On A La Carte & Clever
As some of you know, I started my career at Discovery, not in the education group but in the affiliate division. Affiliate sales (now called Distribution) is the group within every cable network that is tasked with “selling” the company’s channels to multi-channel providers. Not only were you responsible for selling your networks to these operators, you did everything you could to have them launch all of them and place them in preferential channel packages.
As a cable or satellite subscriber, you have been offered packages of channels under names like “Basic”, “Expanded Basic”, “Digital Basic”, “Digital Plus”, etc. That packaging of content gives subscribers great choice but not a la carte flexibility on paying for the channels you watch.
Stick with me here. I am getting to the education connection.
Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to push cable operators to offer “a la carte” offerings. The argument cable networks have made is that if you move to a la carte models, niche networks that do not broadly appeal to society (ex. a Science network) would not be able to continue. Even though the per month per subscriber subscription rate for those niche networks is relatively low, they depend on millions of subscribers delivered to them through channel packages. Basically, when you pay for Digital Basic, you are not only supporting the Classic movie network you love, but also the Science network that your neighbor loves. And that neighbor does the same for your Classic movie network. Most articles about the dangers of a la carte are from 2013 (maybe that is telling) but I did find a good one from the Motley Fool here. By the way, streaming platforms work the same way. Our household pays for Netflix because I love Stranger Things and anything related to Marvel, and I have no problem supporting Orange is the New Black for my wife even though I have never watched it (I know, I should).
While reading this EdSurge article on Clever’s new “Clever Goals” product, I was reminded of those “a la carte” wars. And this is not a new endeavor in education. Companies like Education Elements, Classlink and others have endeavored down this same path. Frankly, I am surprised it has taken Clever this long to develop this monetization path as I believe the market (districts and publishers) were tiring of their SSO model and powers in the market were (and are) moving to replace that.
The article does a great job highlighting how the utilization data will include specific student use and progress but I am confident that many users will simply look at macro utilization data. And let’s remember that usage does not necessarily equate to achievement. I am happy that Tyler includes “student progress” in his quote but it is immediately followed by “student usage”. My concern is that data is critical but without proper context or consideration, it can also be misused and “babies can be thrown out with the bathwater.”
Data is a critical part of education and using that data to drive student success, personalization and the responsible use of public dollars is a must. But we have to be careful that we don’t analyze so closely that we rely solely on enterprise wide utilization models to indicate highly impactful programs for educators and students who need them. Some of these programs rely on school or district wide pricing to maintain affordability and viability. Let’s be careful to ensure that our students and our neighbors get to retain any “channel” that keeps them engaged and learning.
