. Again, I work for the University.

It is obvious that you haven't grasped the relationship between publisher, instructor, wholesaler, and merchant. The student is going to become educated, and the professor is going to teach the class with the use of a textbook hopefully. The demand exists, the vacuum is filled by supply. The bookstore doesn't create the demand and has no leverage - they just want to sell books.

Seriously, if you want to discuss this in person I would be glad to do so.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Amazed wrote:

Rep,

It is obvious that you haven't grasped the relationship between publisher, instructor, wholesaler, and merchant. The student is going to become educated, and the professor is going to teach the class with the use of a textbook hopefully. The demand exists, the vacuum is filled by supply. The bookstore doesn't create the demand and has no leverage - they just want to sell books.

What is obvious is that instructors are requesting certain ISBNs and getting other items instead. Once the instructor sends the order to the Textbook Center, it is the Textbook Center's obligation to ensure that the requested material AND ONLY THE REQUESTED MATERIAL arrives. If the publisher (wholesaler) sends something different, the shipment goes back WITHOUT PAYING ANY RESTOCKING FEES OR ADDITIONAL SHIPPING. This "the bookstore has no leverage" routine is getting pretty old and is patently untrue. The result is that USM students pay inflated book prices. That's OK for USM, however, because it's all financial aid money, anyway, right?

I wonder why there is so much opposition to reforming the textbook situation on campus. Maybe that guy over at usmpride.com can take a look at this.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

I make it easy for my students. Buy the textbook from vendor that has to compete in the market. I also tell then that the previous edition likely has 99% of what is in the new edition. They can choose the edition. I also point out that there are online vendors as well as the on-campus bookstore. Some go online, some buy on campus, some buy off campus.

Date: Mar 17, 2006

Conspiracy Theorist . . . I mean Rep . . . let the light shine.

When it does then maybe you'll believe.