Thread regarding Pearson PLC layoffs

B&N/Follett & partner inclusive access

I see a slippery slope happening with the reps having to depend on leased bookstores and their partner to deliver the correct product for inclusive access courses, through the campus LMS. Pearson has little to no control and depending on the AM depends on how much communication pearson has with the partners. It is Pearson’s name on the product, reps push to get courses in IA.. so when Sh** goes sideways, it falls on Pearson and the rep, not the partner, and most of the time, not the bookstore. If the course drops pearson, guess what, the bookstore will be the middle man for the next publisher. They still make the money and the reps commission suffers the IA push suffers. All because we put too much trust on the “partners”.

by
| 2051 views | | 3 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+18YzIZgv

3 replies (most recent on top)

Most pubs have failed to recognize that the beauty of the Cengage model is that it is simple. Yes, they totally mucked up their launch in an effort to get to market quickly, but they have worked hard to smooth things out. Not sure if the pricing makes sense for them but it was probably an OPP just to move higher later. Faculty, Bookstores, and Students have become leary of Pearson because they make things cumbersome for everyone. IA takes almost a year to implement at most colleges and now their is legislation in TX and CA to either ban IA or put "fee" rules around it. Pearson changes/loses field Reps. faster than tires in a NASCAR pitstop. (Honestly, most pubs do this now) Disney can go direct to market because they are Disney. Pearson is NOT Disney. Adobe and MSOFFICE were able to do this because the had huge marketshare advantages. Those companies did not have to deal with Title IV funding/sales as much as Pearson does. There are several small tech companies that are VERY good at digital learning platforms and much easier for institutions to work with. Pearson is losing market share and adoptions. Also, to compete with OER, everyone's year over year price per product is dropping which affects sales. I think the new concept is good for Pearson, but college's and Faculty are probably not going to let just anyone come and solicit adoptions on campus for an APP that is not connected to the LMS? The Faculty and Faculty Authors are customers too. If Pearson can't get their new streamlined product into the LMS at a reasonable price within 2 years of launch they will continue to struggle. Students and Faculty love SSO, and a separate APP or sign-in for 3-4 different pubs, which you have course homework for, is no bueno for your customers....KISS. Direct to market makes sense for many companies but if Pearson thinks they can circumvent the college's they work through, they will probably find themselves losing adoptions and continuing to lose market-share sales.

by
|
Post ID: @Pulx+18YzIZgv

And you prefer the rep submitting an IA opportunity through OneCRM to the AM. Then the AM sending it to a third party vendor and then the third party vendor sending it to our integration specialist who then sends the course to an instructor? The bookstore also fits in somewhere in this process.
Waste of time and money for the company with little benefit to the customer.

by
|
Post ID: @7tes+18YzIZgv

These bookstores sure don't die quietly. I cant think of one product they provide that cant be easily ordered on line.

by
|
Post ID: @7vjz+18YzIZgv

Post a reply

: