However, the prospect of combining the second and third largest U.S. publishers has raised concerns that the company would have a huge impact on the higher education textbook market, effectively reducing competition and student choice. Last August, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice expressing concern about how the merger could effectively create a duopoly in the market (with Pearson as another major player) and a monopoly on student data. In anticipation of the merger, the two publishers have distorted hundreds of employees and are questioning the impact of the business activity, since the merger will not be completed. In yesterday`s investor tender, Hansen acknowledged that Cengage would be limited in the question of how much it can invest in new products and innovations. He painted an optimistic picture of the publisher`s ability to overcome the financial crisis of COVID 19, but noted that many other faculty members might see the benefit of switching to digital course documents. The merger has also faced barriers in other countries where companies occupy a large commercial area. In March, the UK Competition and Market Supervisory Authority expressed concern that “the loss of competitiveness suffered by the proposed merger could result in a greater cost to university textbooks.
The agreement was also reviewed by government officials in Australia, Mexico and New Zealand. Cengage is the educational and technological enterprise developed for learners. As the largest provider of higher education and education in the United States, we offer valuable options at affordable prices. Among our leading initiatives is Cengage Unlimited, the world`s first digital subscription service. We rely on innovation to create learning that wants confidence and dynamism towards future students. Other companies include International Higher Education, National Geographic Learning K12 and English Language Teaching, Gale, ed2go and Milady. Visit us on www.cengage.com or find us on Facebook or Twitter. Competition authorities in Australia and New Zealand also expressed doubts about the transaction. All agencies in the four countries would have worked closely together to review the agreement. “We are pleased to see that the U.S. Department of Justice and regulators in other English-speaking countries have raised serious questions about the wisdom of moving this merger forward and that student interests, media pressure and legal action have pushed publishers to abandon their plan to consolidate the university textbook market,” said Kaitlyn Vitez. , director of the US-PIRG university campaign.
In their analysis of the textbook market, DOJ officials adopted a “narrow” definition that did not contain other course options for students, including used books, rentals and open educational resources, Hansen said. In light of these funds, the company submitted that concerns that the merger would adversely affect competition would have been minimized. The operation would have brought together the second and third largest textbook publishers in the United States to form a market long dominated by three major textbook publishers.